asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of 18-year-olds entered university in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982; and how this compares with the expected figures for 1983 and 1984.

Young home entrants to university were 7·5 per cent. of the 18-year-old age group from 1978 to 1980, 7·2 per cent. in 1981 and 6·9 per cent. in 1982. The University Grants Committee's planning targets imply a figure of about 6·6 per cent. by 1984. The comparable participation rate in higher education as a whole has risen from 12·4 per cent. in 1978 to 13·5 per cent. in 1982.

Does the Minister agree that the cuts in opportunities for young people to go to universities are outstanding acts of vandalism by the Government? As the Government now claim that economic recovery is under way, why do they not expand the opportunities in universities to take advantage of those extra resources this autumn and next year?

The limitation on the numbers in universities as opposed to other institutions of higher education was sought by the UGC to protect the research base. The Government can stand proudly on their record of providing increased opportunities overall in higher education.

Is the Minister aware that, compared with most industrial countries, we are cutting back on higher education? Can he justify the savage attacks on the technological universities, which one would think should be at the centre of our industrial recovery?

The right hon. Lady will be interested to know that of the large numbers of overseas Ministers who visit the Department from time to time, almost all are grappling with the problem of having to restrain expenditure on education. As for savage attacks on technological universities, the right hon. Lady should note that at the top of the UGC's list were two former colleges of advanced technology, allowing for the absurd distinction between technological and other universities.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that there has been a warm welcome in many university sectors for the latest decision on fees for overseas students?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many in the university sector have welcomed this decision.

As the Minister has encouraged the public sector to raise numbers over the next two years, why does he not take a similarly hard line with the UGC over the figures for 1984–85? Does he realise that most of us see this as the division of higher education into two sectors across the binary line — an elite sector in universities and an under-provided and under-privileged but larger sector in the public sector.

It must be for the public sector institutions to judge how many students they can take without damaging standards. The hon. Gentleman knows that the greater part of our effort on research is concentrated on the university side. That is why the UGC took the line that it did.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to commence consultations on the proposals in his recent White Paper on teacher training.

The policies announced in "Teaching Quality" followed extensive consultation. I shall be discussing their implementation with representatives of the local education authorities tomorrow.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one of the most welcome aspects of this remarkable White Paper is the emphasis on associating more fully teachers in active practice with the training of teachers? Will there be further consultations on that aspect, or have there been sufficient?

So far we have had no requests to discuss policies on teaching quality outside the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers forum, but if any are made we shall be ready to consider them.

Will the Secretary of State help me to solve a puzzle? Some hon. Members thought that the right hon. Gentleman was interested in allowing market forces to run. If so, why does he insist in the White Paper on prescribing to local authorities and schools the exact qualifications that teachers must have rather than trusting those at the grass roots to hire the best people?

If the hon. Gentleman had read the White Paper with care he would have found that no precise prescription is laid down. All that I do—I am justified in doing so—is to ask local education authorities to pay attention to teachers' qualifications in matching the needs of the curriculum.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he can report any further developments from his investigations into the feasibility of education vouchers.

I am still considering various possibilities, including education vouchers, to extend parental choice and responsibility in education.

In view of the widespread opposition and minimal support that has been generated in the recent debate on education vouchers, should not the whole subject be dropped?

It is a little premature to come to a conclusion either way. All concerned would agree that so far the case for vouchers has not been explicitly put. All that I have said is that the idea has some attraction to me. No decision has been made, and it would be premature at this stage to come to one.

Is the Secretary of State still discussing a voucher scheme with the Sefton metropolitan district council? Is he planning any pilot schemes, including one for the Sefton metropolitan district council area? Is he planning to introduce such schemes, and, if so, when?

The answers to those three questions are no, no, and no decision has been made.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider whether the best way to persuade and clarify the minds of hon. Members on vouchers might be to introduce pilot schemes?

If any voucher proposal were put forward, it is probable that it would include a pilot element; but for that legislation would be necessary, and no decision has been made by the Government.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will not come to the House again and complain that no one has made an explicit case for vouchers, when he appears to be the only person who supports them? Is not this another way of indulging his usual penchant for self-criticism?

