asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the details of his renewed effort to tackle truancy, as promised in the White Paper "Better Schools".

As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 22 March, at column 626, a draft circular on school attendance and education welfare services was sent on 21 March to local authority and teacher associations and to other relevant organisations. Comments on the document have been sought by the end of June and it is hoped that the final version of the circular will be issued soon after that date.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of truancy is particularly worrying in the fourth and fifth years, especially in the light of a recent report that in Salford schools 20 per cent. non-attendance occurs every day? Does my hon. Friend regret the shocking fact that today's truant is very often tomorrow's unemployed, and, worse still, tomorrow's unemployable?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention and that of the House the report on the school in the city of Salford. I undertake that inquiries will be made. I am sure that the House will accept his other observation as well. There are a number of reasons why young people play truant from school, and we are grappling with the causes in many ways. I hope that, in future, many people who encourage children to play truant, whether parents, employers or others, will think long and wisely about their action in taking young people out of the classroom, which can only be to the detriment of the young people concerned.

Is it not clear that the lack of motivation for many young people in schools, which stems from the knowledge that they will be thrown on the scrapheap as soon as they leave school, with no job to go to, is one of the main causes of truancy? Is it not also clear that a better pupil-teacher ratio, so that children can be better taught, particularly at that age, would be helpful? When the Minister has handled that problem, will he deal with the truancy in this place, which is enormous compared with that in schools?

My responsibilities do not extend to the House. The hon Gentleman's interpretation is, as usual, far too simplistic and therefore unhelpful. There are a variety of reasons why young people play truant, and we should address our minds to those matters rather than make party political points.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to combat truancy is to improve the quality, and not the quantity, of teachers, as the better the teacher the easier it is to maintain the interest of a pupil?

I agree, and we are attempting to make the curriculum broader and more relevant and attractive to young people who are, to use the vernacular, turned off by what happens in schools today. My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation of what is needed.

Is the Minister aware that since the end of the war the level of truancy in shire county schools has hardly changed, by and large, taking into account areas such as that covered by the Derbyshire education authority? Will he bear in mind that I agree with my hon. Friend the member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that it is bordering on hypocrisy for Tory Members to talk about absenteeism when some hon. Members turn up for less than 30 per cent. of the time —[Interruption] like the leader of the SDP, who voted in only 30 per cent. of all the Divisions in the last parliamentary Session?

There was an Opposition debate yesterday on the social services, during which the Opposition Benches were empty. If the proportions had remained the same as they were in 1945, far too many young people would still be playing truant from school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Jarratt report about efficiency in universities.

Sir Alexander Jarratt's steering committee for efficiency studies in the universities, which was set up by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, has produced recommendations which merit serious and early consideration by those to whom they are addressed. My right hon. Friend will be considering with the CVCP and the University Grants Committee how the report can best be pursued.

Does the Minister not agree that the Jarratt report indicted the Government for the way in which they had imposed the 1981 cuts, which led not to greater efficiency within the universities, but to short-term inefficiency, and took the view that if the Government continue to insist that university resources should be cut by 1 or 2 per cent. each year the situation will become even worse? Was not the strongest recommendation of the report the suggestion that we should return to a quinquennial review system so that the universities could have a continual re-assessment of funding, on level terms at least?

The Government accept that they must give the best possible indication of longer-term policies for higher education. However, the difficulties of providing precise funding indications are the same for higher education as for other public expenditure programmes. Planning requires the management of resources in circumstances of uncertainty. The Green Paper on higher education policy, which the Government hope to publish shortly, and the subsequent discussions, will help to set the scene for the development of higher education policy into the next decade.

After the publication of the study of efficiency in the universities, is it the Minister's intention to produce a Green Paper on scientific research in the universities? If so, when does he propose to introduce it?

The Green Paper which my right hon. Friend proposes to publish on higher education, which will be issued shortly, will certainly cover that subject.

How much funding is reaching the universities from industry? Is my hon. Friend aware of what has taken place at Warwick university, especially at the business school and the science park there? Does my hon. Friend appreciate how much funding is reaching our universities from private sources?

I can give my hon. Friend the encouraging news that since 1979 contributions to universities from private sources of one sort or another have risen by 18 per cent. in real terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional resources available to meet education needs in Bradford.

It is for Bradford to provide for education within the total resources available to the authority.

