asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further progress has been made in the Burnham machinery about the teachers' pay claim.

The claim for schoolteachers in England and Wales has been referred to arbitration. The arbitral hearing opens tomorrow.

How does the Secretary of State expect the teachers to react when they compare their miserable pay award with the Government's recommendations of 14 per cent. for top civil servants and 18 per cent. for judges? Would they not be right to conclude that the Government value the contribution of top civil servants and judges far more than that of the hard-working teaching profession?

It is of no value to the teachers if, for lack of what is thought by a review body to be the right scale, Britain lacks recruits of the right quality to man the top of the judiciary and the Civil Service. The teachers must take account of what the employing authorities reckon they can afford.

Is the Secretary of State relying on widespread unemployment to ensure that there are teachers of high quality? When will that process catch up with the judges? Are the arbitrators working in the knowledge that the Government will make resources available to meet a reasonable recommendation, or is their whole function being undermined by the knowledge that the Government will make no more money available for a teachers' pay increase?

The numbers involved in the former category are quite different from those in the latter. The economic circumstance of supply and demand for teachers is a factor that must be taken into account.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the pay increases received by teachers in the past three years?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that teachers received a substantial make-good pay award under the arrangements made by Professor Clegg. The review body found that the judiciary has severely lagged behind the recommendations that have been made in previous years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has now trade of the impact of higher fees on students from poor countries who would like to study in the United Kingdom.

No full analysis of enrolments by students from developing countries in 1981–82 can be made at present. When that analysis is available there will be an assessment of the situation of such students in the light of the forthcoming Overseas Students Trust report on future policy options.

Is the Minister aware that it is impossible for a Member of Parliament to visit a Commonwealth country or to meet Commonwealth visitors to Britain without hearing strong expressions of anger at what we are doing to the aspirations of their students? Will he take more positive steps as a matter of urgency to ensure that poor students are not debarred from coming to Britain?

My right hon. Friend and other Ministers are aware of the anxieties.

Am I right to believe that there will be no reconsideration of Government policy on overseas student's fees until the Overseas Students Trust report is published? If so, when may we expect the report?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We shall receive the report within the next week or two.

Is the Minister aware that rather than attracting the best and brightest we are already attracting the rich, privileged and second rate?

Rubbish.

That is exactly the information that is coming out of universities.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Is the Minister aware that many academics feel that they are academic pimps, going around the world for overseas students? Moreover, is he worried that instead of the great tradition of attracting students who were often at variance with their Governments, Government policy is increasingly ensuring that only those who agree with their Governments have the ability and opportunity to study in British universities? Does he agree that that is a great break with our tradition?

In view of the hon. Gentleman's rather enthusiastic language, it is as well to remind him that it was the Labour Adminstration, for which he was then working, that began the process of raising overseas students' fees. Moreover, it is a little insulting to the tens of thousands of students who still come here, despite the increase in fees, to speak as the hon. Gentleman has done.

Are not the worst figures in the general fall-off in the number of overseas students coming to this country those for students enrolling in non-advanced courses, which show a decline of some 37 per cent.? Does the Minister agree that this may be a serious consequence of the Government's policy, as such students often come from poor backgrounds in poor countries where there are no analogous courses?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We shall wish to consider that matter in the light of the OST report.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I strongly resent the allegation of the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) that persons such as those who went from Lancaster to impress upon other countries the excellence of universities should be described as "academic pimps"? When the review comes out, will it be possible to make scholarships available to poor students from poor countries who undertake to return to their countries to give them the benefit of their education?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) got a little carried away. I remind the House that the ODA allocated £42 million last year for the purposes to which my hon. Friend refers. We shall review her suggestion and others when we receive the report.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department will undertake a survey of local authorities to establish how they are fulfilling their statutory obligation to provide for an act of corporate worship at morning assembly in schools.

We have made it clear that local education authorities should keep their provision for religious education and the act of worship under review, bearing in mind the statutory requirements on these matters. We have at present no plans for a special survey of current practice, but we are always ready to receive representations about the act of worship.

Is it true that the statutory obligation is now widely evaded? Is my hon. Friend aware that one school in my constituency—the aptly named Charles Darwin school at Biggin Hill—in its 10-year history has never provided a corporate act of worship at morning assembly, and that the headmaster tells me that he does not believe that hymns and prayers are any longer relevant? If the council will do nothing about this, what does my hon. Friend suggest that the parents should do?

