asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will review the progress of secondary education reorganisation.

Local education authorities are on target to remove 1 million surplus school places by 1986. When I consult their associations to set targets for 1987 and later, I shall stress the need to review progress in reorganising secondary schools where the decline in pupil numbers will be at its sharpest for the rest of the decade.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that just as a backlog of building repairs and maintenance for hospital buildings can damage health care, so, with needy education expenditure, a backlog of maintenance, repairs and modifications, particularly where reorganisation of secondary education is taking place, can damage educational provision? Is he further aware that people are willing to pay higher taxes to ensure that such modifications take place and that — for example, in my constituency—without them secondary reorganisation will be threatened?

The Government always respect the need for capital to implement approved school reorganisations, as occurred in Cumbria this year. Backlog in maintenance has been going on under one Government after another for many years.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks and those of many people in Lancaster for preserving the girls' grammar school, for enabling it to work on harmoniously in its present buildings and for preventing chaos and disruption at Greaves and Castle schools?

The Government try to take decisions that are in the best interests of the children. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that no reorganisation will be undertaken if it gives a higher priority to the selected sector than to the benefit of all children?

The record shows that we try to make decisions which are in the interests of all the children concerned. I do not use strong language frequently, but it was absolutely wicked of the Labour party, when in government, to abolish direct grant schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to complete his review of student grants.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish a consultation document on the future funding of higher education by parents and students.

As my right hon. Friend announced on 24 January 1985, a consultative paper will be issued as soon as practicable. After an appropriate period of consultation, the Government will decide on any changes which they may wish to introduce and will publish proposals accordingly.

Will my hon. Friend, in his review, investigate what savings can be made, perhaps by computerisation, to reduce the current bureaucratic duplication of the administration of student grants that goes on both by the university departments concerned and by education authorities?

Local education authorities administer the system effectively. We shall have to consider the administrative implications of any changes in the awards system arising out of the review.

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the widespread anxieties that are felt about the real level of student grants and about the Government's possible intention to move to a student loans system will be taken into account, and that a future system will ensure that children from low income families have a right of access to higher education?

My right hon. Friend has always made it clear that the review will take into account the interests of both the taxpayer and parents. I am always slightly puzzled by remarks from Opposition Members about low income families, in view of the fact that they bequeathed to us a parental contribution scale that was regressive in its effect.

In his review, will my hon. Friend take into account the strong desire of parents, students and, as expressed this week, the Association of University Teachers for an expansion of higher education? Does he agree that the only way to achieve that is to find a fresh source of funding which does not involve either the taxpayer or a forced levy on parents?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for opening up the possibilities of the review. The review will cover all possibilities.

If it proves impossible for the Under-Secretary of State to complete the review before the next academic session, and bearing in mind that, in real terms, the grant has fallen over five successive years, will he undertake to give a top-up to the proposed grant for 1985–86 so that students are not placed in a position of virtual poverty?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced the grant levels for 1985–86. We shall have to see how we get along in terms of the timing of the consultation.

Will my hon. Friend, who has many friends on both sides of the House, look especially in his review at the problem of discretionary grants and the inequities between one county and another?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a commitment that the review will be that wide. I understand his interest in the matter.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this review is a sham because all the money will be pre-empted today in the Budget? Does he accept that what is really needed is more money for student grants in order to give students a decent basic income? If the hon. Gentleman cannot find that much money, will he at least return student grants to their 1979 real value?

The hon. Gentleman knows that £600 million is spent on student support at the present time. That is the most generous level of support in any Western country.

Will my hon. Friend affirm the general principle that, where possible, students should be funded by their parents and not by other people's parents in the form of the general taxpayer?

The consultative paper will not prejudge any particular method of student support. Parental contributions may well continue to have a role to play in student support in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received as to comparability of teachers' pay with other groups.