Does the Minister appreciate that the education crisis in Bradford does not flow from the parents, from a headmaster who has insulted many of his pupils' parents and caused them to lose confidence in him, or from teachers and pupils who are trying to work together in schools, many of which are old, dilapidated, overcrowded, under-staffed and seriously under-equipped? When will the Government give Bradford the money to combat its education crisis and enable it to give the young people there a decent start in life and provide the education which parents are fully entitled to expect for their children?

I am fully aware of the problems at Bradford, but it is for the authority to balance its judgment of the need to spend on services against the interests of the local ratepayer.

My hon. Friend is fully aware of the difficulties of multi-racial education in Bradford and other parts of west Yorkshire, and the issues raised by the disgraceful hounding of Mr. Honeyford. In a number of instances in west Yorkshire and Bradford there are racial minorities within a school with a large ethnic majority. Will my hon. Friend issue guidance to local education authorities to ensure that they adopt an even-handed approach and give the educationally disadvantaged special attention, whether they are brown, black, yellow or white?

We are concerned about disadvantaged children, irrespective of their background. The House ought to know that the Department of Education and Science is currently investigating Mr. Honeyford's case under section 68 of the Education Act 1944. In view of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role in that matter, I cannot comment further.

Is the Minister aware that Bradford has many Asian and other immigrant people? Does he agree that the Honeyford case is a red herring, brought up by the Tory representatives on the council to cover up the colossal shortage of the amount of money that is needed to provide the type of pupil-teacher ratio required in Bradford's schools because they have so many immigrant children? Will he take account of the fact that rate capping has an effect on the education of our children? These are the real issues, not the Honeyford case. Will the Minister pay attention to them?

Bradford's primary and secondary school pupil-teacher ratios were at their lowest ever level, at 20 and 17·4 respectively, at January 1984. Both ratios have fallen significantly since 1982, when they were 20·9 and 18·9 respectively. Those figures do not suggest a decline in provision.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to provide central funding for specialised in-service courses for teachers in the problems of drug abuse.

Under the Department's programme for supporting regional in-service training courses, regional courses concerned with drug misuse, and arranged in consultation with the Department, will be eligible for central funding.

Does my right hon. Friend feel that to have one key teacher who understands something about drugs in each school is the minimum that we need to tackle the problem? Does he feel that his Department has done enough to achieve that end?

I agree with the purpose of my hon. Friend's question. The Government are now addressing themselves to ensuring that more information is available on which crucial groups such as teachers can rest with self-confidence in their detection of and advice to those concerned.

Is the Secretary of State aware that after only one shot of heroin some youngsters are on a short journey to death? Has he had an opportunity to read in today's Daily Mirror the tragic story of Fiona Marshall, aged only 17? Does he acknowledge the tremendous campaign being run by the Daily Mirror against drug abuse, and does he agree that that campaign, calling for advice, co-ordination and treatment on drug addiction and for drug addicts, is vital? Does he further agree that the Govermnent's suggestion of providing £2 million is insufficient and that there should be a massive injection of cash into schools so that people can be caught early and given treatment?

I do not want in any way to minimise the importance which the hon. Gentleman rightly wishes to give the subject or to the efforts of the Daily Mirror, but we are advised that there is a danger of being counterproductive and of glamourising the subject. That is why we are taking care to put together constructive advice for those immediately concerned.

Although shock tactics might not always be the right answer for drug misuse by young children, does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot start too early to warn young children of the dangers involved? Will he take seriously the suggestion of our hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville)? Is he contemplating issuing any directive to local education authorities on the subject? He must surely be aware that the problem is serious, and growing.

My right hon. Friend has a fine record in trying to mobilise solutions to a parallel social problem — alcoholism — and I take what he says extremely seriously. He mentioned the key element—the danger of giving the wrong impression and of steering children in the wrong direction. There is also danger in trying to bring the truth to children at too early an age, as is might do more harm than good. Nevertheless, I take the subject extremely seriously.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the future number of teacher training places.

Provisional decisions on intakes to initial teacher training in England and Wales from 1986 were announced last month. We propose that intakes to primary training should increase from 8,620 in 1985 to 10,950 by 1989 and that intakes to secondary training over the same period should increase from 9,032 to 9,850.