No, I am making a genuine point. There is a strong case for increasing parental choice, and the Government are considering various ways in which that might be achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with trends in expenditure on textbooks in schools; and if he will make a statement.

We have made it clear that we should like to see the level of spending per pupil on new books and equipment increase. To this end we made an extra allowance for increased expenditure on books and equipment in each of the last two rate support grant settlements. But it is for local authorities to determine how the total resources available to them should be deployed, in the light of local circumstances and other claims on them.

Does the Minister recognise that increasing numbers of pupils in schools are forced to manage without textbooks, unless their parents can afford to buy them, which puts them at a serious disadvantage, particularly when they are tackling homework? Is it not madness to accept that state of affairs while printing and publishing firms are making people redundant, who will then have to be supported at the public expense for producing nothing?

In the past two years £20 million extra has been spent on books by the Government. That is £5 per pupil— two books at £2.50 each. When I and many other hon. Members were at school, we did not have two new books per pupil per year.

Is it not significant that Conservative Members are not complaining about the lack of textbooks, because they buy them privately? Her Majesty's inspectors, in their annual report, complain bitterly about the lack of textbooks in schools, as does the Educational Publishers Association. Is it not obvious that the public education system is losing out and that education is going backwards under this wretched Government?

We all enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Perhaps I am in a minority on that. However, I like and accept the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to the literacy of book-buying Conservatives.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of the education budget is now being spent on the education of adults and their retraining for new jobs.

In 1982–83, some £750 million of my right hon. Friend's programme was spent by local education authorities, universities and other agencies on the vocational and general education of adults, including retraining.

I am aware of the progress that is being made under the scheme called "Pickup" for those in jobs, but what is being done for unemployed adults? Does my hon. Friend agree that those who are declared redundant in middle age—as Labour Members will be at the next general election—may be most in need of educational help to prepare them for new jobs and vocations?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind reference to "Pickup". It is an example of a good programme on a modest budget. It is a pity that the Labour Government did not introduce a similar scheme.

When will adult education be put on a legislative basis?

We are considering that matter and will make an announcement in due course.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is faintly anachronistic to spend more than 99 per cent. of the education budget on education up to and including university when the greater proportion of the population subsequently have a tiny proportion of the education budget? Will he continue to fight his right hon. and hon. Friends within the Department and the Treasury to obtain a greater share of the resources for that highly cost-effective form of spending?

My hon. Friend is overstating the difficulty. The figure that I quoted is nearly 7 per cent. of recurrent education expenditure, but when times improve we shall spend more on adult education.

What is the purpose of spending public money to train an unemployed bricklayer to become an unemployed joiner?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. This is a matter for the Manpower Services Commission, not the Department of Education and Science. It has always seemed to me to be the weakest of cases to say that people should not be trained because they may not get a job after training.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the decline in the numbers of teachers of Russian, German and Spanish.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no recent representations on this subject.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government's cuts in educational expenditure have meant a slump in the teaching of so-called minority languages, particularly Spanish and Russian? As hundreds of millions of people around the world speak such languages, would it not be better for us to spend just a few hundred thousand pounds teaching our children to speak to those people instead of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on learning how to kill them?

All hon. Members appreciate the problem of minority languages in British schools. Ninety-two per cent. of pupils who begin learning foreign languages start with French, and only a small number learn other languages. I have good news. During the past 10 years the percentage of 16-year-olds taking O-level German has increased by 52 per cent, and by 22 per cent. for Spanish. Over the same period there has been a drop of 53 per cent. from a small base of those taking O-level Russian, but that may represent the unpopularity of Russia with British parents.

Does the Minister recognise that the enforcement of staffing ratios in response to falling rolls means that many schools are dispensing with teachers of minority subjects? Britain is going backwards in the teaching not only of minority languages, but of all languages at A-level. Unless the Minister does something about it, we shall continue to go backwards.