Comparability with the pay of other groups is a recurring theme in representations to me by teachers about their pay. The prime factors in settling pay are the employers' capacity to pay and their need to recruit and retain teachers of appropriate quality.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the report of the Burnham committee's pay data working group shows that, over 10 years, the pay of teachers compares unfavourably with that of many other groups in the public sector? Surely comparability is important, because it gives some idea of the Government's perception of the importance of the teaching profession.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Chasing past relativities means a return to a self-defeating inflationary spiral, which would price even more people into unemployment.

As the unions involved in the current dispute are due at ACAS tomorrow, should not classroom disruption end at once to give ACAS a reasonable chance of solving the dispute?

I cannot believe that classroom disruption is in the interests of teachers themselves, let alone of children. I hope that they will give up disruption.

Is it not a fact that teachers' pay—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps hon. Members will listen.

I do not for a moment denigrate the hard work, the difficult job and the devotion to duty of most of the teachers, but they should bear in mind that they have one of the most secure jobs in the country, that they are important and that they have been offered, and have refused, a 4 per cent. pay increase and all arbitration measures. They have refused even to discuss proposals for appraisal. I cannot believe that that is in their interests.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Union of Teachers is seeking to prove that might is right because it is the biggest teaching union, that it has divided the teaching unions, and that the other teaching unions disagree with it fundamentally and are prepared to conciliate, arbitrate and negotiate to solve the problem? [Interruption.]

It is no good Opposition Members jeering at my hon. Friend. The teaching unions seem to be split.

Is it not a fact that local government officers have had a much greater pay rise than teachers during the 10 years between 1974 and 1984? I welcome the rise in pay for officers in local authorities, but is it not a fact that those delivering the service and teaching in the classrooms should have had at least as big a rise as administrators in the service? Is that not a reason why teaching morale is as low as it has ever been? Is it not also a fact that teachers' resources have been continuously cut and that our most precious asset, children's education, is suffering as a consequence?

I do not think that that justifies the return to a particular year, which the teachers' union leaders advocate, as every other group would seek the same argument of comparability, which would start another inflationary spiral, with even more unemployment.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there are not enough policemen, yet there are too many teachers?

My hon. Friend is surely right that the pay rise for the police was necessary to staunch an extremely sharp outflow of policemen at the time. I do not accept that there are inherently too many teachers, although the House knows that, because of the fall in the number of school children, a small decrease is being brought about in the teaching force.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House and parents what he is doing to help solve the dispute?

The function of the holder of my office is to play a certain part in the negotiations, which are primarily between the employers and the teachers.

Can my right hon. Friend say how many representations in favour of the teachers' pay claim he has received from parents and taxpayers because, if my constituency is anything to go by, it will be few?

A significant minority of the representations reaching us from parents are in favour of the teachers; but I suspect that the purpose of the teachers in disrupting children's education is not calculated to win the esteem of most parents.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the education meals service.

The school meals service is the responsibility of the local education authorities. A number of individual authorities have made substantial net savings in expenditure in this area since 1979–80, and the Government expect others to do the same.

Is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State aware that when the Government issue circulars, especially about the privatisation of school meals, there is no reference to the supervision of school meals, which forms a considerable part of the school meals' costings? In the city of Manchester, for example, the supervision of school meals costs £750,000. Will the Minister ensure that if authorities privatise school meals the cost of supervision is included?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I believe that, far too few local education authorities are embarking on the privatisation of the school meals service. If they did, a great deal of money could be saved and spent in other areas of the education service.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the possibility of privatisation, authorities, such as the Inner London education authority, could raise a substantial sum merely by keeping their school meals' prices in line with the cost of living?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. He knows, and the House must know, that ILEA has not increased school meals charges since 1979. In that sense, a great deal of Londoners' money is being spent unnecessarily on the school meals service, instead of being a saving for ratepayers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet representatives of the Professional Association of Teachers to discuss the current pay claim.

I have no current plans to do so, but I meet representatives of the Professional Association of Teachers fairly frequently and I know their position.