Will the Minister confirm that the number of graduates seeking teacher training places has fallen by 16 per cent.? Does he agree that if we are to raise numbers and standards we must pay teachers adequately?

I undertake to look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and to write to him. I think he shares our concern that the quality of the teacher is important in the life of the school and in the educaton that a child receives. When CATE, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, has finished its work, we shall be somewhat further forward in that goal.

Adequate teacher training numbers are obviously important, but is my hon. Friend satisfied with the efforts of his Department and others to improve the curriculum of teacher training colleges so that the element of teacher training practice is given suitable prominence?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As he will know, last September we appointed to CATE a number of people who will have a great deal of work to do in that regard in the assessment of courses. He will share my concern that that work is done as soon as possible so that we may bring the results to bear in the classroom, where they are needed.

Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed of himself? [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister can hear me. He should be, and the Secretary of State should also be ashamed. They have every reason to be ashamed of the teacher training figures, when many of those with the necessary qualifications are sweeping the streets when they should be teaching the children. When will Ministers wake up and do the job for which they have been elected?

I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman. Unemployment among teachers rose early in the 1980s largely as a result of the fall in pupil numbers, which has now ended, in primary schools. The number of vacancies for primary school teachers is expected to rise for a number of years, and training intakes have been adjusted accordingly.

Is not the real reason why the number of teacher training applicants is reported to be down this year the fact that the message is getting through that teaching is a badly paid job? Does that not provide a further powerful argument for the Government to respond positively to the call from the management side of Burnham for extra resources from the Government to help solve the teachers' dispute?

That supplementary question would be best directed to a group of questions which will be answered together later. There are still a far greater number of applicants for places at teacher training institutions than there are vacancies at those institutions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the level of teachers' pay.

I have received about 1,300 letters, including some 300 from hon. and right hon. Members, about all aspects of the current pay dispute.

Is it not a fact that under the pressure of the county council elections the employers are beginning to see the light and are adopting a new negotiating position? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for the Government to be more forthright and to improve the funds which they are making available so that a proper settlement, which recognises the excellent worth of the teachers to the community, can be reached?

The hon. Gentleman is not quoting the employers' statement. The employers, in a carefully drafted statement, say that they want to discuss with me

"the basis upon which additional resources can be sought."

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effect of the teachers' strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

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

Management's offers of a 4 per cent. increase, arbitration and further discussion of pay structure reform remain on the table. All three have been rejected. The two largest teacher unions are set on a course of intensified industrial action, causing deliberate harm to children's education, in support of their claim for an extra £1,200 for all teachers. That claim is wholly unrealistic and no amount of industrial action will change the fact that increases of that order are not remotely affordable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) advocated the expenditure of £50 million to employ 14,000 more teachers, which works out at £3,500 per teacher? Is that not totally unrealistic? Is not the real solution to the teachers' dispute to be found through negotiations, rather than through disruption or unrealistic claims?

I agree with my hon. Friend that negotiations on one of the three options open to the teachers is the way forward. I think that before the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) says anything about the current teachers' dispute, he should explain to the House how he justifies his view, which seems to emerge from his press statement, that £50 million will buy 14,000 extra teachers; that is to say, £3,500 per teacher.

Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that appraisal will not be linked to the quality of teaching—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and does he accept that the introduction of merit awards in a low-pay sector would have disastrous consequences?

I shall make no such pledge. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that promotion, which carries with it higher pay, is, of course, already based on an informal system of assessment or appraisal, and that what the Government seek is that that system of appraisal should be made formal with the agreement and with the help of teachers through discussions. I am saying, not that appraisal has to be connected with merit pay, but that the whole subject should be discussed and tried out in pilot schemes for which money from the taxpayer has been set aside. The one inexcusable thing is to refuse even to discuss it, which is what the teachers' unions are doing.

Will my right hon. Friend try to answer a question which was put to me by a constituent at the weekend and which I found difficult? Why, he asked me, did the teachers last year go on strike because they could not get arbitration, and why are they taking strike action this year even though they have been offered arbitration? As my constituent also said, is it not emerging from some of the teachers' leaders that their ambition is to try to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by organising a strike in this way?

I think that the apparent contradiction to which my hon. Friend refers must be explained by the fact that last year the teachers obtained from arbitration only 0·6 of 1 per cent. more than they had already been offered. The idea that an arbitrator can, as it were, find free and floating in the air extra resources is part of the Utopian approach of many Opposition Members.

