asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science,, if the will ensure that the schools closures he is urging on the city of Liverpool do not deprive communities of essential community facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on education standards in Liverpool following his meeting with Liverpool city council leaders.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science following Her Majesty's inspec-torate's recent report, what measures he proposes to take to improve the educational provision in Liverpool.

When they met me on 26 May, the leaders of Liverpool city council agreed to produce plans by this September for the city-wide reorganisation of its schools. Subsequently I wrote to the leader of the council on 7 June setting out the compelling educational case for such reorganisation if standards and quality are to be maintained and improved, and noting a school's role in its community as one of the factors to be weighed when making judgments about the future. I intend to visit Liverpool next month to review progress.

Does the Minister agree that when a school closes the community loses a community facility and a focus, as well as a school? Will he therefore consider adapting every building that is released by a school closure on Merseyside or in Liverpool for youth and community facilities and, perhaps, for resources centres for the young unemployed? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside, to make funds available for that purpose so that Merseyside can benefit from the closures, although it will suffer in community terms initially?

The short answer is "Yes". I am encouraged to find that both the local education authority and the local authority are well aware of the case for using released buildings for the maximum local benefit.

Does the Secretary of State agree that procrastination during the past 20 years, during which time five schemes have been offered to the Department of Education and Science, all of which have either been turned down or only partially implemented, is one of the reasons why schools in Liverpool are in a constant state of turmoil or in the melting pot? Does he agree that the £3 million reduction in Liverpool's education budget is a direct result of the Department's failure to reimburse Liverpool for its further and advanced education facilities and that it is endangering the quality of service offered by the Liverpool education authority?

Although I accept that Liverpool advanced to my predecessors several proposals for reorganisation, it is not beneficial to try to allocate responsibility for the need of successive Governments, having judged the merits, to turn down some of the schemes. Moreover, HMI report on the Liverpool problem did not identify lack of resources as the main problem.

When the Secretary of State visits Liverpool, will he spend some time on the problem of three small primary schools in my constituency? Is he aware that they were to be closed and that a new primary school was to be built in the cathedral precinct? Is he aware also that the Liberal-controlled council has done a U-turn on the issue and that there is grave concern among parents and teachers about that? Will he visit the site and meet some of the parents and teachers when he comes to Liverpool?

I cannot undertake to visit, in the limited time available, all the areas where there are problems. Under statute, I am allowed to respond only to proposals that have been made by the local education authority. The hon. Gentleman should make his case to the local education authority.

rose—

Order. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) did not hear the Secretary of State's main answer, but if he is not satisfied with it I shall call him to put a supplementary question.

I apologise for not having been present for the main answer, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that children have not been taken into account politically in education? Does he agree also that that happens throughout the country, but that Liverpool offers an easily isolated example? Will he take nation-wide action to alleviate the problem and take tougher action against local authorities in order to benefit children?

Understandably, in Liverpool, as no doubt in other areas, the view is that the interests of the children are best served by the fierce protection of local schools as they are. That is not always in the best interests of the children, as I tried to explain in my letter to Sir Trevor Jones a couple of weeks ago.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at least some of Liverpool's education problems spring from the incapacity of the alliance, in apparently breaking the mould of politics in Liverpool, to do anything about the city's education problems? Secondly, will he ensure that no proposals go through for the closure of schools in Croxteth—as opposed to Toxteth—until he has considered proposals covering the whole Liverpool area?

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have today written to one of the Liverpool councillors about Croxteth. The letter is being released to local Members of Parliament and to the press.

While my right hon. Friend is considering the overall problems of education in Liverpool, will he bear in mind the urgent problems of secondary allocation this year? Is he aware that, because of delays in the appeals procedure, many parents will not know before the end of this term to which schools their children have been allocated?

I have no power in this matter. It is one for the local education authority. I very much hope that it will make rapid progress with the appeals.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the increase in mixed age teaching in maintained and voluntary-aided schools in England since 1979.