What about regional accents as well?

There are several regional accents in the House, including those of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made in establishing a significant centre of teacher education and training in the north-east of England.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 22 February 1983.

Can the Minister tell the House why, after the closure of 10 such colleges in the north-east in recent years, the Secretary of State gave a firm promise in November of last year that he would establish what he called a significant centre of teacher education in the area? If he meant that, will he, some six or seven months later, give a date for the establishment of such a centre and its location? There is considerable mistrust in the north-east of the Minister's intentions.

The commitment is firm. When I answered the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed I made it clear that the Government would need to examine the demand for places in existing colleges. The Government must receive the report from ACSET next year. The Government's firm commitment is to build up such a centre in one of the most obvious centres, during the next two or three years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to announce the student grant levels for 1983–84.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 November 1982 that the main rates of grant for mandatory awards in 1983–84 would be increased by 4 per cent. He hopes to issue details of the new rates of grant shortly.

Does the Minister accept that the continuing uncertainty is causing great problems to universities and students? Does he further accept that this year there is a need to determine the grant on the basis of a student needs index rather than inflation? Furthermore, does he accept that the inconsistency between one university and another works against some students? Is he aware that at Liverpool university costs in the halls are £100 more than at Hull university?

Grants will be increased by an amount that the country can afford. That has always been the position. However, there is an element of uncertainty. My right hon. Friend has gone out of his way in the past two years to announce the basic rate of increase well in advance, thereby diminishing that uncertainty.

Will the Minister confirm, when reviewing grants, that the student loan scheme is dead?

The hon. Gentleman must await further news on that subject.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the substantially higher increase in the base rate at which parental contributions operate will be implemented in accordance with the welcome announcement?

The 8 per cent. uprating of the threshold will be implemented. My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is a useful and important step.

Does the Minister appreciate that an increase of £5 a week is needed if a full-time university student is properly to maintain himself? When the Minister is examining next year's budget, will he consider that?

The Government will examine what the country can afford next year. Britain has more students in higher education than ever before, which shows that the awards are not a disincentive.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that there may be a place for a loan scheme provided that it does not replace the grant scheme and is in addition to it?

There are various options that have varying degrees of support.

As the Department of Education and Science is borrowing a Labour principle, namely that the cost of education should be set against the cost of keeping those students on the dole, will there be a consequent uprating in the level of student grant to alleviate the hardships that students have faced during the past few years?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood a story which itself contains some misunderstanding.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the report of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on the effects of financial policies on educational standards in 1982.

Her Majesty's inspectorate is preparing this report at present. The report will be published, as were those produced by HMI last year and the year before.

As the report for last year was published as early as 5 April, is the Secretary of State delaying publication this year because it is embarrassing, or is it simply because of incompetence?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not control the writing of the report or its completion. That is in the hands of HMI. When it is completed, it will be published.

Will my right hon. Friend view this report with caution, especially when relating education standards to finance? My local authority is not among the high spenders in education, but it produces excellent results. The problem cannot be solved by throwing money at it.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The report is about the provision of education and not about its outcome.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the report this year makes public those authorities that have the highest level of provision and those that have the lowest level, rather than having the names of the authorities forced out of the Government after a hearing before the Select Committee?

I do not control the contents of the report.

Is it not a fact that previous reports have recognised the relationship between falling school rolls and education expenditure, and that there is no reason to believe that this report should not do the same?

I am sure that Her Majesty's senior chief inspector will note my hon. Friend's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities choose to transfer pupils to secondary schools at the age of 12 years.

In January 1982, the latest date for which information is available, there were two local education authorities in England where all pupils were normally transferred from middle deemed primary schools to comprehensive schools at the age of 12 years and a further 22 authorities where some pupils were transferred at the age of 12.

I think that it would be right to conclude from that helpful answer that it is a minority practice to transfer at the age of 12. What guidance does my hon. Friend give local authorities—if any—about the age of transfers? Are any comments made in that guidance on the problems that might arise when the age of transfer is changed and how they can best be tackled?

