asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received concerning the fees to be charged to students from Cyprus who are undergoing courses in the United Kingdom.

A number of representations have been received from hon. Members and from interested bodies seeking concessions on tuition fees for students from Cyprus.

How many student placings will be funded by the £1 million which I understand has been earmarked by the Government? Is the Minister satisfied that the proposed arrangements will allow as many Cypriot students as want to obtain places in the United Kingdom to be accepted?

I confirm that £1 million has been allocated for each of the next three years to increase the number of Cypriot students corning to Great Britain. It is too early to say how many that will support, as the arrangements are still under discussion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's acceptance of the Overseas Students Trust report has given great pleasure to those who had the privilege of working on the report?

I know that my hon. Friend played a significant part in the writing of that report. The Government have made progress on the basis of the report.

As Cyprus is an associate member of the European Community, is there any chance of giving Cypriots privileges similar to those that we already give to Guadaloupe, Réunion, Saint Pierre, Miquelon and other French dependencies, which would allow Cypriots to come here at home student fee rates as do students from Greece, which is closely connected with Cyprus, and Hong Kong?

Plainly, the assignment of a considerable sum of money to Cyprus will lessen the gap to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

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

Net institutional recurrent expenditure per full-time equivalent primary pupil in England in 1981–82 was £619 compared with £581 in 1978–79, at 1981–82 outturn prices. The figures show an increase in real terms of approximately 6 per cent. over the three-year period, when pupil numbers fell by some 10 per cent.

Do the figures not belie the Opposition's claim that under this Government education standards have fallen?

I do not accept that education standards can be judged solely on financial expenditure. I should like to emphasise to the House that the Opposition's claim is completely ill-informed. We now have a record number of teachers in relation to numbers of pupils in our schools.

Would the Secretary of State say that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's view is entirely ill-informed? If not, will he acknowledge that the HMI said that standards of numeracy, literacy and much else in both primary and secondary schools are threatened by the impact of Government expenditure cuts on maintained schools?

It is common ground that there is considerable scope for improvement in many subjects in many schools. However, I repeat that there are more teachers in relation to the number of pupils than ever before.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he or his Department has had with the Sefton metropolitan district council about a proposed school voucher scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now reached a decision on voucher schemes for schools and sixth form colleges; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to introduce further measures to extend parental choice of school.

It is known that I am considering a number of possibilities, including vouchers, for extending parental choice and responsibility in school education. As I have said before, I have yet to reach conclusions on this. Informal discussions have been held on my behalf with elected members of a number of authorities about the possibility of pilot voucher schemes. Official consultations would have to await firm proposals.

Is the Secretary of State confirming that he has had informal discussions with Conservative members on Sefton council? is that why they are secretly discussing the possibility of a pilot scheme in Sefton? Will he assure the people of Sefton that there will be no attempt to introduce such a pilot scheme in Sefton before the general election?

I cannot corroborate or deny discussions with individual authorities— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because they have been informal discussions with elected members on the basis of confidentiality, which I am not free to breach. Nevertheless, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

I welcome a pilot scheme to test the validity of such a dramatic innovation in our education system. However, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people wish to see a pilot scheme in a London borough as well as in a predominantly rural area and in urban areas outside London?

The Government have taken no decision on this as yet. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind if a decision is made.

In view of the Secretary of State's accountability to the House, why will he not give the names of the local education authorities involved? Secondly, will the scheme that he is now discussing include private schools?

I am not discussing any particular scheme. I am considering a number of options. I am not free to give names, because the discussions into which a representative of mine entered were on a confidential basis. The Government have made no decision yet.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the arguments for the voucher scheme is the Government's dissatisfaction with state schools? Will he also confirm that he has chosen to have discussions with certain authorities because, in the Government's view, the schools in those areas are the least adequate?

I should have thought that it was common ground throughout the House that we want schools to improve their standards. Some have more scope for that than others.

Can my right hon. Friend even guess why Opposition Members are so worried about the extension of choice if they believe that the present schools are those that any parent with free choice would choose?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that choice, to be effective in a democracy, must extend to everyone and that it must be a real choice not limited by size of purse? Does he recall his own immortal statement that the poor are poor because they do not have enough money? If he proposes, as apparently he has proposed to the so-called family policy group, whose papers I have, to make access to essential facilities more dependent on personal payment, will he not be adding deprivation of freedom to poverty of income, thus tightening the noose of disadvantage as well as destroying liberty? As a self-professed libertarian, how can he possibly defend the commercialisation of education, the expense of a voucher system, the uproar that it would cause and, above all, the disadvantage for those with neither the wish not the means to take advantage of it?