Figures are not available, but Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools has noted an increase in the incidence of mixed age teaching as a direct consequence of the fall in school rolls.

Will the Minister acknowledge that Her Majesty's inspectorate also points out that mixed age teaching in primary schools almost automatically leads to a reduction in the ability of children to learn to read and to use mathematics? Will he therefore ensure that the cuts that have led to this state of affairs are restored so that educational standards are at least maintained under the Conservative Government, who were elected on a promise to improve standards?

The move to mixed age teaching arises not from any cuts but fom a decline in the number of children in the schools. There are now half a million fewer children in the schools than there were a few years ago. That being so, either schools must close or amalgamate or there must be more mixed age teaching. The hon. Gentleman is right. All the evidence shows that when 25 or more children from two or more age groups are taught together, scores in English and mathematics are lower than for those of children taught in single age groups.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that for many years there has been mixed age teaching, which I deplore, in primary schools controlled by Labour authorities, and that this system of teaching has been advocated by a number of Labour educationists for many years?

As my hon. Friend knows, there have been various fashions in education in the past 10 or 20 years. Vertical or family grouping was one. Fortunately, it is now passing. There are two reasons for mixed age teaching. Either the school is too small to have separate classes, as in village schools, or the philosophy is that if children are brought together they will integrate socially, even at the expense of academic standards.

Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's inspectorate forecast that about 70 per cent. of primary schools would have some mixed age teaching by the mid-1970s? Are not some local authorities using that as a soft option to make cuts? Does he agree that mixed age teaching is bound to fail unless it is backed up by specialists in special subjects and by good use of part-time teaching, which he is not encouraging?

The pupil-teacher ratio in our schools is now the lowest ever, so that mixed age teaching has nothing to do with cuts. The ratio is lower than it was when the Labour Government were in power. There are fewer children in the schools. Therefore, unless schools are closed or amalgamated so that single age teaching may be carried out, there will be more mixed age teaching. There are 10 per cent. more primary schools than before with between 100 and 200 children. This shows the importance of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the need to consider teaching and schools overall to ensure that children have the best deal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent rural constituencies would rather have mixed age teaching than see village schools closed? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made a very good point on this in his supplementary question to question No. 1?

I take my hon. Friend's point. The decision is made because there is no other way to keep schools close to parents and children. That is very different from mixed age teaching in schools in cities where alternatives can be arranged.

Will the Minister either withdraw his statement that mixed age teaching has nothing to do with cuts, or write to Her Majesty's inspectorate telling it that in his considered judgment it was absolutely wrong to report in paragraph 59:

"Further general restraints in spending and falling school roles have, together, continued to affect primary schools in similar ways to those described in last year's report"?

"The number of mixed age classes have increased"?.

"Where such classes are larger than about 25 in number the children's performance can suffer".

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is reading the HMI report. One can make quotations on both sides. I actually said to his hon. Friend that cuts have nothing to do with the increase in mixed age teaching. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply, he may learn something. I said quite clearly that cuts have nothing to do with the increase in mixed age teaching, because if the authorities in whose areas the number of children has declined decide how to reorganise their schools to have economic numbers, single age teaching can continue. That is what I said. If the hon. Gentleman did not understand it the first time, I am delighted that he does now.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with current provision for training technicians for bio-engineering and other advanced subjects.

My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the education and training of technicians and is satisfied that current arrangements are adequate to ensure proper provision.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not a universal opinion that there is an adequate supply of technicians for some of the so-called sunrise industries? Will he give particular attention to the desirability of some communication with the University Grants Committee so that in future grant is related to the training needs of these technicians, especially in view of the cuts in the technical departments of universities such as Aston, which were once colleges of advanced technology?

Mr. Teacher—I apologise, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time that I have said that. I shall pay attention and not do it again.