If there are different ages for changing between primary and secondary, or middle and thud, schools in different areas of the country, there will be problems, particularly if parents move from one local authority to another. However, unless experiments are made in transferring at different ages, with the curriculum that fits that, the position will remain static and there will be no possibility of improvement. Two inspectors' reports are due shortly. One deals with the middle school and with children up to the age of 12, and the other with the middle school and with children up to the age of 13. They should help my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards local education authority proposals for the reintroduction of grammar schools.

We believe that the elected local education authority is best placed to form a view about what form of secondary education suits local needs and parental wishes. It is free to publish proposals to reintroduce grammar schools, and such proposals would be considered on their individual merits by my right hon. Friend as they came to him.

Does not the respect of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for local and parental choice contrast with the bigoted denial of such choice by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) when she was part of a Socialist Administration? Do not falling school rolls argue the necessity for schools to provide for special needs and for gifted children, who are sometimes neglected in the comprehensive system?

One of this Government's first steps was to repeal the Labour Government's Act, which compelled all local authorities to go comprehensive, thereby respecting the fact that local authorities know what is best for their area. There is a great difference of view on this issue between us and the Opposition. Children with special needs—whether they have more or less ability than the average—may in some instances need to go to special schools. That is why we introduced the assisted places scheme. Nearly 10,000 children—two thirds of them from families with below average incomes — are receiving superb education in schools with excellent sixth forms.

Is the Minister aware that grammar schools imply secondary modern schools and that very few parents would choose to send their children to secondary modern schools? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore stop using the term "parental choice", as it is meaningless to four fifths of parents in this country?

The hon. Lady's question is amazing for an ex-Minister who took away parental choice in many areas of the country. We have always favoured a parental choice over the school—

What about Croxteth comprehensive?

If the hon. Gentleman keeps quiet for a minute I shall give him an answer that might shock him. That school closed because the exercise of parental choice meant that most of the children had gone elsewhere. That decision was based on parental choice. I shall send the hon. Gentleman the figures, and if he is numerate he will understand them.

Does not the Under-Secretary —[Interruption.] I should like to convey the driver's apology for the lateness of my train. I apologise for that. Does the hon. Gentleman not yet understand that by using a selective secondary schooling system he is bound — whatever it may do for the wishes of a minority—to diminish the choice and rights of the majority? If the Under-Secretary of State is in favour of local authorities taking decisions why did he set aside Dorset local education authority's proposition to abolish two grammar schools?

The number of Labour Members who come to me with requests that local authority decisions should not be carried through shows that the hon. Gentleman's view is in a minority in his party. We have decreased parental choice by establishing, not comprehensive, but neighbourhood schools. The percentage of working-class children going to university has fallen since the move to comprehensive schools and that shows what the Labour Government did to the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when, following his statement on plans to improve the quality of school teachers, Official Report, 21 March, columns 540–46, he expects to receive further advice from the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers on the new criteria to be applied to the new course proposals of training institutions starting in September; and if he will make a statement.

I have asked the advisory committee to aim at submitting recommendations to me by the end of July 1983, so that I can establish criteria to be applied to new course proposals during the academic year which begins in September. It is also my intention to review existing approved courses in the light of the criteria.

Does my right hon. friend agree that when local education authorities select teachers for posts after they have been on the new courses in our training institutes they should pay special regard to whether the teacher has been trained for a primary or secondary school, because of the rapid changes in the curriculum?

Yes, that is a valid point.

With regard to the supply and education of teachers, may I ask how many thousands of letters the Secretary of State has received objecting to his decision to close the initial teacher training college courses at the De la Salle college in Middleton in my constituency? How many extra staff has he had to draft in to his Department to answer those letters?

I do not know the answer to that question. If it does not involve too much work I shall send the hon. Gentleman information about the order of magnitude. I believe that the answer to his second question is none.

What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to make it easier for local education authorities to dismiss poor and inefficient teachers'?