Does my right hon. Friend applaud members of the Professional Association of Teachers and others who, through moderation, conscience and conviction, are continuing to set a standard of dedication to our schoolchildren? Is not the answer to settling the teachers' pay dispute for them to adopt the new assessment procedures already adopted and approved by the local education authorities?

I agree with my hon. Friend in applauding those teachers, whether members of the PAT or not, who stick to serving the children, as is their professional duty.

Does the Secretary of State agree that on Sunday, in a public statement on the pay dispute, he made it clear that in his opinion only a minority of teachers were unsatisfactory? Would it not be more appropriate, in the second half of the 20th century, to provide all teachers with the support to make them better teachers, without arbitrary and impossible forms of assessment? Would not that approach get the agreement not only of the PAT but of all teachers in the profession?

An appraisal system for all teachers is very much in their interests. It will permit the career development of every teacher. After all, appraisal is now going on informally. All that I am seeking is that it should be done formally for the benefit of all teachers.

Is it not sad that some teachers, who are not members of the PAT, have got themselves into a cycle of striking and refusing to teach examination pupils, mark books, and so on, thereby increasing classroom difficulties, which makes them suffer from extra stress when they return to the job?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

May I remind the Secretary of State that he is actually responsible for running education in this country? [Interruption.] Hon. Members should read the Education Act 1944. The right hon. Gentleman therefore has a duty to answer the question that I asked earlier: what is he doing to help solve the teachers' dispute?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have a decentralised system of education in this country and that I have certain statutory duties, but he also knows that both the employers and the teachers' representatives are today, and I believe tomorrow, having a meeting with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the purchasing power of (a) the minimum and (b) the maximum student grant expressed as a percentage of the value in May 1979.

The purchasing power of the minimum and the maximum student grant for 1984–85, expressed as a percentage of the value in September 1978, is 58 per cent. and 91 per cent., respectively. Grants are paid from September, and it is appropriate to apply the corresponding price indices.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's last reported climbdown on the student grants issue was of benefit to only a minority of better-off parents, and that students in general have suffered a vicious attack on their living standards since the Tory Government came to power in 1979? Is it not about time that the purchasing power of the student grant was restored and parental contributions phased out completely so that students can study in peace instead of having to worry about poverty and financial hardship?

It is because the issue of student grants attracted the attention that it did in November and December that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the review that is taking place this year.

Why should an apprentice bricklayer in my constituency pay tax to support grants for people who are better off than he is?

There are many who share my hon. Friend's view. It also underlies the review.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to lay down minimum nutritional standards for the provision of school meals.

No, Sir.

I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. Does he not recognise that in many parts of the country, particularly those areas under Conservative control, there has been a fall in nutritional standards? Does he not also recognise the impact of that, particularly on low-income families? Should not a Government who claim to be a caring Government do something about it and make sure that children from low-income families have a proper and decent meal as part of their daily diet?

I challenge the hon. Gentleman to prove the first part of the allegation contained in his question. The law makes it quite clear that children from families which are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement should receive free meals at school. I remind him and the House that the responsibility for a balanced diet for children rests with parents. It is parents, not the state, who bear children.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important to encourage local authorities to undertake the private sector provision of meals in schools, as my authority in Merton has done, than to hound local authorities by asking them to do things that are rightly the responsibility of parents?

My hon. Friend makes a fair and correct distinction between those essential elements of the education service which are concerned with education and those which are not. Making savings on school meals does not bring about the provision of junk food. It can mean savings on expenditure, which can go elsewhere in the education service to bring about better results and standards in the schools.

Is it not staggering that the Minister should ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to prove whether school meals are good or bad? Should not the Minister be able to say to the House that he knows? That is his responsibility as a Minister charged with responsibility for the schools system.

I challenged the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to prove the allegation that he made. If he can do so, I am prepared to sit down and talk to him. If he cannot, it is up to him to apologise to me and to the House.