Is the Secretary of State aware that during the conference over Easter of the two major teachers' unions, embracing the vast majority of all teachers, the most determined unity emerged? Does he not realise that it is useless for him to say that he does not decide the wages of teachers, but that the employers do? He knows that he has 15 votes on the Burnham committee and that he decides the teachers' wages. Does he accept that the unity of the teachers is so massive that unless new money is put on the table, separate from the negotiations on reappraisal, this strike and industrial dispute will go on indefinitely and will be the longest teachers' action of all time?

I pay tribute to those teachers' unions, and to the members of other teachers' unions, which have decided not to disrupt children's education. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that the teachers' unions are unanimous. In fact, I seem to detect among them a great deal of disagreement about what they should or should not be seeking to do. Indeed, some unions disagree with the whole idea of causing disruption.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Teachers, in encouraging strike action, thereby disrupting children's education, is doing immense damage to the professional standing of teachers? Does he further agree that the only way to settle their pay claim is either by returning to the restructuring talks on teachers' salaries or by going to arbitration? Will he confirm that any award made by arbitration under section 3 of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 is binding and can be turned down only by a vote of both Houses of Parliament, on the basis that the economic conditions of the country do not allow it to be implemented?

I agree with all that my right hon. and learned Friend says. I believe, in addition, that the leadership of the NUT was guilty of grossly misleading its members in the expectations that it aroused last year—witness the arbitration award—and is doing so again this year.

Given the Secretary of State's obstinate refusal to play a constructive part in looking for a solution to the dispute, how far does he personally feel responsible for the disruption of the education of children in his own constituency and in the city of Leeds? Is that not really an indictment of his own period in office as Secretary of State?

The hon. Gentleman is guilty of thinking that it is constructive to spend taxpayers' money regardless of the consequences. We have been through that period under both Labour and Conservative Governments, and the result has been rocketing inflation and rocketing unemployment. That would be no service to the teachers, to the children or to their parents.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying firmly and fairly that schools are, first and foremost, for children and their education? Further, will he join me in saying that it was excellent that the teachers' conference decided not to disrupt examination invigilation? However, is it not deplorable that some examination teaching may be disrupted? Is it not also important to say that all education, not just examinations, is important and that the teachers should call off their strike straight away?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the Opposition, by accepting the dogma of more spending regardless of the consequences, are espousing a thoroughly perverse set of policies. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Opposition spokesman, must explain how he can offer, as he did in his press conference last week, hundreds of millions of pounds—indeed, over £1,000 million — of extra spending. He gave no explanation at the time. The hon. Gentleman has evidently not costed in the £200 million the implications of what he was pleased to pledge—the phasing out of private schools. Presumably he does not take that seriously, as he did not cost it at all.

I thank the Secretary of State for devoting at least most of his answer to the Labour party programme. I must say that it is a bit rich for him to talk about costs when his own White Paper is not costed at all. He knows perfectly well that his own White Paper would cost £1 billion to implement. He has not come clean with the House. Is he aware that the Conservative Central Office has not understood that £50 million was a net figure? The right hon. Gentleman intends to cut the number of teachers by over 6,000 in the coming year. Finally — [Interruption.] —and let us get back to the teachers' dispute, which he started—is he now saying that he will respond positively—[Interruption.]

Order. Questions from the Front Bench should be brief—all questions should be brief—and should be listened to with courtesy and attention.

Is the Secretary of State going to respond positively to the request from the management side of Burnham for extra resources — and that is in the statement—to help solve the teachers' dispute?

The question is whether the Labour Opposition intend, if given the chance, to phase out independent education. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is riot the question."] If so, why did they not include the cost of it in the budget in the Labour party programme?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will convene a conference of organisations concerned with adult and continuing education to discuss the future of this part of the education service.

I have no plans to do so. I spoke last week at the annual conference of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and, during questions, offered to meet some of those present on specific aspects.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the universal dissatisfaction with Government policies of all interested organisations because of the constant cutting of resources in adult continuing education? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman not only to meet the body, which is not fully representative, as he knows, but to meet all representatives to answer the criticisms which some of us receive virtually every week. In particular, in the case of an adult who is capable of taking and wishes to take a university degree, will he say that there will be no obstacles to that adult doing so, not only for his personal fulfilment, but for the good of the country?