It is not in my power to take any steps other than to urge local education authorities to remember that it is their duty, and in the interest of the children, after providing any extra in-service training that is justified, in the ultimate to dismiss a bad teacher.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had recently with the Commission for Racial Equality concerning education of the ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality

When my hon. Friend next meets representatives of the Commission for Racial Equality, will he make it clear that it is no part of this Government's policy to favour policies or measures of positive discrimination in favour of the ethnic minorities?

As I have said several times, the Government's policy is to give every opportunity to all children in our schools, regardless of background, so that they can fit easily into British society, both for their good and for that of our society.

May I generally endorse that sentiment and ask for the resources implied by it? Will the Under-Secretary of State ask the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), who asks such questions at every Education Question Time, at least to be direct and open in his frank racism, instead of hiding behind the contortion of words that he uses?

About £30 million goes into the urban programme and much of that is spent on education. I remind hon. Members of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 and the weighting of the block grant. Quite a considerable sum is spent on helping schools with the education of minority groups so that they can take full advantage of the education being offered.

I welcome my hon. Friend's earlier answer on the education of ethnic minorities. Does he share my concern about the reported intention of Mrs. Frances Morrell to suggest that the education of such youngsters in ILEA schools should place priority on their language of origin rather than on English? Should it not be the other way round?

The important point is that all children should leave school numerate, and speaking and writing fluent English. If children come from homes in which no English is spoken, they can be taught at an early age—provided there are enough of them to make it economic —English grammar in parallel with their own language. Tests show that by the age of seven or eight such children do better in English. There is no reason why children should not learn their original language as the second modern language instead of, for example, French.

I welcome the Minister's statement and his recognition that Britain is a multi-lingual society. I also welcome his comments to the effect that the teaching of a child's mother tongue, particularly in inner cities, can be helpful in the development of his English. However, will he give an assurance that he will make the resources available and that he will respond to the recommendations of the Select Committee—to which he has, as yet, still not responded—and also to the recent statement by the Commission for Racial Equality about ethnic minority community languages?

In reply to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) I mentioned three areas to which considerable sums of money are being allocated for this purpose. We are also expecting this year the Swann report —the final report—in which, I am told, there will be a considerable amount of information and advice on the teaching of minority languages.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils of secondary age are being educated in (a) comprehensive schools, (b) secondary modern schools and (c) private schools, respectively.

In January 1982 the numbers in round figures of pupils aged 11 years and over in England in comprehensive schools, secondary modern schools and independent schools were 3·3 million, 211,000 and 311,000 respectively.

Will the Minister pay tribute to the reorganisation of education, which abolished the 11-plus? Is he aware that vast numbers of children hated it and parents suspected it from the very beginning? Will he pay a tribute to those teachers who brought the reorganisation to fruition, with the result that children are now passing more examinations than ever before? Will he reconsider his and the Government's plans to disrupt this step by such nonsense as the introduction of voucher schemes, assisted places schemes and other such elitist schemes, which are all destined to give a better education to fewer children than ever before?

If the hon. Gentleman judges educational results by examinations at 16 and 18, the most rapid improvement in Britain took place between 1958 and 1968. The improvement since then has been marginal. With regard to his second point, where local authorities have reorganised at their wish, at the wish of parents and at the wish of teachers, we will by all means congratulate them, but where schools are reorganised at the direction of the Government against the wishes of parents and teachers of the area, no congratulations will be given.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is so bigoted that he could not even manage to mention in his question the grammar schools of this country?

I note what my hon. Friend says. If the hon. Gentleman had asked how many children were going to those schools, I could have told him. The number is 123,822.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to compliment the comprehensive schools on their tremendous achievements since their inception? Will he resist any attempt to bring back a 10-plus education system which, in the past, denied great education opportunities to youngsters?

I am sure that everyone will congratulate any school—comprehensive, grammar or independent—that does well. The test should be the value of the school, not the label put on it outside. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we do not change things. Changes come about now only at the wish of local authorities. The direction operated under the Labour Government no longer applies.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the number of schools that are equipped with microcomputers.