If the Minister accepts the value of bio-engineering, why does he support cuts in the training of bioengineers? Is he aware that rehabilitation for the elderly and disabled is very important, yet he has cut back such training at Aston, Salford and Bradford?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman also considers the position in polytechnics, which also undertake such training. I repeat that there is no shortage of training and education places, but we want more good applicants to apply to be educated and trained.

Why are people being trained as bio-engineering technicians when such technician posts are being frozen or phased out in universities that are acknowledged to be at the forefront of research in this sphere? What incentive is there for them when the Government's policy is to phase out the posts to which they might aspire?

There is competition from industry, which is also looking for technicians to train. That is why insufficient people are coming forward to fill the available places in the colleges and universities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in implementing those recommendations of the Cockcroft report for which he is responsible.

The Department will be taking early action on the recommendation that a study should be commissioned into ways of providing evidence of achievement for lower-attaining pupils, perhaps by means of graduated tests. We are considering the other recommendations directed to us.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the reply, which is overdue as it was the subject of a question for written answer in March. Will my right hon. Friend further consider the need to implement the proposals for better arithemitical standards for younger people in the primary schools? I am sure that he is aware that higher standards have been called for by engineering employers in Coventry, Birmingham and, indeed, throughout the nation.

Yes, Sir. The recommendations of the Cockcroft committee are all of great value and we consider the report to be singularly constructive. I am hoping to consider what can be done in the near future about the other recommendations directed to us. Rather to the surprise of many people, the Cockcroft committee found, after unprecedented research, that on the whole employers are not too disatisfied with mathematical skills.

Is it not a fact that Cockcroft said that in service training was the key to the success of his recommendations? Is the Secretary of State willing to put his weight behind an expansion of in-service training in mathematics?

The Cockcroft report did emphasise in-service training. The decision on the amount of resources to devote to in-service training is for local education authorities; my weight is behind an increase in such training.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is up to the local education authorities to remind mathematics teachers of the need to attend these excellent in-service training courses so that standards are constantly improved?

Yes. I commend the action of the members of the Cockcroft committee in taking their recommendations and their analysis widely round the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects will be covered under the proposed Open University PICKUP scheme of special courses for the retraining of people in mid-career.

The Department has asked the Open University to earmark £1 million of its 1982 recurrent funds for the development of suitable courses for PICKUP—the new professional industrial and commercial updating initiative. The details are currently being worked out, according to need and likely demand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome that innovation? Is he further aware that, whatever the state of the economy, many people will have to change their careers many times in future? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Open University to bring in new technologies—microcircuitry, and so on—because they are important to the country's future?

I welcome my hon. Friend's support. He is right. It is unrealistic to expect education to last someone for 50 years of working life with current technological change. I shall convey his views to the Open University.

My hen. Friend will know that I am a member of the council of the Open University. Will my hon. Friend underline the excellence of that university in this sphere, as in so many others.

I do so with great pleasure.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present number of qualified teachers registered as unemployed.

The total number of people in England registered with the Department of Employment as unemployed and seeking work as teachers in schools in March 1982 was 15,893.

When there was a shortage of teachers the Ministry organised a quota system to stop the best authorities from getting more than their fair share. In view of the obvious disquiet in the Minister's Department about the cuts made by some authorities, will he use his powers to enforce proper staffing ratios on the worst authorities?

I am not convinced that local authorities will welcome the statement made by the hon. Member. Local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative controlled, welcome their freedom to run local schools in their own way. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. The pupil-teacher ratio this year is the lowest that we have ever had.

On average.

Yes, on average, but that is what these figures usually are. Local authorities are not being penalised and there would have been more unemployment had we increased the pupil-teacher ratio.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not all teachers who have qualified are necessarily making the best contribution to society by continuing in teaching? Does he further agree that falling rolls give us the opportunity to weed out weak teachers?

My right hon. Friend and I have said that now that we have a surplus of teachers, authorities can be much more selective in recruitment. The Economist said last week:

"Britain's teaching stock is burdened by a generation of underachievers who rode into the schools in the flood-tide of the great expansion of the 1960s."