Is not nutrition related to content? Can my hon. Friend explain why we spend so much time and trouble warning people about the dangers of cigarettes, but seemingly spend no time at all warning them about the dangers of either alcohol or foods which can induce heart disease? Will he consider the problem seriously, in consultation with his ministerial colleagues, and ensure that the branding of foods is undertaken?

I understand the point my hon. Friend is making. I am aware of the concern felt by many about the link between diet and disease. The Department of Health and Social Security has commissioned a survey of the diet of schoolchildren. It is hoped that the results will be published in the very near future. I shall take on board the points made by my hon. Friend.

Why do the Government continue to provide a subsidy for full fat milk, but no subsidy for skimmed milk, which nutritionists say is better for all of us?

The hon. Lady may be right; she may be wrong. I do not know.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the future of the Open University.

The Open University will continue to play an important part in the Government's programme for higher education by providing degree level education for those who missed the opportunity earlier in life and through continuing education relevant to the updating needs of industry, commerce, the professions and public services.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the visiting committee totally repudiated his view of the Open University and that it set out clearly that the Open University is doing an excellent job? Would it not be fair for the Secretary of State to say to the House that he has got over his prejudice against the Open University and will give it money so that it may continue to do a first-class job?

No, Sir. The Government value the Open University and the work that it does, but they believe that, like other institutions, it has to seek to cover its costs by economies, where possible.

Bearing in mind the value of the new technology courses of the Open University in broadening the skills of our work force, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that those courses will be continued, despite the drop in income?

The Government have used taxpayers' funds to meet some of the needs of the Open University in the light of the visiting committee's report. But the visiting committee thought that there was scope for the Open University to make some economies, and it was disappointed that the Open University did not have the management figures to enable it to consider the economies that it might make.

The cut in funds to other universities, though deplorable, is understandable in view of the policy of the Government, but why do students of the Open University, who appear to meet the criterion of Conservative philosophy because they are doing their own independent study without the use of buildings, and so on, not receive assistance from his Department?

They do. Open University students, whose initiative and enterprise the Government admire, meet only 14 per cent. of the costs of their studies, or 19 per cent. if one includes summer school fees. The taxpayer bears 86 and 81 per cent. respectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Open University is one of the most cost-effective centres of higher education? Is that not a reason why we should give it more rather than less support?

I grant that it is cost-effective on one form of reckoning. On another form of reckoning it has about the same public cost significance as other such institutions.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the importance of the Open University to unemployed students? Will he undertake to protect the unemployed students' fund in the Open University, to ensure that that part of its work is increased rather than decreased?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is why the fund for the unemployed in the Open University budget has been protected.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Open University offers special opportunities to disabled people, who cannot gain access to other university campuses? Will he therefore ensure that the number of disabled places is maintained in any future reorganisation?

Yes. The visiting committee took special care about that.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider the visiting committee's report and try to meet its demands a little more closely?

The Government have met £4 million of the visiting committee's proposed suggestions and are considering a number of others.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made with his discussions about the controls which are available over expenditure of public money by student unions.

Discussions are proceeding between officials of the Department and representatives of higher education interests. These are preliminary discussions intended to inform the Government as a basis for decision upon appropriate next action. The Government will make a statement in due course.

Is it not deplorable that Jewish students at Sunderland polytechnic have been denied the right to a Jewish society of their choice? Surely Jewish taxpayers should not have to pay for a union which operates such blatant discrimination.

I share my hon. Friend's vivid anxiety that the principles of freedom of speech and association should be maintained, especially in places of higher education. I understand that the authorities at Sunderland polytechnic are actively examining the issues raised by the student union's refusal to ratify the constitution of the proposed Jewish society, and that the matter will be considered by the polytechnic governors at their next meeting. My right hon. Friend is minded to make inquiries of the authority and the director if second thoughts do not prevail.