The voucher scheme may or may not prove practicable, and it may or may not be proposed by the Government; but the concept is designed to provide those who have not the money to feel able to choose a school for their child with just that facility.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the average cost of obtaining a degree course at the Open University to a student commencing (a) now, (b) in 1979 and (c) in 1975.

The cost of taking a single credit Open University degree course, with attendance at a summer school, is estimated to be c286 in 1983. The comparable figures for 1979 and 1975, at 1983 prices, are £268 and £254, respectively.

Is the Minister aware that there is substantial hardship among the unemployed who are taking or intending to take Open University degrees? Will he set up a fund for that growing sector of society?

I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government set up such a fund two years ago, with £500,000, which is being fully used to help to bring the benefits of the Open University to unemployed people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fund is being well taken up by unemployed people successfully following Open University courses and that the number applying for such courses is holding up extraordinarily well, particularly for the summer schools?

My hon. Friend knows the Open University extremely well, and what he says is correct.

Is the Minister aware that 46 per cent. of those who were offered places at the Open University but had to turn them down gave the increase in fees as the reason? Is that not an indictment of the Government's policy on Open University fees?

What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly correct. That is why for the next two years the Government have moderated the increase to keep in line with inflation. Labour Members should tread a little warily here, as the Labour Government were responsible for by far the biggest increase in Open University fees—60 per cent. in one year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made with his plans to establish a significant centre of teacher education and training in the north-east of England.

Before the location of such a centre is decided my right hon. Friend will want to consider the effect of the recent reorganisation of initial teacher training on recruitment to institutions in the north-east.

Then what was the meaning of the Secretary of State's announcement in November? Is the Minister aware that as there have been about 10 college closures in the north-east in the past decade, it is hard for people in the region to believe that the Government intend to set up a significant new teacher training centre there? By what date does he intend the project to be carried out?

The Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers is being asked to look again at the supply of teachers next year. That must be the first stage. The time scale must be two or three years. We need to see how demand holds up in the different colleges.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable regret in the north of England about the closure of St. Mary's Roman Catholic teacher training college in Fenham, Newcastle? Is he further aware that the nearest Roman Catholic teacher training college is in Leeds? Will he bear in mind the desirability of the maintenance of teacher training colleges with a religious base?

I can, of course, give my hon. Friend the latter assurance. I remind him that St. Mary's, Fenham closed of its own free will before the Government's recent exercise on teacher training.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the operation of the religious education provisions of the Education Act 1944; and if he will make a statement.

I have no doubt that we could—and should—provide better religious education for our young people. We have made it clear that we look to local education authorities, governing bodies and schools to live up to their statutory responsibilities.

Although one does not not wish to see rigidity in this area, does my hon. Friend accept the importance of RE teaching? Is he aware that 80 per cent. of parents, whether or not they are churchgoers themselves, want RE teaching for their children, but that in 80 per cent. of schools there is known to be no regular act of worship, as by law there should be, or proper RE teaching? As the law requires that there should be proper RE teaching in all schools, why are we not getting it?

The Government have made clear time and again their belief in the enforcement of the provisions of the 1944 Act about the act of worship once a day and religious education in schools. If this is not taking place, we can deal with the matter only if it is brought to our attention. There have been only four complaints in the past 14 months, all of which we have dealt with.

If there is to be more religious education in schools, what kind of computer will the Minister recommend to show how Tory millionaires in the Cabinet can shove camels through the eye of a needle and get to the kingdom of heaven?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is moving into the electronic age, but I am not sure that he can drag his camel with him.

Is my hon. Friend aware that statistics from his Department show that only 58 per cent. of schools provide religious education for all fourth-year pupils, and 18 per cent. provide it for none at all? Is it not a scandal that this Government, of all Governments, should preside over what is becoming a collapse of moral and religious education in schools? When will we train more religious education teachers and get them into post?

The figures to which my right hon. Friend referred were based on the 1978 secondary schools survey. The enforcement of the 1944 Act depends upon local education authorities, governors and heads of schools. It also depends on the influence of the churches in certain areas. Last year we increased the percentage of teachers training for religious education, and last October there were about 50 newly trained RE teachers without posts. That shows that there are sufficient RE teachers to fill any vacancies.