Section 25(1) of the 1944 Act plainly states that

"the school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the school,"

Would not the matter be taken more seriously if the Parliament that insists on such corporate acts of worship had more than a 2 per cent. attendance at its own corporate acts of worship?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, such attendance is not compulsory here. Moreover, I am sure that if our worship were held in the early morning, as it is in schools, there would be a full attendance.

If the hon. Gentleman takes such a properly firm line on this, why has the Government's response to the Select Committee been so vague and wishy-washy?

The Government have said repeatedly that the 1944 Act should be enforced, with the teaching of religious education in schools and the statutory assembly at the beginning of the day. We have also said that if complaints are made to us that that is not being done, we shall certainly look into them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made in considering the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in its eleventh report of Session 1981–82 on the possibility of allowing universities further time to adjust to contractions.

The recommendation to which the hon. Member refers is a matter for the University Grants Committee, to which it was addressed.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that that answer will not wash, because, as the Committee of Vice Chancellors pointed out, action can be taken on the recommendations only if money is forthcoming from the Government? Instead of telling the universities that they should alter their statutes in order to sack more academic and non-academic staff, will the Minister consider cost-effectiveness as it relates to the hardest-hit universities, such as Bradford, Hull, Keele, Salford and Stirling?

The hon. Gentleman says that my answer will not wash, but the recommendation was addressed to the UGC. The UGC will shortly be sending out letters detailing the distributions for 1982–83, and there will be a number of changes in the recommendations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the UGC often seems out of touch with the universities that are doing most to comply with the Government's view that they should become technological? Does he agree that a 12-month extension of the contraction period would help and would be financially and scholastically more viable?

I do not accept that the UGC is out of touch on this. I believe that it is more closely in touch than any other group of people in this country. Indeed, in the case of Salford it has granted an extension of one year.

If, late next year or early in 1984, a university gives notice that it will have to declare itself bankrupt within the next few days, will that announcement be of any interest to the Minister? Will he simply say that it is a matter for the UGC, or will he feel that he has some responsibility for that?

The UGC has made it clear that it does not believe that that situation will arise. Nor do I.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence his Department has as to the principal causes of truancy.

Research evidence points to factors such as the temperament of the truanting children, the attitude of their parents and family, and social background. I believe that the suitability of curricula and the effectiveness of teaching also contribute.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable degree of consumer rejection and that we should consider widening the possibilities for pupils over the age of 14 to undertake courses and development not necessarily confined to the classroom?

I am sure that there is something in what my hon. Friend says, although I am not so sure that he is right to emphasise the degree to which work occurs outside the classroom. The Cockcroft committee recommended, for instance, that mathematics may arouse more motivation and better performance if its application to adult life and work is taught. I am sure that there are lessons there for other parts of the curriculum.

Will the Minister extend his research in this matter to discover why there is so much truancy in the Palace of Westminster, particularly from this Chamber?

We all come here under varying compulsions, but our attendance is not subject to the law as is the attendance of schoolchildren during compulsory periods.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to introduce any further proposals to encourage the independent sector of education.

I believe that our education system as a whole can only benefit from the diversity that a flourishing independent sector brings. That sector's success does not necessarily turn on initiatives from the centre and I have no plans for further legislation or other proposals.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I am delighted to hear that he has no further plans to encourage the independent sector of education? Quite apart from the expense of the assisted places scheme, does he agree that such a scheme can only devalue the Government's attitude to the vital State education system and detract attention from the need to help in our schools those who require the greatest attention and expenditure?

On the contrary, I believe that the assisted places scheme is entirely justified to remedy part of the Labour Government's wicked act in abolishing grammar and direct grant schools.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that co-operation between the independent and maintained sectors can do nothing but valuable work for each? In particular, does he agree that teachers should be able to serve their probationary year in independent schools and be approved in the same way as in maintained schools? Does he agree that there is unfairness in this respect?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to stress that there should be mutual understanding between the two sectors. There is in fact an interaction, depending on equality, between the public and private sectors. The question of probation raises complicated issues which my colleagues and I are now examining.

If the Secretary of State believes that central initiatives are inappropriate, will he make arrangements with his right hon. Friends to ensure that the current financial legislation makes provision for the charging of value added tax on school fees, the withdrawal of charity status, and make many other adjustments so that we can recoup the several scores of millions of pounds that now benefit the so-called private sector of British education?