May I thank the Minister for that reply? Has he considered whether the Sunderland students' action is in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976 and whether it should be referred to the Commission for Racial Equality by the Government, as it has been by the Jewish community in this country?

I have noted what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. He will also be aware that the National Union of Students has taken up with the student union at the polytechnic the inappropriateness of what it is doing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that student unions are abusing their role and spending far too much money subsidising trips for students to miners' picket lines—when they existed—to anti-Government meetings in London and all that sort of thing? Is it not time to calm them down once and for all?

Limitations on the use of student union funds are set by charity law. That was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the guidance issued to institutions in 1983. Expenditure must further the interests of students as students.

While the Minister is being urged by his colleagues to introduce a final solution to this matter will he try to remember that this is the International, Year of Youth, whose aims are peace, participation and development? Participation—growing up and learning about democracy—is an important part of a student's development. Would it not be more sensible for the Government, when they are investigating and discussing, to discuss matters with the National Union of Students, which represents the students of this country, and which has not been approached by the Minister? Could he not talk to it and get that democracy moving?

I applaud International Youth Year, of which the hon. Gentleman reminds me each month. I hestitate to say to him that it is arguable that voluntary participation is sometimes preferable to participation in which there is a greater degree of coercion.

Have the Government given consideration to making universities, rather than student unions, responsible for the funding of recreational activity by students, thus enabling us to have voluntary rather than compulsory membership of student unions and achieving a considerable saving of public money?

The matter is obviously one for the universities. In some universities that provision is rendered by the universities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many mature students entered further and higher education in 1982, 1983 and 1984, respectively.

In 1982 and 1983, 37,400 and 39,000 home students aged 21 and over entered a course of full-time higher education in Great Britain for the first time. Figures for 1984 and directly comparable figures for non-advanced further education are not available.

Does the Minister accept that if economic revival is to become a reality in the country it is necessary to have as much retraining and as many opportunities for developing the skill resources of the population as possible? What part does he envisage further and higher education playing in this, and what steps is he taking to encourage mature entrants?

The Department of Education and Science is participating in the adult training strategy, which was launched in collaboration with the Department of Employment. The projections for mature students in higher education show a continuing increase on the projections which we published last year.

Will the Minister take on board the recommendations in the report of the Association of University Teachers published this week entitled "Expansion, Expansion, Expansion"? In terms of the House of Lords Select Committee report on the shortage of high tech qualified people, whom we need, and in terms of reports from Government Ministers about the appalling lack of high tech graduates, would not adult students be attracted into this kind of course, and is this not where it is vital to have the expansion about which the AUT speaks?

The AUT has been good enough to send me a copy of its booklet, so I have had an opportunity to read it. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the booklet the AUT is arguing for an expansion in all subjects, and not simply in high tech.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have been made about secondary schools reorganisation by parents organisations.

Such representations are received, in the form of statutory objections and deputations to the Department, in respect of most proposals to reorganise secondary education. The views so expressed are one of the factors that my right hon. Friend takes into account when deciding these proposals.

Now that the Secretary of State has exercised his power to keep open Bluecoat school, will he also exercise his power to ensure that the necessary finance, assessed at some £3 million, is available to the local education authority to enable it to carry out the wishes of the Secretary of State?

A letter along those lines has been sent to the Department of Education and Science by the chairman of the education committee. That letter is being considered.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his right hon. Friend's welcome decision about Bluecoat school as a school of high excellence shows that the Government listen to parental views on these matters?

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. When my right hon. Friend considers proposals on their individual merits, he must take into account not only the views of the parents but the proposers' case for the proposals and all other relevant circumstances, including his own policies.

While I welcome the decision to keep open Bluecoat school in my constituency, will the Minister now reconsider the decision to close state schools which are scheduled for closure this year in Liverpool? Will he accept that, when decisions of this kind are being made, it would be an improvement if the Ministers concerned could visit the schools affected by closure proposals?