Is not the Minister's answer incompatible with his Department's decision to cut back teacher training colleges with a religious base more severely than the usual teacher training colleges, and especially the De La Salle college, which is one of the few Roman Catholic colleges in the north-west?

I cannot refer to the De La Salle college, because the matter is sub judice. However, the number of teachers training in secondary school teaching for 1983 will be higher than it has been for many years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present situation in Liverpool's Croxteth comprehensive school.

Croxteth county comprehensive school ceased to exist with effect from September 1982, and ray right hon. Friend has urged the local education authority to bring to an end the unlawful occupation of the premises of the former Croxteth school.

Is the Minister aware that the occupation by the parents and the action committee, who have been providing classes and meals throughout the winter, has captured the imagination of the people of Liverpool? Is he further aware that they have recently been served with a summons for a rates bill of £27,000?

It should be made clear that the school was closed, not by my Department, but by the Liverpool education authority with the agreement of my Department. It did so because the school was under-subscribed, with only between 50 and 60 per cent. of the places being filled. Only one pupil from outside the catchment area attended Croxteth school in its last year, while one third of the children inside its catchment area opted out. Therefore, there was nothing to show at that stage that there was any massive support for the school, but we have noticed what has happened since.

How can the Minister persuade us or anybody else that he is in favour of parental choice if he uses his powers to prevent parents wishing to keep a school open from doing so? Would Croxteth qualify for a voucher system, if such existed?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is yes, so he can join the ranks of those who support the voucher system. If only three parents wish their children to attend a certain school, do we keep it open when it should provide 1,500 or 2,000 places? There must be a limit.

They could use the vouchers.

Yes, parents could pay the teachers with vouchers. I have already explained that parents opted out of the catchment area for the Croxteth school in favour of the Ellergreen school. They believed that Ellergreen school was more satisfactory because of the facilities that it could provide.

Does the Minister realise that he makes himself look even more incredible than usual by advertising the idea that the Tory party is in favour of choice, while imposing enormous qualifications and restrictions? Have not the parents at Croxteth effectively demonstrated their preference for that school by making enormous sacrifices to provide their children with education at that school?

The Opposition's lackaday belief in parental choice is suspicious. If Croxteth school had been full, and if parents had been queueing for places for their children, the local authority would not have issued a section 12 notice to close the school. The school was not full. It was running down. People did not wish to move within the area; they wished to move out. The local authority suggested the closure and my Department agreed. Another factor is that there is a limit on the number of full courses that a small secondary school can provide. There were only 24 pupils in the sixth form, and three sixth form classes had only one pupil each. Even with their alchemist sense of finance, the Opposition must find that excessive.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many unemployed teachers there were 10 years ago, five years ago and last year in (a) primary education, (b) secondary education and (c) further education.

In round figures, the numbers of people registered as unemployed and seeking teaching posts in England in September 1973, 1978 and 1982, respectively were 1,000, 4,000 and 9,000 for posts in primary schools; 1,000, 6,000 and 13,000 for posts in secondary schools; and 1,000, 3,000 and 6,000 for posts in higher and further education.

Why should there be any unemployed teachers in Britain in an era in which education is, if anything, more important than it has been throughout our history?

The teaching force has fallen proportionately far less than the number of children in schools. The more jobs that are not justified in the public sector, the fewer there will be in the private sector. The trading base has been partly wrecked in the past by Government overspending.

What efforts are being made by my right hon. Friend's Department to ensure that some of the 13,000 unemployed secondary school teachers receive retraining so that they can teach some of the shortage subjects that are important to the future of Britain and its industrial base—for example, mathematics?

I cannot give an immediate answer to that question. Retraining courses are available, and there will be an increasing demand for retraining to meet the expected rise in numbers in primary education.

The Secretary of State has revealed that there are nearly 30,000 unemployed trained teachers in England. What other avenues of employment would he recommend them to seek?

There must be an infinite number of answers to that question. The proportion of teachers unemployed is, I fear, far less than the proportion of unemployed people with other skills in the private and public sectors because of the bad state of the economy, due, in part, to excessive Labour Government spending, with its consequences on inflation, interest rates and taxation.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under the new technical education initiative being organised by the Manpower Services Commission additional funds will be available for retraining unemployed teachers? Should not local authorities, therefore, lose no time in making applications for those funds?