No, Sir. I leave such vindictive and destructive initiatives to emanate from the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends. I did not say that central initiatives are inappropriate. I said that, mercifully, the private sector does not depend upon them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effects of the 4 per cent. cut in education spending envisaged in the public expenditure White Paper.

The White Paper—Cmnd. 8494—sets out the Government's plans for a 3 per cent. increase in spending on education in the current financial year and the implications for each sector of education.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the restrictions that have already been made in education and the fact that a 4 per cent. cut, contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will have a most serious effect on education? There is evidence that it has already happened. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the widening gap between public and private standards of education can be potentially dangerous?

As the school population is falling there is an opportunity for some economy in public spending while still maintaining pupil-teacher ratios and real spending on each child at the present record level. To make doubly sure, the Government have made further reductions in higher education and in provision for school meals rather than in school education.

As education spending places such a large burden on local authorities and on ratepayers, what progress is my right hon. Friend making towards the possibility of a specific grant from central Government to carry the cost of teachers' salaries?

That is a different question, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Government canvassed that as one alternative in their discussion paper on rates and are now considering the answers from the consultations.

Does the Secretary of State agree that he must revise his expenditure plans if he is to respond to the report of Her Majesty's inspectors that the maintenance of standards is threatened by current policies and that any improvement is not possible within those constraints?

Much as I respect Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the evidence in its report, it does not follow that quality exactly marches with resources.

In view of Her Majesty's inspectors' report on the effects of the Government's cuts in the education service to date, including such consequences as the removal of modern languages and design and technology and the threat of the removal of English and mathematics from the curriculum of some secondary schools, does the Secretary of State agree that his words "wicked", "vindictive", and "destructive" could properly be applied to his education policies, which affect 90 per cent. of children?

No, Sir, I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman if a Labour Government had intitiated the publication of the annual report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures available for the numbers (a) taking school meals and (b) receiving free meals in Liverpool; and how these compare with those in 1979.

The returns from the school meals census for autumn 1981 show that 37,960 pupils in Liverpool took a school meal, of whom 21,523 received them free. The comparable figures for 1979 were 50,075 and 19,874.

Is not that reply disturbing? Is the Minister satisfied that all children in Liverpool who need school meals are receiving them? Is he further satisfied that the price of meals is not being taken out of the reach of the pockets of some of the larger families in Liverpool? Does the Minister agree that it is desirable that all schoolchildren should receive midday meals?

Local authorities have to give free meals to children whose parents are on supplementary benefit or who receive family income supplement. They can go further if they wish. Liverpool goes further, so I presume that it is covering all children in Liverpool who require free meals.

Will the Minister accept that identification of children who receive free meals has always been undesirable? The next time that the Minister meets the unions, will he make it clear that identification of children who receive free meals is very much against the public interest?

I take the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Ever since I was first involved in teaching 30 years ago the problem of how not to identify children receiving free meals has been discussed by teaching unions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that schools should do everything possible to stop direct identification.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recently I had a school dinner in St. Saviour's school, Toxteth, as did most of the children? Is he further aware that it was an excellent dinner that fitted the children to play an energetic game of soccer afterwards? Will my hon. Friend recommend school meals to all other children?

I thought that my hon. Friend was about to recommend to the House the school meals in Liverpool. It is a long way to go for lunch every day. I have noticed an improvement in the health of my hon. Friend, so the credit for that must be given to the Liverpool school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what public resources are currently being devoted to research in biotechnology through the appropriate research councils and universities.

I refer the hon. Member to the written answer that I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) on 13 May. In addition, support by the research councils for fundamental research directly related to biotechnology is expected to amount to some £7 million in 1982–83. At least a further £10 million is expected to be spent in the same period on underpinning basic research in this area.

What is the point of slashing millions of pounds from grants to universities and research councils and then pretending that important areas of technology can be effectively financed by dishing out a piddling £100,000 here and there over a period of three years?

I certainly would not refer to £800,000 as piddling. It is important and very much welcomed by the institutions receiving it.

Is it not a pity that the development of monoclonal anti-bodies, pioneered by the Argentine born Cesar Millstein at MRC, Cambridge, should be further developed in Japan and Germany, because of the inadequacy of our patent laws? Will the Minister consider a subject that I raised yesterday in the debate on advanced technology, namely, the whole question of the sense of having patent laws when trying to patent living organisms?