Yes, Sir. Virtually all secondary schools are now equipped with at least one microputer and the majority of primary schools are expected to have at least one by December 1984.

Schools and education authorities have, perhaps understandably, standardised on the Acorn computer in conjunction with the BBC micro, using the corporation's name as a marketing tool, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there remains every opportunity for smaller computer companies to take advantage of the expanding market that still remains for selling these items to schools?

There are two British-made computers in secondary schools—the BBC micro, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the research machine, the 48 CZ. Primary schools have both those computers and the Sinclair Spectrum. I hope that there will be room for additional computers. I should like to add that the scheme is going extraordinarily well. It is a great success and it is a great tragedy that it was introduced seven or eight years ago by the Labour Government.

In view of his enthusiasm, does the Minister agree that there is a great need for in-service training of teachers to help them teach computer studies? If he does agree, what is he doing about it?

The hon. Gentleman should know that in-service training has been taking place, is adequate and is doing well. More than 10,000 teachers have been trained within the microelectronics programme. The hon. Gentleman should also know that no school is permitted to buy a computer at half price unless two teachers have been trained in that school. That applies to primary and secondary schools.

Is the Minister satisfied with the supply of software for the computers that are being supplied to schools?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are far more problems with software than with the provision of machines, or, indeed, the training of teachers. About 350 software programmes on a wide range of subjects have now been prepared. In certain areas however, such as special schools, work still needs to be done and we are working hard on this.

asked the Prime Minister what are her criteria for making a ministerial broadcast.

There has been no change in the criteria, which are set out in the aide memoire published in April 1969, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Will the Prime Minister include in her next ministerial broadcast a summary of how her 1979 election promises have been kept, so that when her diaries are published they will be considered authentic when she leaves office?

I would not need a ministerial broadcast to do that, but I shall be delighted in the speeches to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation.

When my right hon. Friend next makes a ministerial broadcast, will she please make it clear that it is she, and she alone, who will decide the date of the next general election, not the newspapers?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 April.

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.

If the right hon. Lady really wants the "Buy British' campaign to succeed, why does she not publicly back the British-made ALARM system—the air-launched anti-radar missile—which is far superior to its competitors and is understandably the best, as it is British technology and British made? Is she aware that it will save or create 1,600 jobs? Does she agree that it would be an act of criminal folly and a gross betrayal of British interests if the contract were to go to the American HARM missile company, which, we believe, is favoured by the Ministry of Defence? Will she give instructions to the Secretary of State for Defence to consider this matter carefully?

In defence, we buy British whenever possible, whenever it is most suitable for the job required and when it is best value. We shall continue to do that, but each contract must be considered individually.

Will the Prime Minister—

Here is the Prime Minister-designate.

—take lime today to tell the Minister for Consumer Affairs to stop undermining the invaluable work of the citizens advice bureaux, by announcing that the grant for this year will be paid in full?

No grant has so far been withheld. The citizens advice bureaux have received a grant for half the year. A review is to be set up, but it is doubtful whether the review could report before the next half-year's grant is due. It is, therefore, highly likely that the next half-year's grant will come along in the ordinary way.

Does my right hon. Friend know that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) is after her job? Is not a Prime Minister-designate unknown to the constitution since we are a constitutional monarchy, not a presidential republic? Therefore, is not the right hon. Member for Hillhead a constitutional enormity?

I cannot excel the genius in my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

In view of the growing wave of concern in the United States over the determination of President Reagan to press ahead with nuclear escalation, is the right hon. Lady still content to allow cruise missiles to be deployed in Britain, especially when there is no effective British veto on their use? Will she recognise that the smokescreen of smears put out by the Secretary of State for Defence will not conceal a bankruptcy of argument?

I would have said that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was a smear on President Reagan. He has, after all, made proposals substantially to reduce the number of intercontinental ballistic missies. He is the only Head of Government who, supported by the rest of us, has put forward a zero option for INF. The President has put forward those two bold measures of disarmament, but the weakness is that the Soviet Union has taken up neither.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the commitment in the Labour party's policy document to abolish the right of council tenants to buy their own homes? Does she agree that the number of council tenants who have purchased their own homes since 1979, and of those in the process of buying their own homes, show that most council tenants would prefer to own their own homes rather than be tenants?