My hon. Friend is right in general, but I would not wish to encourage too large a hope for additional teaching numbers in the new pilot scheme. Large numbers of local education authorities have already expressed interest.

If the Secretary of State is interested in increasing parental choice and improving education standards, does he agree that one of the quickest ways of doing that is by putting those 30,000 teachers back to work? Does he propose instead to close or permit the closure of even more than the 350 schools whose closure he has allowed in the past three years?

The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that there are now 1 million fewer children in schools than there were seven years ago. He also ignores the problem of who would pay for the extra teachers in post. Presumably he would be happy to see more firms go bankrupt and more people thrown out of work in the private sector to pay for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future remit for a national body for continuing education, following the termination of the present council's remit at the end of October.

My right hon. Friend is reviewing the need for a Government—financed national body for adult and continuing education and hopes to make a statement in the spring.

I welcome the proposals for the establishment of a national body for continuing education, the details of which, I understand, have been sent to the Department anyway. Does the Minister agree that the most important step that can be taken in this regard is to provide a statutory basis for adult education? When will the Government introduce legislation on that issue?

We are considering the matter raised in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is unlikely that ACACE will continue in its present form. It has accepted that its continuation is not sensible. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, a statement on adult education reform will be made in due course.

Does the Minister agree that there is a self-evident need for a development, rather than a reduction, of adult and continuing education, bearing in mind changing technology? Does he agree that that requires a national body with development powers and resources of a kind that the existing structure does not have?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government attach great importance to adult and continuing education. I pray in aid the PICKUP scheme, which is the subject of the next question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that adult education will never have the status and scope that it ought to have until it has a statutory basis? Will he reconsider what he said earlier?

I have said only that no decision has yet been made. When it is made, it will be announced.

The Minister has said that he is reviewing the need for such a body. Has not the work of ACACE in the past five years proved the existence of that need beyond any peradventure? Does he agree that it would have been more appropriate today to have paid tribute to the work of that body in the past five years? Even the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), now realises that we need a statutory basis for adult and continuing education. Why cannot the Government say that, in principle, they recognise that?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to express the Government's thanks for the work that ACACE has done. It has worked hard and performed extraordinarily well. We are grateful to it. Nevertheless, it believes that the six years during which it has existed is probably enough to fulfil its present remit. We are considering the remit that it has recommended to US.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what importance he attaches to the provision of mid-career education and training opportunities.

Our initiative for professional, industrial and commercial updating, known as PICKUP, reflects the considerable importance we attach to the provision of mid-career education and training opportunities.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. What discussions has his Department had with other relevant Departments, especially the Departments of Industry, Employment and Health and Social Security, to achieve a co-ordinated strategy for mid-career training?

I assure my hon. Friend that discussions have been continuous and fairly extensive. I can cite as an example the workshops that have been held throughout the country. Eight have already been held and a further seven are planned. They are meant to bring together the various bodies that my hon. Friend mentioned for discussions on how the scheme may best proceed.

Is the Minister aware that many people who have taken mid-career educational courses have subsequently found themselves unemployed? In those circumstances, is it not nonsensical for us to talk about mid-career education, when the Government are doing nothing about giving the type of boost to industry that is necessary to give people the opportunity to make use of whatever skills they acquire?

It seems that most of the people who are taking part in the PICKUP scheme are in employment and updating their skills for continuing employment. I accept that there may be some who find that they are unemployed. Nevertheless, in general, the scheme is for people in employment. By and large, the fees are paid for by the company for which those people work.

Although a great deal has been done in the past three years, does my hon. Friend agree that present circumstances highlight the weakness of the grant structure, especially for those who have taken a first degree and are not entitled to take a second? Does he agree that that brings the problem of discretionary grants into the discussion?

That is an interesting question, but it is different from the one that we are considering. Should the Government decide to introduce a loan scheme, it would be interesting to see whether that scheme could be extended to cover people in adult and continuing education.

Does the Minister agree that the PICKUP programme is utterly inadequate in view of the rapidly changing circumstances of automation in industry? Does he agree also that it is time that we took off the shelves the tremendous number of reports in the Minister's Department and tried to achieve a more active programme of work that will meet the changing conditions in which we now live?