That is another question. It is a good one and we shall certainly look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has considered clarifying the terms of the Education Act 1981, so as to establish beyond doubt that special schools for the handicapped do not need to change their names so as to remove any specific reference to the different disabilities such as the blind and partially sighted, the deaf or the mentally handicapped.

There is nothing in the provisions of the Education Act 1981 to require a school to change its name; nor, so long as the name reflects the function of the school, would it be helpful for that to happen. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make this perfectly clear.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing up the misapprehension that exists in the minds of many local education officers. Does my hon. Friend recall that during the passage of the Bill he promised that a conference of organisations concerned with the handicapped would be organised to monitor the progress and integration of the Act? When will that conference be held?

I well remember that promise being given to my hon. Friend during the proceedings. We are moving towards the arrangement of that conference and I hope to make an announcement soon on the date of the conference and who we shall be inviting to it.

Is the Minister aware that some specialist schools are anxious not only about their names but about their existence? Will he confirm that giving disabled children an opportunity of integration into normal schools does not entail the demolition of special schools?

The intention of the 1981 Act was that, wherever possible, children should be integrated into the normal school system. However, some children are handicapped to such an extent that it is necessary for them to go to special schools. I have no doubt that specialised schools have a long future in this country.

Is the Minister satisfied that all local education authorities are carrying out their statutory duties towards handicapped children? I notice that the Secretary of State has been visiting Wiltshire. Is the Minister satisfied that the rural counties are doing all that they can to carry out their duties under the 1981 Act and previous Acts?

We have issued guidance on the enforcement of the 1981 Act. Not all of it is in practice. We rely upon advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate on what is happening round the country. I am sure that local education authorities are carrying out their statutory duties as far as possible, but I am also sure that the counties will be aware of the questions that have been asked today and of the duties that the Government feel local authorities should carry out to the best of their ability.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the standard of secondary school education.

The Government's aim is to raise standards, within the resources available, for pupils of all abilities and aptitudes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among industrialists about the standard and type of education offered in our secondary schools? Has my right hon. Friend any suggestions to make for a revision of the curriculum and the introduction of pupil profiles?

I am aware of the anxiety in many quarters about the quality of some of the output of some of the schools. Something special should be done about making the curriculum more relevant for the 40 per cent. in our schools who are least academic. However, hon. Members ought to take into account the point that the key factors in education are motivation on the children's part and effectiveness of teachers. Those two factors are hard to reach by Government.

Has the Secretary of State read the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate? On page 12 of that report there is a horrifying list of deficiencies in secondary education, entirely due to lack of cash and inability to buy the things that are necessary to educate our children. In paragraph 12, under sections (a)and (b), there is a terrible list, which is an utter disgrace to this country and is the result of money going to private education and not to State education.

Without seeking to mitigate the comments in the report, I think that it would have been more honourable if the hon. Gentleman had pressed his Government to take the initiative to publish that report, as my predecessor and I have done.

In judging standards, is it wise for some people to identify particular types of school as if only they were responsible for falling standards? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many Conservative areas and Conservative parents take great pride in their comprehensive schools and feel that what matters is not the type of organisation but the quality of the headmaster, the organisation and the motivation of the children?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has so wisely said. The performance of schools varies very much, from the excellent to the worrying.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many teachers believe that motivation in our schools is disappearing because of the prospect of unemployment or the total collapse of the higher education system, resulting in a lack of places for students? That is at the heart of the Government's policies and the problems in secondary education.

The hon. Gentleman is grotesquely exaggerating any elements of truth that there might be in his case. It is true that rising unemployment presents a worrying climate for many schools. Of course that is true, but it is also true that both pupil-teacher ratios and real spending per child in our schools are at record levels.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is considering taking any steps to shorten the courses for teacher training; and if he will make a statement.

We have no plans for a general shortening of teacher training. However, for some time the Department has encouraged training institutions to develop shortened BEd courses for mature holders of specialist qualifications in priority subjects. A number of such courses have been approved.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the general view of the advisory committee on the supply and education of teachers that shortened courses will be necessary to avoid shortages in key areas? Will the Government bear in mind the heavy demands that the new training initiative is bound to put on the education service?