To take the latter point first, if I were to visit all the schools under consideration for closure by the Department I would spend no time in the House of Commons or at home in my constituency. Additionally, it is not possible for the Secretary of State to change an earlier decision. Those decisions are now legally binding on the local education authority unless fresh proposals are made by the local education authority itself.

Can my hon. Friend assure parents in Leeds that he will give full weight to their representations opposing the closure of sixth forms in that city on grounds of viable numbers and proven worth?

On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I shall be happy to consider all the views and points put to us on any proposals in any part of the land.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he expects the proposed new centralised student admissions scheme for degree courses in polytechnics to be in operation for the academic year 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the new polytechnic central admissions system is already in operation in respect of the admission of students to full-time and sandwich courses at degree level for the academic year 1986–87.

The new system will help both polytechnics and students. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government welcome the increase in numbers attending polytechnics for degree courses, which is of benefit not only to industry and commerce but to the individuals concerned?

I am delighted to give the welcome for which my hon. Friend asks.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the British subscription to the Centre Européen Recherche Nucleaire (CERN).

Last March my right hon. Friend announced the formation of a review group, chaired by Sir John Kendrew, to examine the whole question of British participation in particle physics research, including our membership of CERN. I understand that the group will report to the chairmen of the Science and Engineering Research Council and the advisory board for the research councils in May, and when we have considered their advice my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom continues to participate fully in CERN.

Would it not be humiliating throughout the international scientific community if this country were to fail to cover its subscription to CERN?

The purpose of the review is to examine the matter that I have described. We shall go through the whole process of receiving the report—[Interruption]—and determine our conclusions on the advice received.

Order. I ask the hon. Members to refrain from chatting.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made towards settling the teachers' pay dispute.

Following the teachers' rejection of management's offer of 4 per cent. and their refusal of arbitration, the management panel has invited the teachers to agree to conciliation. ACAS has offered its services. It today opens exploratory discussions with the management panel and has invited the teachers' panel to similar, separate discussions:

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present confrontation in our schools is harming our children's education for the second year running, and will harm it further if it continues into the examination period? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the teachers' leaders would be well advised to encourage their members to go back into the classrooms and to return to the negotiating table so that talks can proceed?

I answer yes to both of my hon. Friends questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education; and what he discussed with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education to discuss standards in education.

I have not yet met representatives of CASE, but shall be doing so on 1 April, principally to discuss the resolutions from their last annual conference.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets that organisation, will he discuss the lowering of morale of teachers and pupils due to his intransigence? Why does he think that people should go to arbitration when he refuses to fund any increase and when local authorities cannot afford to do so because of rate capping?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that what local authorities can afford is a key issue. I expect that the people coming to see me will raise some such question.

The future of education is dependent on high morale among the teaching staff. In view of the current low morale, what will the right hon. Gentleman do about increasing teachers' pay?

I have offered the interest of myself and the Government in the introduction of an appraisal system that might offer teachers the possibility of better career earnings for effectiveness.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he proposes following the conclusions of the recent report by the Management and Personnel Office on Government purchasing.

Officials of the Department are preparing an action document on the conclusions of the report. The document will shortly be submitted for my approval.

Will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to simplify Government purchasing procedures so that small firms can play their part in achieving the potential savings of £400 million a year?

Although the Department is a relatively small public purchaser we shall certainly, on the basis of the report, do our best to ensure clear responsibilities and efficient procedures for purchasing and obtaining better value for money.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

At a time when we, the people of a comparatively wealthy and successful country, are about to consider the distribution of our wealth, would it not be right to remember how lucky we are compared with the thousands of people dying from starvation in Africa—a continent in which Britain has hitherto made an immense contribution to human progress? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain will play a leading role in the international campaign to find long-term solutions to the problem of famine in Africa?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the United Nations conference last week on the emergency in Africa my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development stressed the need to sort out the underlying difficulties of some of the problematic countries in Africa, and pledged £125 million in development aid to 20 of the worst affected countries in Africa. That is in addition to the £60 million in emergency aid, and covers the coming financial year. On a longer term basis, my right hon. Friend has pledged £75 million to the World Bank special facility for Africa. We are well aware of the problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

Does the Prime Minister share the view of The Times that the Foreign Secretary's speech on the American star wars programme was muddled, mealy-mouthed and damaging to the Alliance? [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Lady believe that that statement represented a realistic assessment of the dangers of the star wars strategy?