I share with the hon. Gentleman a great respect for all those who work in adult education. I will gladly meet, as I have offered, various groups from those concerned. But I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing injustice to Government policy. He is probably accepting the figures contained in the White Paper on public expenditure without taking account of the unallocated margin, and he forgets that the Government, to their credit, have four new initiatives in adult education, for which they have provided extra money.

As my right hon. Friend takes direct responsibility for adult education, will he apply his considerable intellect to breaking the cycle of poorly educated parents producing poorly education children, and recognise that one of the most effective ways of doing that is through an expansion of the adult education programme?

I agree about the importance of breaking that cycle to the extent that that is humanly possible. I also accept that the adult education work done through "Outreach" can do much to help. I respect that, and will try to encourage it.

The Secretary of State challenged teachers at last week's conference to explain their role in motivating the disadvantaged, but they could tell him that, as professionals, they know how to do that if they are given the resources to carry out the work. Is it not true that this Government do not believe in further and continuing education, as illustrated by the cuts in local authority provision, in extramural departments, and in the Open University, as well as by the savage cuts in aid to the Workers Education Association?

I repeat that to the extent that adult education can help to break that cycle, I shall seek to encourage it to do so. The hon. Gentleman's story of cuts is not accurate. The unallocated margin explains that adult education spending by local authorities may not be cut at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to replace the present negotiating machinery for teachers' pay with a system which directly links pay with performance.

The current pay structure for school teachers, as negotiated by the Burnham primary and secondary committee, allows employers some discretion, through scale promotions, to relate pay to performance. I am not persuaded that the replacement of the negotiating machinery is the key to bringing about a structure in which pay is more directly linked to performance.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that those who take so-called industrial action should abide by the other rules by which those involved in industry have to live, where pay is directly linked to performance? Is it not time that my right hon. Friend introduced legislation to sweep away the present machinery and impose a system of pay related to performance?

I do not accept that it is the machinery that prevents a move in the direction that my hon. Friend seeks. The experience before our eyes in Scotland shows that even when the machinery is reformed in the way that he now seeks the results are not as had been hoped for.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of teachers are dedicated, overworked and underpaid, and that if a system were introduced to link ministerial pay to performance he would be sent home with an empty pay packet?

Underneath the banter, there is a certain amount of common ground between us — [interruption]—I stress "a certain amount." I accept that most teachers are dedicated and hardworking. I also believe that most of them would welcome a system of appraisal in the preparation of which they had had some say.

As the important salary restructuring talks need to proceed, will my right hon. Friend remind those involved in the negotiations that the Government's aim is to reward the effective classroom teacher with improved pay and promotion prospects?

Yes, Sir. The Government have declared their intention to introduce legislation and extra finance to expand in-service training so that an appraisal system can back up improved professional and career prospects, as well as perhaps having an influence on pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the recently announced increase in places for undergraduates in engineering and science.

My right hon. Friend announced on 3 April the 20 institutions which should participate in the first phase of the programme and gave details of the relevant departments and the proposed intakes. The second phase of the engineering and technology programme will be announced later.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the increasing shortage of engineering and science graduates and technicians, can he reassure me that this switch is not really a switch, and that the increase in places for engineering and science is not simply a substitution for places in other disciplines?

The Government have been urged frequently by industry in the past year that the number of students in engineering and technology, and particularly in information technology subjects, should be increased. The programme which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced is in response to that.

Is the Minister aware that only a very temporary glut in the supply of micro circuits has prevented the demand for electronic engineers going through the roof this year? Is he further aware that the proposed increase in the production of engineers is totally inadequate, given the demands of industry?

We are confident that the industry can certainly absorb more graduates with appropriate qualifications. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to share his faith in manpower planning, but he will be glad to know that an IMS study is being conducted on demand for and supply of information technology manpower.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with President Rene of the Seychelles.

Will the Prime Minister confirm her cynical policy to reform the rating system before the next general election? In view of the disastrous situation now facing Scottish ratepayers, will she immediately authorise an emergency allocation of £100 million—only 1 per cent. of the cost of Trident—to ease their burden? Instead of visiting Singapore and Bali, will she visit Shettleston and Baillieston to see the consequences of her policy, or is she afraid to leave London and visit other parts of Britain?