My hon. Friend is right. However, as he will know, we have only recently received the advice of the advisory committee on the supply and education of teachers and we are considering it. Within that advice, reference is made to a continuing shortage of craft, design and technology teachers. There is a recommendation that the one-year certificate courses should continue after 1983–84. We are considering that advice.

Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Inspectorate is concerned about the deficiencies that are appearing in in-service training as a consequence of widespread cuts throughout the education system? Is he aware that that is one of the factors that is contributing, as Her Majesty's Inspectorate said,

"to a serious threat to the maintenance of standards and desirable improvements in secondary schools."?

It seems that my right hon. Friend's remarks have got under the hon. Gentleman's skin. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tells my right hon. Friend that himself, not via me. Of course in-service training is of great importance, but the local education authorities must make the decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in England in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1978–79.

Net institutional recurrent expenditure per secondary pupil in England in 1980–81 was £771; the corresponding figure three years earlier, for 1978–79, at constant prices, was £10 lower, £761.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is a connection between the amount of money spent on education and standards, on the basis of those figures there is no reason why standards in secondary schools should have fallen since the Government came to power and there are reasons why they might have risen?

There is a connection between resources and standards. However, on the other hand, there are many examples where resources are spent beyond the target or GRE, yet standards have not noticeably improved. I repeat that, while there is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says, effectiveness of teaching and motivation of pupils are the key elements.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the low level of student grants is relevant to the fact that a small proportion of children from working-class families have gone to university under successive Governments? Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he intends to do about that problem?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there has been a fall, which we all deplore, in the number of children from relatively poor households going to university under successive Governments. Nevertheless, I cannot accept that it is right, when most people are being financially squeezed, to squeeze them further to provide an increase in grants for students at university.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will refuse to give his consent to the merger of Old Hall high school and Ormonde high school, Merseyside.

My right hon. Friend will consider these proposals carefully in accordance with his statutory responsibilities and in the light of all relevant factors, including the views of the objectors.

Will the Minister accept that the views of the objectors have been articulate and that those of my constituents who have children at Old Hall high school are satisfied with the education that it provides and do not want it to close or to be merged with any neighbouring school, however admirable it may be? Will the Minister give an assurance that parental choice will remain effective?

We should always welcome a sinner who repents and believes in parental choice. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will speak to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is now approaching reason, he will no doubt listen most carefully. We cannot comment on the matter. In a quasi-judicial capacity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must ultimately reach a decision. The proposals were published only on 2 April and the Department will not receive them until July. I have already received one deputation led by a Member of Parliament and I assure the hon. Gentleman—after that question, I almost called him my hon. Friend—that we shall consider carefully all the objections and whether parental choice would be enhanced or reduced.

Will my hon. Friend look with particular sympathy on the request made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)? Will he also look very critically at any proposal to amalgamate or abolish schools, particularly if it involves creating very large schools?

I know the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings and I give him the assurance that he seeks. In 1986 there will be 3 million fewer children in school than 10 years earlier. Therefore, we must consider the size of schools and whether they all need to exist. At the same time, we shall ensure that we do not back amalgamation if it is unnecessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many additional places will be required in local authority funded educational institutions to meet the needs of the Manpower Services Commission youth training proposals announced on Tuesday 3 May.

No detailed estimates were made by the youth task group of the demands of its proposed scheme on maintained educational institutions. The Government expect that they would be commensurate with those under the proposals in Cmnd. 8455.

Will the current guidelines on rates per student hour payable to colleges of further education be applicable under the new training proposals? What assurances can the Minister give to further education colleges that they will not be required to provide such additional education on the cheap, at their expense, when at least 70,000 people are involved in the new arrangement?

I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. However, the recommendations of the youth task group have not been officially approved by the Government. Consultations are in process, but there is no plan at present to change the guidelines.

Is it not a crowning absurdity that the Government are still contracting the public sector of higher and further education although these institutions could play their part in the training scheme initiative and, as I understand it, without any allocation of funds or obligation on the part of the Department of Education and Science to give a commitment in that direction?

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The number of those staying on in colleges of further education for full-time education is increasing. Next year, we expect a 25 per cent. increase. Indeed, we have provided the funds for that increase. We have provided about £80 million extra for the 16 to 19 year-old age group, and that is not at all bad.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to eliminate sex discrimination in the school curriculum.

My Department issued a circular when the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, and since then we have raised the issue in a number of different publications. Our guidance document entitled "The School Curriculum", published last year, says

"It is essential to ensure that equal curricular opportunity is genuinely available to both boys and girls".