The Department has put £2 million towards the programme. That is more than the Labour Government ever did. Indeed, the Labour Government had no scheme of any sort.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive a further report from the Swann committee on the education of ethnic minority children.

The committee expects to submit its final report later this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the objective must be to enable the children of racial minorities to get the same benefit from school as the rest of British children? Does he agree that care must be taken not to put them into a special category, which cuts them off from the majority?

I agree wholeheartedly with both of my hon. Friend's propositions.

While the Secretary of State is waiting for that further report, may I ask what advice he will give to headmasters whose schools have a majority of non-Christian children, about carrying out their legal obligations to provide religious instruction as outlined by the Education Act 1944?

Decisions about advice to schools are for local education authorities.

With regard to the division in the committee as to whether discrimination or disadvantage is the cause of non-achievement among West Indians, does the Secretary of State agree that it would help if he told the committee that it ought to address its mind to both subjects, as both are relevant to underachievement?

I fear that I did not hear the first word of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall draw the attention of Lord Swann to the hon. Gentleman's question so that he can see what he has said.

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

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to meet the University Grants Committee, but my right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with the committee's chairman.

When the Minister next meets the University Grants Committee, will he tell it to reverse the savage cuts it has imposed on universities such as Bradford, Aston and Salford, so as to give young people a wider opportunity of choice, and so that the many thousands of young people who have been denied the opportunity of a university education can have that chance? Does he agree that it is significant that the only college to obtain university status is the private, Right-wing extremist college which is now the University of Buckingham? Does he further agree that that shows that the Government are pursuing their policy of private affluence and public squalor in the university sector?

The absurdity of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's proposition is covered by privilege. I do not think that he would want to say it outside the House. It was a foolish remark. With regard to the first part of his question, we have often debated the reshaping of the university system.

When he next meets the University Grants Committee, will the Minister bring to its attention the fact that, despite its priorities for engineering and industry, the largest increase in the most recent applications is of students who wish to study classics? Is he aware that the number has increased by 12 per cent.? Does he further agree that that is utterly ridiculous and that it is time other priorities were established and enforced?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is deceived by an increase in a small base number. The overall increase in science and technology by the end of the period will be much larger in absolute numbers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many catering advisers his Department employs; and at what cost to public funds.

Two, at a total salary cost of £30,904.

Why does my right hon. Friend need this advice? Cannot the task of deciding what is fit for children to eat in schools safely be left to local education authorities?

I need this advice to enable me to persuade more education authorities to copy the example of the substantial minority that are still providing an excellent choice for children who want school meals at much less cost.

Does the Secretary of State agree that his advisers, however inadequate, are proving much more successful than those who advise the Prime Minister?

I think that I can safely say that that is rubbish. My Department employed 10 catering advisers, but now, because of the effective economies of many local education authorities, it needs only two.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the new research fellowships in science and technology he announced in December are going to universities and to research councils, respectively.

The 45 additional research fellowships in information technology subjects will be funded by the Science and Engineering Research Council and located in institutions of higher education. The 200 new lecturer appointments in the natural sciences, and the 70 such appointments in information technology subjects, will be funded by the University Grants Committee.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern in the west midlands that the technical research places lost at Midland universities, especially at Aston, should now be replaced under the scheme in view of the importance of higher technology to the industries of the region and in accordance with what we understood to be Government policy, which included the funding of a science park?

The Government have met all the recommendations of the Alvey committee on information technology on the provision of extra students and teachers. It is open to Aston university to bid for some of these places.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue guidance to local education authorities as to appropriate teaching material relating to peace studies and defence.

It is for schools themselves to decide exactly what they will teach, but what is offered should always be education and not indoctrination. Care should be taken not to overload the curriculum.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one-sided propaganda for one-sided disarmament is circulating in our schools? Will he ascertain to what extent local education authorities and head teachers are making use of the excellent material that is provided by Government Departments giving a balanced view of this great issue, so that it may be sensibly covered?

If my hon. Friend has evidence of one-sided propaganda going into schools we shall be glad to receive it, as we receive material from others. The Foreign Office has material available and it sends it to schools that wish to receive it. We have made that public property.

Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is right and that one-sided material from the Ministry of Defence is pouring into our schools, which has not been asked for by the schools? As previous Governments have taken action to prevent unsolicited mail arriving at private houses, will the hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence with a view to stopping this unsolicited flow of one-sided material into the schools?