Since we have this vast number of unemployed trained teachers, and in the wake of the welcome, but reluctantly made, statement of the Secretary of State for Employment yesterday on the youth training scheme, is the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State consulting the Department of Employment or the Manpower Services Commission to ensure that the educational content of the youth training scheme is enriched? Will the Minister ensure that jobs are given to these skilled teachers in the training and education of the youngsters who will now be provided for more adequately, thanks to the pressure of the trade unions?

There is continued discussion between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment, and others, regarding the 16 to 18-year-olds and on retraining. The subject of teacher surplus has often occurred, because it is a numbers game. Teachers were recruited irrespective of their subject. We must ensure in the future that teachers' subjects are matched to the requirement of the schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have been held by his Department concerning the rationalisation of the administration of international youth exchanges; and if he will make a statement.

The Department is in close touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this. I understand that consideration is being given to commissioning an independent study of the bodies concerned. A final decision will be taken very shortly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although some advantage may be gained from adminis-trative rationalisation, that something would most certainly be lost if organisations such as the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council were wholly swallowed up? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a separate organisation to promote Commonwealth youth exchange, just as it is important that there should be a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association as distinct from the IPU.

I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council. He was for a while chairman of that organisation. It has done valuable work, and I am aware of its importance. I cannot believe that rationalisation will end its independence.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the level of student grants for the coming year.

I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the academic year 1983–84. My right hon. Friend would normally expect to announce the level of student grants around the turn of the year.

Did the Minister have the opportunity to meet the deputation from the National Union of Students that lobbied the House and met many of his hon. Friends last month? Has he had an opportunity to study its contention that students are now much worse off and are experiencing serious financial hardship because of the reduction in their grants, the phasing out of many discretionary awards and the increase in hall charges? Will the Minister give his Department's calculation of the extent to which, under the 1982–83 figures, students will be worse off in real terms? What can be done to rectify that in the following year?

We are in no doubt that the grant settlement for 1982–83 puts students under pressure. The rate of award for London students is rather better, compared with the past, than for other students, but we are well aware of the pressures.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that, for example, it has been necessary for the University of Edinburgh to increase its accommodation charges by 10 per cent., whereas the student grant is to be increased by only 4 per cent? To what extent will that leeway be made up in the following year?

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give any commitments for future years. Many universities have managed to keep their increases in hall fees to within 4 per cent. I know that some, like Edinburgh, have had to go higher.

Is there any reason why the Department cannot announce in advance the principles on which it will base the increase in student grants each year?

The fundamental principle is how much money is available.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Liverpool which has been submitted to him.

I have before me proposals for the reorganisation of Roman Catholic secondary education in the city of Liverpool and for the closure of Fairfield, Lawrence and Edge Hill county secondary schools. I am considering them carefully in the light of all relevant factors and will announce my decisions as quickly as I can.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the grave concern over the possible closure of the St. Martin's Roman Catholic secondary school in the Toxteth area and also of the grave and massive concern over the proposed closure of the Croxteth comprehensive school. Will he look carefully at both those cases before he makes a final decision?

In all cases my colleagues and I look carefully at the reasons for the proposals and at the objections, as well as the education and social conditions. I undertake that that will be done in future, as it has been done in the past. As to Croxteth, I have already told the House that today I have written to a councillor concerned, and I am releasing the letter to Members of Parliament in the area and to the press.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all three single-sex schools in Edge Hill constituency will close if the present proposals go through? It is particularly important that a single-sex alternative is available somewhere in the inner city, particularly in view of the needs of the Asian community, which particularly likes its young girls to attend single-sex schools.