I shall, of course, be going up to Scotland in May, as is customary. I cannot agree to the allocation of £100 million. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have made a special allocation to help the domestic ratepayer, who is particularly hard hit. I am aware that a number of commercial ratepayers are also particularly hard hit. If local authorities were to spend less, that would be a great help to ratepayers.

As the Secretary of State for Employment has given a cautious welcome to the setting up of the Employment Institute, and the chairman of the Conservative party has sought to belittle it, will the right hon. Lady say which of her colleagues' views she supports?

Everyone who can help to solve the problem in practical terms, as distinct from talking about it, is welcome. I hope that some of them will be able to create new businesses which, in practice, will create new jobs. In the meantime, I recognise that two of the suggestions which it has proposed which would help have already been put in hand by this Government. For example, it has proposed a cut in the employers' national insurance contribution, and that has already occurred. It has proposed an increase in the community programme, and that has already occurred. It would seem that we have a number of things in common.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by some of us at the remark made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia during her recent visit that the Commonwealth is now just a sentimental attachment? Does she agree that it is a unique grouping of nations which, given the will, have the potential to play a major part in world development and peace?

Yes, I believe that the Commonwealth still has a role. It is a unique group of nations which girdle the world. We meet alternate years in conference, and there are regional conferences. I believe that that is valuable both politcally and economically and for technical co-operation. I believe that Malaysia, too, will find it valuable.

Will the Prime Minister tell us why, after seven Conservative Budgets, workers on average earnings and half average earnings are paying a higher proportion of those earnings in tax and national insurance than under the previous Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman tells only half the story. Were the rates of income tax and the structure as in 1979 when we took them over, people would be paying £6 billion more in income tax. The Conservative Government put up thresholds—that is, tax-free allowances—in real terms by 16 per cent., whereas the Labour Government put down tax-free allowances in real terms.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 April.

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

Following the question from the leader of the Liberal party, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that she is prepared to welcome any groups of new people who may have time to spare and be willing to put themselves forward for the study of a possible solution to the problem of unemployment? Will she endorse the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment concerning a group which may come up with new ideas and which, even if it does not, certainly at the beginning of its life should be given some sort of welcome?

I hope that I have indicated my view. We need new business, and anything that will assist in the formation of new business will be helpful. We are already considering a number of measures, including tax incentives. In particular, we are reducing the considerable number of regulations and examining planning permission. Anything that is conductive to the development of new business will certainly be very helpful.

The Prime Minister is now considering the report and recommendations of the review body on nurses' pay. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, as a matter of policy, she will support an award that at least will begin the return to the levels of real pay received by nurses in 1980? Will she also give an undertaking that in no circumstances will she finance any part of any award by taking money from the rest of the NHS?

Three reports arrived yesterday, including the report on nurses. We shall consider these reports together. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman undertakings in advance of proper consideration. He will be aware that he will be the first to accuse me of increasing public expenditure if we do so. He knows that the Labour party wants increased public expenditure, but he will be the first to accuse us if it results in increased interest rates or increased taxation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the levels of real pay received by nurses in 1980. He will therefore be very much aware that this Government have done much better by the nurses than the previous Labour Government.

The right hon. Lady, the country and the nurses will recall that that level was achieved because of the Clegg award, which the right hon. Lady opposed at the time but which had to be introduced because of the way in which she undertook during the general election campaign to take action. Can the right hon. Lady now tell me, without evasion, whether she agrees that public expenditure should be used to give justice and proper rewards to those who obviously deserve such rewards? Does the right hon. Lady think that the nurses are properly paid in 1985?

I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about Clegg. This Government honoured the Clegg award. The previous Labour Government, not having the resources, made empty promises which they left us to honour. This Government honoured the nurses' award and reduced their working week from 40 hours to 37½ hours. This Government have found the resources for 57,000 extra nurses and midwives. The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve even to ask that question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her visit two weeks ago to the far east has been very much welcomed by British exporters? Would my right hon. Friend care to build on that by examining our overseas aid budget to ensure that it will generate the maximum activity at home, especially to create jobs? In particular, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the overseas aid and trade provision?