Yes. About 500,000 tenants have purchased their houses either from councils or other parts of the public sector, such as new towns. Those 500,000 would never have had the opportunity to do so under a Labour Government. It seems that the Labour party does not want them to have the dignity of owning their own homes by purchasing from local authorities. Another 200,000 applications are in the pipeline. I hope that in our next period of Government there will be many more.

If the right hon. Lady would like to comment accurately on the policy document, I shall send her a copy and she can study it. Has she had an opportunity to read the answer given recently to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), which shows that capital spending on housing in England has sunk to no more than one sixth of the level achieved under the Labour Government? How many fewer houses has that meant, and how many building workers has that policy thrown out of a job?

Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that the Labour party manifesto states that a Labour Government will terminate the right to buy — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

What about the right to work?

The Leader of the Opposition will be delighted to know that the construction of new housing is considerably up on a year ago, and that improvement grants are running nearly as high as they were in 1973.

Obviously I should like to give the right hon. Lady the opportunity to read the entire document instead of only parts of it. When she talks about restoring the rate of building as an excuse for having cut it to one sixth of the level that was achieved under the Labour Government, does she agree that even with the higher figures to which she referred, and the much-vaunted improvement of the past two months, construction is at half the level that prevailed under a Labour Government? Will she also consider what she has done to council house tenants? Why has she more than doubled their rents over the past four years?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was a period when the Labour Government were in office when council house rents were about 40 per cent. of council house costs. That could not continue. The difference had to be borne by the ratepayer. Of course, rates are at their worst under local authorities. The Labour Government never reached the levels of home improvement grants that we have reached and which were reached under previous Conservative Governments.

No. The right hon. Gentleman was always prepared to put the burden of council house rents on the ratepayer.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the CBI's quarterly survey, which was published today, which shows that both output and demand have risen over the past four months and are expected to rise over the next four months? Does she think that that is encouraging evidence in support of the policy that she and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been pursuing over the past four years?

I saw the CBI survey earlier today. It shows improved business optimism, improved order books, output expectations, investment intentions, export orders and deliveries. All these things are very good news and, added to other signs in the economy, give grounds for cautious optimism about recovery.

Will the right hon. Lady please tell the House how many people are out of work this month in Britain?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise number unless he waits just a moment. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we were left with nearly 1½ million unemployed — [Interruption.]—which was well over double what the Labour Government inherited. The latest figure is 3,172,390.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements on 26 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in August 1981 the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) stated that the refusal to allow America to base its nuclear weapons in Britain would make war more likely, not less likely? Does she find that a strange comment to make when it appears that the right hon. Gentleman is supporting a document which proposes a policy which, to use his own words, would make war more likely?

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), to whom my hon. Friend refers, previously supported NATO, including its nuclear deterrent. He supported, therefore, a nuclear deterrent, which is an inherent part of the balance of NATO forces. Without that inherent balance and deterrent, war would be more likely. I find it difficult to understand how the right hon. Gentleman can support the Labour party's document, which rejects all nuclear bases and nuclear weapons in Britain.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 April.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the young trainees invited to join the "Lads Army", under the scheme is being introduced by the Secretary of State for Defence will be paid £19 a week less than ordinary soldiers and yet be subject to military discipline? Is this not the most crass exploitation of young people? When will the Prime Minister and the Government provide the real jobs that she promised during the 1979 election campaign?

I expect that there will be many more applicants to receive a very good training in the army than there are places. It is, of course, totally voluntary and so far we are able to provide only some 5,000 places. Except to the Labour party, the scheme has proved and will prove to be very popular indeed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that two-headed lambs seldom survive for long? Will she give a prognosis on what is likely to happen to the rather sickly creature that is trying to struggle to its feet in our political pastures?