Yes, and I am also aware that, along with one of our honourable colleagues, the hon. Gentleman led a deputation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if any consideration has been given to including the study of politics within the framework for the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

Political facts and values cannot and should not be excluded from parts of the school curriculum, such as history, geography or indeed English literature. But in this area of the curriculum, as in all others, what is offered must be education, not indoctrination.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, indicating that it is inevitable that there will be political education in schools. Does he agree that the teaching profession has the integrity to achieve a balance in this area on most occasions? However, is he aware of a new subject that is creeping in under the guise of political education called "peace studies", which is causing immense concern to parents because in some areas it is unadulterated unilateralism and pacifism? Will he do something about it?

I share my hon. Friend's belief that the vast majority of teachers are professionals who go into the classroom to teach as fairly as possible without any doctrine. At the same time, I share his concern about the growth of peace—or, rather, appeasement—studies, because that is basically what they are. Purely by accident I have with me the syllabus from Avon, which suggests that "violent systems" include:

"capitalism, Communism, Fascism, imperialism, totalitarian-ism, institutional injustice".

Notwithstanding the Minister's reply, does he not agree that as young people are able to vote, many of them before they leave school, it is high time that we had a properly structured course in politics? I am not talking about party political indoctrination. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that young people need to know how the country is governed, how the Government works, what Parliament's responsibilities are and what their duties as citizens are?

The hon. Lady obviously feels strongly about this matter. I always thought that in the teaching of history one indicated the growth of democracy in Britain, both nationally and locally. That was part of the history syllabus that was taught in schools with which I was connected. Similarly, there are subjects, such as British constitution and economics. However, there should not be a separate subject concerned simply with advocating unilateral disarmament in Britain.

Is it not the case that for years teachers have, with various subjects, sought to give children an understanding of how our political system works? Should we not in a democracy be at least as concerned as authoritarian countries to pass on the values upon which our system depends?

It was because of the Government's belief in a genuine participatory democracy that we passed the Education Act 1980, which gave parents a choice of schools. That is what real participation means. The Act also introduced an appeals system. I welcome the fact that I have the hon. Gentleman's support in this regard.

Is there not a danger of the development of a wholly bizarre approach to political education, including such things as peace studies, unless there is a proper, thoughtful approach to political education with the help of such bodies as the Hansard Society?

I welcome my hon. Friend's sound and fair comments. I again quote from the Avon syllabus, which in the section headed "Bookstalls and relevant literature" states:

"Books, leaflets, posters and any available teaching materials related to the field of peace education will be on sale. In addition, it is hoped to stock appropriate badges, car stickers, postcards, envelope labels and the like".

When the hon. Gentleman taught the history of democracy in Britain I hope that he was vigilant in his accuracy and described it as a series of historic defeats for Toryism. If the hon. Gentleman has so much confidence in the teaching profession, why does he incessantly go up and down the country seeking to convey the impression that there is a large number of irresponsible teachers seeking to indoctrinate our children—a practice which we would strongly deplore? Why does the hon. Gentleman seem to give the impression that he thinks politics, like sex, is best learnt on street corners?

I take only one of the variety of points raised by the hon. Gentleman—the teaching profession. Earlier, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I said that the vast majority of teachers were professionals. This question has been raised not just by the members of the Conservative Party but by others, because of parental and teacher concern about what is going on in many of our schools, so that we do not have indoctrination but rather the proper teaching of democracy, which both the hon. Gentleman and I want.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is monitoring the new arrangements for the financing of student unions.

After the new arrangements have been in force for some time my right hon. Friend will, of course, wish to consider whether they have worked sensibly.

I acknowledge the progress that has been made by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science. Does he not accept that many students object violently to the fact that vast sums of money are paid on their behalf by the ratepayers, over which they have absolutely no control? Following the question by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), does my hon. Friend not accept that students would be much better off if they were allowed to spend the money that is now spent for them by irresponsible student unions?

My hon. Friend may not be aware that student union subscriptions have been abolished and that the ratepayer is no longer directly involved. The funds are part and parcel of the recurrent funds of the institutions concerned. It is up to the responsible students involved, who are in the majority, to see that the funds entrusted to student unions are properly spent. If they are not, there is legal recourse.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the financing of universities.