I am informed that material from the Ministry of Defence goes out only to schools that request it. Material from the Foreign Office—it was sent out originally at the suggestion of the National Union of Teachers—was distributed widely. As I have said, material from the MOD is sent only at the request of the schools. It is for the heads and staff of the schools to decide what use is made of whatever material appears in the schools.

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the teaching at schools is bound to be history? Does he accept that the 37 years of peace in Europe, which have been secured by successive Governments following the same policies, form part of the overall issue of peace and defence?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The way in which peace is kept and freedom is maintained is part of history and teaching thereof. The fact that peace has been kept ever since the second world war through the strength of the West is something that should be covered in history.

In the interests of balance, will the Minister draw to the attention of schools the fact that we live in a country in which the Government increased their defence expenditure by 10·9 per cent. in the current year while cutting education expenditure in real terms by 0·5 per cent?

It might be advisable for the hon. Gentleman to note that we have 1 million fewer children in our schools than seven years ago. There is no doubt that the mass of the British people are delighted that we are able to defend ourselves against any external threat.

asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase financial assistance to pupils remaining at school after they are 16 years old.

We have no such plans at present.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate all state schools on the excellent job that they do and dissuade her ministerial colleagues from continuing to attack them with policies such as the voucher scheme? Will she persuade her Ministers to put all their energies into extending opportunities of choice for 16-year-olds who would like to stay on in sixth forms but who do not have the financial means to do so?

I am always congratulating those who are doing an excellent job and I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. As to the Child Poverty Action Group, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman was referring, its scheme would cost £500 million a year. Most of that would be spent on those who would stay on in education anyway. There has been a significant increase in recent years in the number of 16-year-olds who are staying on in education, which is very good news.

Will my right hon. Friend consider examining whether the pattern of financial assistance for those of school-leaving age and above is what she believes to be rational? Will she come forward with Proposals —preferably after she has had success at the next election—for a more rational scheme than the present one?

We have considered the scheme and the varying grants that are available across the board. It is not easy to make changes without introducing more anomalies. That is the problem.

Will the Prime Minister consider the fact that, in this year of grace, we are spending more on locking up young people than on providing for their further training and employment?

We are spending a large amount on providng for their further training and employment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a new scheme will be introduced in September, which will cost about £2 billion, for training young people. We would hope that by the age of 16 young people will either stay on in education, have a job, or have some training, so that unemployment is not an option.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it pays some 16-year-olds who have left school, and for whom places are available at work centres, to stay at home because the cost of transport to the centres has to be taken from their supplementary benefit payments? Will she ask her right hon. Friends to consider removing this disincentive so that more of our 16-year-olds may spend their time on worthwhile employment rather than sit at home doing nothing?

Yes. I shall do that, but I believe that special travelling allowances are provided for journeys to some skill centres.

Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough to confirm to us that it is a £2 billion scheme? We are gratified to learn that she is moving in the direction that we have been advocating. I hope that she will confirm the figure here and now. We shall certainly welcome it and show our usual generosity in doing so.

The amount has not been increased. The scheme will cost a great deal over a long period.

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

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of countries are deserting monetarist policies? Will she accept that she, too, has a splendid opportunity to respond in that way by accepting the recommendations of the second report of the Brandt commission? Will she, therefore, offer hope to 4 million unemployed in this country and those in the developing world, who are suffering from starvation?

As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has looked at the many communiqués from the economic summits, their top priority is to keep inflation down and to try to get interest rates down as a means of increasing employment in all our countries as well as making us competitive in goods that we send to the developing countries. He will also know that the London Business School's recent studies concluded that reflation is little help on jobs and that it could result in putting up the numbers of people out of work as well as vastly putting up the level of inflation.

During the course of the day will my right hon. Friend send a sharp note to those responsible for buying the food for the British forces in the Falklands and tell them that we have a "Buy British" campaign? Is she aware that when the Select Committee on Defence was in the Falklands last week it was surprised to find that the apples were from France, the bacon from Denmark, the pork from eastern Europe—

The corned beef from Argentina.

—the beef from Uruguay and the tinned beef from the Argentine? We found some cabbages from Lincolnshire, but surely Britain can do better than that?

Having helped to launch the Food from Britain campaign, I shall certainly see that my hon. Friend's strictures are brought to the attention of the appropriate people and hope that British food firms will be urged to put in competitive tenders to feed British soldiers.