I reject the language and the conclusion in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The policy was, and remains, in the four points set out at Camp David and reaffirmed when I was in Washington. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was speaking in pursuance of that policy.

Is my right hon. Friend not greatly encouraged by the Manpower Services Commission's quarterly review, published today, which shows that 10 per cent. of the work force are now self-employed? Will that news encourage my right hon. Friend to make the very successful enterprise allowance demand-led?

I noticed the report and the increasing numbers of people who are self-employed. That augurs well for the future of small businesses, as the self-employed gradually come to employ other people. I am afraid that for the answers that he sought in the last part of his question my hon. Friend must await the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The four points agreed with President Reagan are rather vague in several respects. For instance, can the Prime Minister tell us what veto she has that will ensure there will be no step from research into development, with all the consequent experiments, without her permission and the permission of the House?

It is not a question of a veto. Research is permitted, and the constraints on deployment are those contained in the anti-ballistic missile treaty, signed in 1972 by both the Soviet Union and the United States, which fully permits research, but requires negotiation before testing and deployment, in accordance with the terms of the treaty.

As these are matters of great concern, will the right hon. Lady tell us very clearly where she draws the line between research and development?

Where it is drawn by the antiballistic missile treaty.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to instruct our representatives in the negotiations to enlarge the EEC that all details of costs to the United Kingdom and the Community should be given to the House before we are asked to approve such enlargement?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we reached agreement at Fontainebleau, and this included the proportion of enlargement costs that would be borne by this country. It is not possible to say precisely what they are while the negotiations are still incomplete. However, I shall do my best to see that they are laid before the House at the relevant time.

Has the Prime Minister seen the report from the Australian Royal Commission, which surfaced yesterday, that previous British Governments had entertained a proposal for holding nuclear device tests in Scotland? In view of the anger about that proposal in Scotland, will she join me in condemning it as an act of aggression against the Scottish people?

A letter used in evidence at the Australian Royal Commission showed that in 1954 a location near Wick was considered as a possible area for a minor trial of a triggering device in support of nuclear weapon development. It was not a nuclear device. The area was quickly rejected because it was considered unsuitable.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the French Government's deliberate procrastination over the development of the European fighter aircraft for use by the air forces of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain and France is preventing the collaboration in that industry that we all want? In view of the imminence of international ministerial discussions on this matter, will she use her considerable influence with President Mitterrand to resolve, as a matter of urgency, French obstructiveness?

As my hon. Friend knows, a good deal of work has been done on the European fighter aircraft. A common staff target has been agreed between the five air forces, and the industries of the five countries are now doing a feasibility study. I expect that the Defence Ministers will meet in May to make their assessment. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that it will be difficult to resolve some of the problems. Should intervention be necessary, I shall not hesitate to make it.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made in the debate on the west midlands last Friday that a low wage is better than no wage at all?

I believe that it is better to work for a low wage and to have it topped up by family income supplement than not to have a job.

Will my right hon. Friend make time today to note the mounting anxiety being expressed in all quarters of the House and outside it about the serious decline in the British merchant fleet? Will she consider whether she should appoint a senior Minister with responsibility for co-ordinating constructive Government policies to reverse that very worrying trend?