I last met the University Grants Committee on 29 April. I have at present no plans for a further meeting, but have frequent meetings with the committee's chairman.

Although we are grateful for small mercies in that the UGC recently allocated an additional 40 student places to Stirling university, will the Secretary of State tell the UGC, before it visits Stirling in October, that it can have an additional allocation of Government grant specifically to help universities, such as Stirling, that are most critically threatened? If the Government can find £1,000 million to send a task force to the Falkland Islands, why cannot they spend that amount on a task force to educate the thousands of young people who are queuing up for university places?

The hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands the function of the UGC. It is not for Ministers to tell the UGC how to allocate the taxpayers' money given to it. It is for the UGC precisely to distribute the funds between the universities and departments, without political interference.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman or representatives of the University Grants Committee, will he discuss the needs of industry and indicate to them that it is probably better to maintain schools and courses in textile technology, serving the second largest employer in this country, than to have at universities and other institutes of higher education dozens of lecturers who are specialists in peace studies?

I hope my hon. Friend is aware that there is also polytechnic provision, which is quite large in this area, to be taken into account. I am sure that the chairman of the UGC and his colleagues will read my hon. Friend's observations.

When the Secretary of State gets around to seeing the University Grants Committee, will he take with him in his back pocket the Merrison and Rothschild reports? The Merrison report says that university research has been seriously impaired by cuts in Government spending while the Rothschild report, in language more elegant than I can muster, says that the Government's witch hunt against the social sciences is nonsense. Will the right hon. Gentleman believe his own reports when he looks again at Government spending on universities?

I need no persuasion to take the dual funding of science in universities extremely seriously, as, I know, do the research councils and the UGC.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will sponsor a scheme in schools to give additional guidance to pupils in their final year of secondary education in preparation for job-seeking and careers.

The Government recognise and have already drawn to the attention of schools in a number of ways the need for more and better careers guidance. However, this must be a matter for local education authorities and I would urge them to give it the importance that it deserves.

With the reinforcement and expansion of the youth training scheme announced yesterday, is it not essential to make sure that the balance is right by providing for careers and training advisers and masters in all secondary schools? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter carefully?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I can reassure him by saying that the MSC has already increased funding for careers officers. Although the careers teacher service is a matter, as I have said, for local education authorities, we made it a central theme in our school curriculum document published last year.

Is it not a hollow mockery to talk about careers guidance for schoolchildren when almost a quarter of a million of them are facing the dole queue? The real cause is the savage economic policy of the Government. When will the Government abandon their plethora of tinsel policies for job creation and actually try to encourage people to stay on at school by providing an educational maintenance allowance such as has been pressed on them for a number of years?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He is suggesting, if I understand him rightly, that youngsters should not be educated and guided at this time because there might not be a job waiting for them. That is nonsense. When the upturn comes, which will happen shortly, it is always in the skill areas that there are bottlenecks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just in the final year of secondary education but in earlier years that pupils need guidance? Should not every encouragement be given to schools to start encouraging the expansion of careers guidance from 12-plus onwards?

My hon. Friend is right. I had a meeting with the National Association of Careers and Guidance Teachers the other day, when the same point was made. I think it is generally agreed that we are talking about the fourth and fifth years onwards.

Will the Minister endeavour to persuade his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security to review their recent mean-minded decision that young people going on pre-vocational courses starting in September will be deprived of supplementary benefit for three months, and so enable them to go on those courses and honour the sort of undertakings that he talks about?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recent revision in the 21-hours rule, I would say that this is generally welcomed. If he is referring to the vocational courses whereby one cannot get supplementary benefit for three months, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has studied the proposals of the Overseas Students Trust about future policy on overseas students, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister accept the assertion in the report that the line between home and overseas students is drawn in the wrong place, particularly in the light of the fact that students from British dependencies, including the Falkland Islands, must pay many times more than students from overseas dependencies of other countries in Europe?