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be seen as complacent, given the mounting evidence that girls are under-performing in the sciences and in technology? Something needs to be done positively to encourage local education authorities to take women's rights seriously.

The Government are concerned that some girls in certain schools are under-performing. In maths and science, it is interesting to note that girls often perform better—as boys do—in single-sex schools, or in separate classes within one school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to provide additional resources to counter the threat to the maintenance of numeracy and literacy identified in paragraph 65 of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report dated March 1982.

I consider that the level of cash provision for school education included in the rate support grant settlement for 1982–83 was sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of education in that sector.

If the Secretary of State proposes to take no notice whatever of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools' concern about the threat to standards in education, why does he not declare its members redundant, because they are obviously wasting their time ? In addition, as the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman crawled round the country before the last general election talking about constantly improving education standards, why do they not resign?

There are serious problems of adjustment to falling school rolls. However, the pupil-teacher ratio and real spending per child at school are both at record levels.

If the Secretary of State is concerned about standards in schools, why did he reject all the Select Committee's proposals to keep up those standards? The proposals were made on an all-party basis. What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have for maintaining standards in our schools?

I look forward to discussing those crucial questions tomorrow with the Select Committee. think that the problems will not be solved in quite the way that the Select Committee suggested.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. 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.

During the day, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that ridding the Falkland Islands of all Argentine troops is not only the main objective of her Government—backed up by the overwhelming support of the British people—but is seen by millions beyond our shores as an objective that is fundamental to the prospects for international law and order and essential to the security and independence of all small sovereign States—the very point recently made by no less a person that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth?

I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Our objective in the South Atlantic is not only to ensure that the Argentine troops withdraw from the Falklands but to uphold international law and to see that territorial boundaries are not, and cannot be, changed by force.

Does the Prime Minister agree that matters cannot be left quite where they were at the end of last Thursday's debate and that several important questions should be clarified in debate in the House? I refer, for example, to the questions put by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about the nature of the Peruvian terms and some of the possibilities that were put forward. There are also questions about how far the Argentine Government may have moved towards accepting at any rate two of the requirements that the Government have laid down. Will the right hon. Lady make it quite clear that we shall be able to discuss any response from the Argentine Government in the House as well as any comment that the Secretary-General of the United Nations may make on the situation?

This will be a critical week for deciding whether a peaceful settlement is attainable. Our ambassador to the United Nations returned, saw Senor Perez de Cuellar and put some proposals to him, to be handed over to the Argentines. I understand that we can expect a reply very shortly—within a matter of a day or so. Therefore, it is a critical week and the Government think that it would be timely to hold a debate later this week. I understand that the matter will be considered through the usual channels.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her response. It is right that the House should have such a debate, in which—I assume—the House will able to judge the propositions for a peaceful settlement before any major escalation of the situation.

No military action can be held up in any way. To do so would be to give notice to the dictator, who is our enemy.

Surely the right hon. Lady has a responsibility to give notice to the dictator that the House has the right to judge such matters before there is any escalation of the situation.

The right hon. Gentleman is constitutionally and practically wrong, and wrong when it comes to regarding the interests of our people in the task force and in the Falklands.

Does the Prime Minister agree that in the absence of any further major developments there will be little point in having a further debate in the House, save, perhaps, to give the Leader of the Opposition a further opportunity to slide away from resolution into a morass of vacillation?

Cheap.

I offered a debate through the usual channels because I believe that this will be a critical week that will decide whether or not a peaceful settlement is attainable. We cannot go on prevaricating. The Argentines are trying to spin out the negotiations. So far, no military option has been closed or held up, and it will not be. However, because I think that this is a critical week it is right to offer a debate.

May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a report in The Observer, which said that the Argentine Government owes Williams and Glynn's Bank £6 million, and added that if that is not forthcoming it will have to be met by the taxpayers of this country? In other words, we should supply money for destroyers to sink our ships. Does the Prime Minister think that it is about time that she put pressure on the banks and the financial institutions to play their part, or is it far more convenient for them for there to be a loss of life rather than a loss of profit?