May I return to the question that I asked the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, now that she has the facts of the case? Does she intend to intervene with the Allied Corporation of New Jersey to stop the transfer of a profitable subsidiary company in high technology from this country to Germany, with the loss of 500 jobs?

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman means the Linotype company in Cheltenham—

indicated assent

He did not, in fact, mention it. I understand that no financial inducements were offered by the state of Hessen, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will probably have heard at lunchtime, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is meeting the management of this company to see whether anything can be done. I should also point out that we do have a great deal of inward investment. Indeed, last year inward investment provided some 10,000 jobs.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 22 February.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the information given in parliamentary answers shows that most people, particularly those on the smallest incomes, are paying considerably more in income tax and national insurance than in 1978–79, while the most wealthy are paying substantially less? Does the right hon. Lady believe that a few pre-election tax bribes in the Budget will help to disguise the fact that her Government have been dedicated to helping the rich at the expense of the rest of the community?

The hon. Gentleman is correct on one thing. We certainly did reduce the level of tax on top earnings to 60 per cent. It was an overdue reform, as we depend so greatly on management if we are to be competitive in future. With regard to the level of income tax and national insurance, the Labour party is always urging me to spend more or to increase pensions, unemployment benefit or sickness benefit. By how much would the hon. Gentleman increase taxation? By how much would he increase national insurance, or, alternatively, by how much would he reduce public expenditure?

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to see reports in the paper to the effect that the Labour group on the GLC is apparently proposing to give a grant of £50,000 to the "Troops Out" movement? Will she take this opportunity to condemn it, not only as an abuse of the spending of ratepayers' money, but as an affront to the whole of our nation?

Yes, I wholly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that this is an abuse of ratepayers' money. I believe that it is an insult to our security forces, the army and the police, whose job it is to protect the weak and the innocent—a task which they are carrying out magnificently.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to recent Government publications, living standards under her Government have fallen by no less than 8 per cent. since the fourth quarter of 1979? Is she also aware that, contrary to all her election promises, the tax burden on the average family has increased under her Government by no less than 15 per cent.? Does this not suggest that her Government have not only been a catastrophe for the unemployed but pretty much a disaster for those still in work?

I note that the hon. Gentleman is always careful to take the last quarter of the Labour Government. If he considers real personal disposable income, he will find that it dropped substantially in 1975, in 1976 and in 1977 and that for the greater part of our time—

Wriggle, wriggle.

—it has been well above what it was during the lifetime of the Labour Government. With regard to taxation, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me a list of the expenditure that he would reduce.

Not doing very well today.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that none of the other parties in the House has any policy for the developing technologies, which are providing new jobs and will continue to do so? Knowing, as I do, my right hon. Friend's commitment to these developments, does she think that even the fourfold increase that her Government have given to these developments—as compared with that of the Labour Government—is enough?

We have increased expenditure under the Science and Technology Act 1965 in real terms by 50 per cent. In specific areas, such as information technology—we have to be specific on this, because general increases in Government expenditure will not necessarily help—we have increased it from £50 million in 1979 to a target of £200 million in 1983.

Since the right hon. Lady is so eager to clear up these questions of taxation and her own promises in the matter, may I ask how much a person has to earn per week to get tax relief under her Government, and how that compare, with the pledges that she made at the last election?

The right hon. Gentleman has concentratedare on increases in taxation. Yes, there have been increases in taxation for many people. It is absolutely essential. If one is to have public expenditure, one must cover it largely by taxation. I can only ask the right hon. Gentleman, again and again, if he wants taxation to come down, as I do, to say precisely where he will cut public expenditure. Will it be only in defence?

Can the right hon. Lady point to one occasion on which she told the country what the tax reliefs were to be and when she said that the tax reliefs would be confined only to the top people in the country?

That is not so. The standard rate of income tax was 33p in the pound—it is now 30p.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the police support unit of the Greater London council is recommending a grant of £50,000 to the "Troops Out" movement? Will she, in an effort to improve Anglo-Irish relations, confirm that her Government have no intention of amending the Ireland Act 1949 to disfranchise Irish citizens resident in Britain?

The right hon. Lady asked two questions. I understand that the GLC police committee will today consider the grant. As to her second question, I have no announcement of any sort to make.