I welcome the report as a practical and hard-headed document with a number of good ideas in it. Ministers are now looking at it. They will have to look, in particular, at the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. There are large expenditure implications involved with all dependent territories.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of overseas student places must be rationed by price or by number? Are the Government willing to examine the possibility of some flexibility in moving the boundaries of both?

Ministers are looking at all the subject matter covered by the Overseas Students Trust report. I do not think that we want to experiment with quotas as the Labour Government did. This was shown to be inequitable and impractical.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 June.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. Later this afternoon I shall depart for New York to attend the United Nations second special session on disarmament.

Since I have had the good fortune to draw Question No. 1 today, may I take this happy opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend if she will convey to Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales our feeling of joy and the warm congratulations of the whole House on the birth of the heir apparent?

No.

You grovelling sycophant.

With great pleasure. I believe that the whole nation shares in the happiness of the Prince and Princess of Wales, the happiness of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and also of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. I understand that we shall have an opportunity to say so, possibly on Thursday.

Will the Prime Minister, in view of the serious fighting between Syria and Israel that is reported today, seek the opportunity when she sees President Reagan to make the offer that Britain will play a part in any United Nations peacekeeping role in the Lebanon, particularly if the United States could also be persuaded to play a part?

I shall hope and expect to discuss this subject with the President when I see him tomorrow. I do not think, at the moment, that I could make the offer that Britain would play a part in a peacekeeping role in the Lebanon. We are already playing a part in the multinational force in Sinai. It would be unwise to make further promises in view of our already extended commitment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when this country has regained its pride and confidence, it is sad that certain unions are calling out their members on crippling strikes that can only undermine the national recovery?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have never supported any strikes and I hope that even at this late hour —

Poland?

As my hon. Friend knows, I do not believe that people who go on strike in this country have a legitimate cause. Throughout the period of the Labour Government and this one, I have never supported any strikes in this country. I hope that, even at this late hour, those who are contemplating going on strike will realise that those they are harming are their fellow citizens.

May I join in offering the good wishes which the right hon. Lady offered on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House to the Royal Family on the news yesterday? I am glad that the House will have the opportunity to discuss the matter.

The unemployment figures are unwelcome. We have a number of school leavers in this month's figures. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the international figures on a quarterly basis he will see that a number of countries in Europe, quarter by quarter, also experienced an unusually greater increase in unemploy-ment. We believe that in this country this was probably due to the increase in interest rates that occurred, partly because of the exchange rate, at the end of last autumn. The forward indicators are now giving hope for better things and for a continuing of economic recovery.

Does not the right hon. Lady think that part of the reason for these extremely serious unemployment figures, and the increase, is the fall in industrial production and the fall in house building and in other forms of activity? I know that the right hon. Lady always refuses to make prophecies on this matter, but can she tell us on what assumptions the Government are acting in deciding how long unemployment will continue at this rate?

Any assumptions that we have made have already been published, not so much as assumptions, but as working practices for those who have to calculate any benefits that are due. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will find that economic activity is above the levels of last spring. Industrial and manufacturing output is up 2 per cent. from spring 1981 and the prospect is for resumed and continued recovery. This is supported by almost all independent assessment. The cyclical indicators have, for a while, suggested—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me, and I naturally expect to do him the courtesy of answering his question. The cyclical indicators have for a while suggested that there would be a plateau in the first half of 1982. They have also implied a subsequent continuation in the recovery.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the United Nations special session on disarmament.

A number of Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers have already addressed the special session. Because of developments in the Falklands, I postponed my own address and shall now be speaking tomorrow. I shall reaffirm the importance that we in Britain attach to maintaining international security and our determination to press ahead with the search for realistic, balanced and verifiable arms control agreements.