My hon. Friend is correct. Exporters very much welcomed the visit. The visit to those regions was necessary. I cannot give an undertaking to increase the overseas aid budget or the overseas aid and trade provision. We must examine carefully the distribution of that aid to maximise the number of jobs that we can secure in this country from the expenditure of that money.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister admit that, despite her boast during her visit to semi-dictatorships in the far east that she saw off the miners, the miners' magnificent struggle for jobs has been the source of inspiration for those who are prepared to stand up and fight against unemployment, especially the young people and students who, supported by parents and teachers, will take strike action on Thursday against industrial conscription? In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady is prepared to introduce compulsory industrial conscription for 16-yearolds, is she prepared to give youth the vote at 16?

Although I tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's meanderings, what is painfully clear is that he supports strikes. In doing so, he defeats the prospects for getting export jobs for this country. Then he will assuredly complain about unemployment. I doubt whether he really wants to solve the unemployment problem. If he did, he would not support strikes; he would support action to prevent strikes.

In view of the emphasis placed upon education by the Labour party during the current county council elections, will my right hon. Friend take time today to look at that party's recent education proposals? Will she note that the Labour party's commitment to additional resources is equalled by its commitment and pledge to do away with independent schools? Therefore, despite all that the Labour party says about the shortage of resources, it is planning for no increase in expenditure on state education.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for so cogently making that point. As he will be aware, expenditure per pupil and the proportion of teachers to pupils in the state education system is at an all-time record under the Conservative Government. It is we who deliver the goods; it is the Labour party which does the talking.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the increase in inflation, on top of the appalling level of unemployment, confirms that the Government's monetarist policies are not working and are bringing only misery and deprivation to this country, especially in the inner city areas?

No. I think that many of us would be quite glad to have had the level of inflation that we now have for a longer period. The hon. Gentleman will recall that under the Labour Government inflation went up to 27 per cent. and that it fundamentally undermined the social as well as the financial fabric of this country.

Following the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers would greatly enhance its reputation if it condemned the intolerable treatment by the miners who went on strike of those who chose not to go on strike? Does she further agree that the treatment of those who did not go on strike is an intolerable blot upon the reputation of the trade union movement?

Yes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the whole world knows that the miners' strike lasted for a year, that it was perpetuated through violence and intimidation, that it was supported by the Labour party, and that it was the Government, the working miners and the mass of the trade union movement that stood out against it and saw it off. I hope that my hon. Friend's advice will be taken in the quarters where it should be taken.

May we have a little less humbug from the Prime Minister about rates in Scotland? Is she aware that in a written reply to me last week the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that, as a result of revaluation and successive cuts in rate support grant, domestic and commercial ratepayers in Scotland are bearing a 50 per cent. greater share of the burden of the costs of local services than they were when this Government came to power. So let us have a little less humbug. Will the Prime Minister admit that it is the Conservative Government who are responsible for the miseries of Scottish ratepayers?

The hon. Gentleman refers to proportions. If the total expenditure were less, the burden on the domestic ratepayer would be less. Although comparatively few Scottish electors pay rates, Labour local authorities unfortunately do not hesitate to place an intolerable burden upon them.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed today that Dr. Sidney Gee has been awarded libel damages amounting to £75,000 against the "That's Life" programme? Does she agree that the time has come for the lawyers' profession to be investigated, just as every other profession is investigated, since the actual costs in that case, in order to obtain justice, amounted to £1.2 million? Has not the time come when those who are libelled should at least obtain a fairer share of the costs, instead of £1.2 million going to the lawyers?

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about that matter. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Law Officers.

Having advised the House that she has now received the report on nurses' pay, will the Prime Minister assure the House and the nurses that she will not sit on the report, as she did last year? Will she implement the decision as quickly as possible, given the full implications?

We have still more reports to receive. The one from the Top Salaries Review Body will be some time, and therefore we shall probably not wait for it. It has a number of matters to consider. I hope that we shall be able to consider the rest before that one. There is still, of course, the doctors' and dentists' review body report to come. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that we must consider carefully how to find all the money that we decide must be found across the board, bearing in mind that it comes not from the Government but from taxpayers.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During education questions, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) caught your eye in order to ask a question about truancy. Was it not a gross abuse of Question Time for the hon. Gentleman to raise such a subject when 90 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party were not in the Chamber, only one member of the Liberal party was present, and the Social Democratic party Member—

Order. If there was an abuse, it is being repeated now. I do not propose to let it continue.