I cannot associate myself in any way with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have frozen Argentine assets in the United Kingdom. The bankers are playing their part, just as everyone else in the country is. I can only condemn what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many normal, decent people in this country who are not over-zealous jingoists, but who view the antics of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in participating in a march in which there was a banner calling for victory for Argentina, as being, if nothing else, in doubtful taste? Bearing in mind that both he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) were members of a Government who sold ships and planes to the Argentine—

Order. I have said before that the Prime Minister can be questioned only about those matters for which she is responsible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is political opportunism of the worst order?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that Governments from both sides of the House have sold weapons and ships to Argentina. He is also correct in saying that the two right hon. Members he has mentioned were members of Labour Governments. I also agree that the attitude that those right hon. Members are taking is out of step with the country, their constituents and even their party.

As those of us in this country know what a determined lady the Prime Minister can be, has she considered at any time the possibility of a face-to-face meeting with the Argentine leader—[Interruption.]—to maximise the opportunities for this last attempt at peace?

I am a very merciful person. The answer is "No, Sir."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have been life-long supporters of the idea of a European Community have been deeply disturbed by some of the actions of the Council of Ministers over the past 48 hours? Will she make it clear to our partners that co-operation within the rule of law cannot be selective, and that these actions can only give comfort to our enemies and endanger the Community as a whole?

My hon. Friend is referring to the voting that is taking place over the CAP farm prices, in which it looks as if the prices will be implemented by a majority vote. If that is so, it is without precendent. It raises serious issues and we shall be considering what to do under the new circumstances. I do not think that it would be wise to go any further than that at the moment. It may still be possible to pull it back.

Is the Prime Minister therefore rejecting the advice of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, which has supported such a move?

They are as free as I am to express their views. [Interruption.] I did not agree with their views on the Luxembourg compromise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in circumstances such as these, the hardest thing that people can do is to wait, and contain themselves in patience, particularly when they are not, and cannot be, in possession of all the facts? However, will my right hon. Friend accept that most of us, both inside and outside the House, will keep patience and faith, confident in the knowledge that at the right time my right hon. Friend and her closest advisers will do the right thing?

My hon. Friend's advice is wise. I am grateful to him for it.

Now that the Prime Minister is away from the dangerously jingoistic atmosphere of the Scottish Tory Party conference, will she reconsider the attitude that she expressed, that war is more thrilling and more exciting than the welfare of her people?

I have never expressed such an attitude.

The Right hon. Lady did.

I have never expressed such an attitude. However, I believe firmly that we have a duty to defend our people from the invader.

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands.

Our representative at the United Nations has had a further meeting with Senor Perez de Cuellar. The negotiations are continuing and we are doing all that we can to reach a peaceful settlement, although there are principles on which we cannot compromise. There remain substantial difficulties. I believe that we shall know within the next day or two whether an agreement is attainable. We cannot have endless Argentine prevarication. We have been negotiating in good faith for six weeks and there has still been no sign of Argentine willingness to implement the Security Council's mandatory resolution.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed statement. Does she agree that the Government have now done all that they can to achieve a peaceful settlement? Before the awful prospect that full-scale hostilities will have to begin, can we reconsider those specific items of Argentine intransigence that have made them resist, adamantly and stubornly, the demands of the Secretary-General, to which the British Government have already acceded?

We have done everything that vv e can to try to secure a peaceful settlement. The Argentines have shown their intransigence by flouting every part of the United Nations mandatory resolution. Not only did they flout the resolution but they have gone in the contrary direction by piling extra men and equipment to the islands.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the speech that she made in Perth last Friday convinced many people that she was more intent on a military solution than a peaceful settlement? that would be acceptable to the vast majority of the Commons, but: not to the Right wing of the Tory Party. Is it the case that: the Argentine Government are prepared to withdraw their troops from the Falklands without requiring Britain to concede the principle of sovereignty first?

We were negotiating in February—with the islanders—in New York, long before the invasion. It was the Argentines who broke off those negotiations. We were negotiating over the South Georgia incident. It was—

Answer the question.

I shall answer the question in my own way and in my own time.

If, unfortunately, it became unavoidable that the use of force had to be contemplated in the defence of British interests, would it not be highly irresponsible for any actions to be delayed, not for operational reasons and in defence of Service men's lives, but simply to consult Members of the House, however eminent they might be?

I believe that any military action or option cannot and must not be delayed by people who are extending negotiations. To say that we have to consult people in the House, apart form being constitutionally wrong, would give notice to the invader of when we intended to take action. That would be stupid as well as totally unjust to those whom we expect to fight for us.