The House will wish my right hon. Friend well on her important visit. Does she agree that many thousands of Britons who would never accept unilateral disarmament would dearly love to see Britain taking an initiative in suggesting a practical programme for multilateral disarmament that is, as my right hon. Friend has just said, verifiable and has agreed dates for implementation? Will the Prime Minister, with her usual courage, make that message plain at the United Nations?

I shall endeavour to do so, and also to point out that the purpose of disarmament is not to undermine security but to enable it to take place at a lower cost to all of the nations that at the moment have considerable armouries. I agree with my hon. Friend that unilateral disarmament would open one up to attack from strong nations. Therefore, we must have multilateral disarmament, which must be verifiable.

While welcoming the Prime Minister's decision to address this important conference, may I ask her whether she will have anything to say on conventional disarmament as well as nuclear disarma-ment? Is she aware that yesterday's opening of the defence equipment exhibition at Aldershot should remind us that among our previous good customers there was Argentina?

Yes, conventional disarmament is every bit as important as nuclear disarmament, particularly in view of the imbalance of conventional weapons across the NATO line, which is in favour of the Warsaw Pact. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have pursued a policy, as have successive Governments, of selling arms to countries abroad, but each order is viewed on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman could say that we did not always make the right decisions. However, if we pulled out of selling armaments, nations would go to the Soviet Union for their arms.

Following that question, is it right for the Prime Minister in the same week to address the disarmament conference and to invite to this exhibition and sale of our latest and most sophisticated weapons representatives of nearly every Fascist dictatorship in Latin America, the Middle East and the Far East? Is not that hypocrisy?

No. Weakness has been the cause of as many wars as military strength. If one looks at history, one sees that arms races have not necessarily led to wars—

Yes, always.

Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong historically. What tends to lead to war is rapid rearmament on the part of a tyrant and unilateral disarmament on the part of a victim.

Can my right hon. Friend reaffirm Britain's, and her, firm commitment to the concept of multilateral disarmament, and will she further make it clear that unilateral disarmament represents the principal threat to achieving a negotiated multilateral settlement, as well as potentially paving the way to war?

Yes. Our object is to secure peace with freedom and justice. Unilateral disarmament would mean that we were not prepared to defend freedom and justice. Multilateral disarmament means that we are prepared to secure them and that we hope, through verifiable measures, to secure them at less cost than at present.

Does the appalling answer that the right hon. Lady gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) mean that she does not mind how many deadly weapons she sells to the Galtieris of the future?

No, and that is a ridiculous question from a right hon. Gentleman who was a member of the Government who signed the contracts to sell the destroyers to Argentina.

As the right hon. Lady says that it is a ridiculous question to ask how many arms she sells to the Galtieris, will she publish the details of how many other Fascist countries she is selling arms to?

Why will the right hon. Gentleman not plead guilty? It was his Government who signed the contracts to sell the destroyers to Argentina, those very destroyers that have been used against us. Why will he not plead guilty when he knows that his Government pursued exactly the same policy as ours? We look at each order on its merits.

Will the right hon. Lady look up the facts before she tries to tell such tales to the country? We stopped the sale of arms to El Salvador, to Chile, to South Africa and to Argentina. The right hon. Lady's Government have started the sale of arms to all those countries. When will she stop this appalling traffic, in arms?

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that it was a Labour Government who signed the contracts for the sale of those destroyers? Does he?

Answer.

Will my right hon. Friend further pursue this point in any inquiry made into the Falklands operation and ensure that evidence is obtained of the political decisions taken by the Labour Government which affected the capability of our defence forces in the Falklands operation?

I have already written to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties—

Cover-up.

Whitewash.

—about possible terms of reference for an inquiry. May I make it perfectly clear that I think that the evidence running up to the invasion of the Falklands must be judged against the decisions previously taken both on defence and on previous assessments of intelligence. I think that we owe it—

Whitewash.

—to those Ministers who have resigned and to those who have served the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence to have a thorough inquiry, and I am quite certain that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor hon. Gentlemen would wish to hide anything.