I am aware of the decline in the British merchant fleet, because of severe competition from other parts of the world. I recognise my right hon. Friend's point that it is of strategic significance to have a good British merchant fleet of considerable size. I shall take his point to heart.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

Is it not apparent to the Prime Minister that today we have another Budget for jobs? Will she specifically tell the House and the millions of unemployed people in the country when unemployment will begin to turn down dramatically? If the Prime Minister will not do that today, will she at least tell us that this Government have neither the wit nor the compassion to do anything serious about mass unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the number of those in jobs increased by 342,000 over the year to September and by 480,000 over the last 18 months. The rise in the working population is still continuing. The proportion of the population of working age who are in work is higher in this country, at 66 per cent., than in West Germany at 61 per cent., France at 61 per cent. and Italy at 55 per cent. We shall create more jobs and begin to reduce the number of unemployed when industry is even more competitive and produces goods and services that people both here and overseas will buy in greater quantities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Russians have breached the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty so many times in the last 10 years that there will have to be many safeguards if we are to develop the strategic defence initiative? Has my right hon. Friend had discussions with President Reagan about the safeguards?

Various accusations about breaches of the anti-ballistic missile treaty have been made, in particular about radars and the direction and position of those radars. The place to sort those out is in one of the consultative committees provided for in the antiballistic missile treaty. I believe that this subject will be taken up at the Geneva talks.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

When will the Prime Minister take steps to stop the widening rift between the north and the south? When will the Government take steps to deal with the deprived regions of the country? Would not the first step be for the Government to take a positive decision and say that no development will take place at Stansted and that any public money that would have been used at Stansted will be used in the regions instead?

With regard to the alleged north-south divide may I point out—[Interruption.] It is not right to talk of a straightforward divide between north and south. Parts of the north are very prosperous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]—while other parts have very high unemployment. There are also parts of the south which have very high unemployment. However, public investment per head of the population in the last year for which figures are available was £89 in the north, compared with £76 as the English average. It was even higher in Wales and Scotland. Public investment was purposely higher in the north to help with the unemployment problem.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that council house rent arrears have risen from £74 million in 1980 to a staggering £188 million today? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are thus denying to thousands of single homeless people the right to rent a home? Are not these local authorities flying in the face of the interests of their ratepayers?

My hon. Friend is correct. Rent arrears are far too high, and they are rising. The management is not good enough. Both the Department of the Environment and the Audit Commission have issued comprehensive guidance. It would be as well if the authorities followed this guidance and reduced the arrears, in the interests of their ratepayers.

To return to the number of people in work, is it not true that 2 million fewer people are in work now than when the Prime Minister came to office in 1979 and that her economic policies have effectively destroyed 2 million jobs in this country?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the amount of overmanning in British industry due to the refusal of the Labour Government to face fundamental problems, such as the steel industry, left us the problems to deal with. Had we not been able to deal with them, Britain would have had no industrial future because it would have had no competitive industries. It now has, thanks to this Government.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that development and exploration activity in the North sea is reaching record levels? Is this not due to the success of free enterprise, backed by a helpful tax regime? Will she apply similar tax incentives to the rest of the British economy?

My hon. Friend is right. The development of the North sea was a great tribute to private enterprise. It was done quickly and with great profit and benefit to Britain, especially to the north-east of our country, where it has provided many jobs for industries associated with North sea oil development. That was added to and assisted by the right framework of taxation policy. That is the right recipe—the Government set the framework and people take advantage of it in private enterprise.

Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that at the end of the Chancellor's speech, as in past years, copies of the Budget resolutions will not be handed around in the Chamber but will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

In last year's Budget statement I charted the course for this Parliament. Today I reaffirm the Government's determination to hold to that course, the purpose of which is nothing less than the defeat of inflation. We have not wavered from that purpose. Nor will we, but the defeat of inflation, essential though it is, is not enough. We must also do what we can to combat the scourge of unemployment. Nor is there any conflict between these two objectives. So my Budget today has two themes: to continue the drive against inflation and to help create the conditions for more jobs.