asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, column 533, if he will specify the compelling educational considerations which would lead him to decide against the retention of a good school's sixth form.

The compelling considerations are likely to include the impact of falling rolls on all schools in the area and the opportunities, including alternative provision, available to the local education authority in order to provide an effective range of educational opportunities for those of secondary school age.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sixth forms of our good state schools provide the best education in the country? Will he confirm that the restructuring proposals available to the teachers' unions include elements that will allow recognition of the skills and talents of the staff that make those sixth forms the best?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in the general thrust of her comments. It is our intention to seek to retain all that is good at all levels of educational provision in this country. Our policies and results are in stark contrast to those of the Socialist parties on the Opposition side, which would abolish the grammar schools, the assisted places scheme and the independent schools and would seek to abolish the voluntary controlled schools and do a great deal more damage of an extremist type.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all three opposition parties on Hertfordshire county council, which collectively have a majority of seats, propose to abolish sixth forms in our state schools and replace them with separate colleges? Is he aware that the proposal is causing grave alarm among parents, pupils and teachers? Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that if any such proposals are put to him he will veto them?

The legal position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not permit me to give such an undertaking. However, I assure my hon. Friend that it is for Hertfordshire county council to review school provision and to make such proposals as are necessary, and they will be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend if they should come before him.

Does the Minister accept that we must balance the need for a wide curriculum at A-level, which may necessitate the provision of tertiary colleges, with the need to maintain community schools? Will he, therefore, reject the one-sided and narrow advice of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley)?

The hon. Gentleman falls into the category of a Socialist in education. He wishes to impose one model of provision on all local education authorities.

I said the opposite of that.

The hon. Gentleman did not. He implied that a comprehensive system with a tertiary college was by far the best. I say that that is not the case.

Mr. Andrew Bennett, question No. 2.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it has been agreed that we should take this question at the end. Is that correct?

If the Secretary of State says so.

I understood that that arrangement was made with your agreement, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on International Youth Year and the youth service.

The Government are directly supporting International Youth Year by grant-aiding the four national co-ordinating committees in the United Kingdom. A very wide range of organisations, particularly voluntary youth organisations and local authorities, are involved in activities relating to the year. Many activities in Government programmes have relevance to the objectives of the year. Among positive youth service initiatives this year, the Department has issued an important circular about the planning and management of the service.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that John O'Leary, writing in The Times Higher Education Supplement on Britain's contribution to International Youth Year, said:

"declarations of support and minimal funding smack of tokenism"?

The hon. Gentleman must accept from me that youth service expenditure goes into a number of heads across the whole of local government activity, not just the local education authority service or direct funding by us. Total grant-aid from the four home education departments to International Youth Year national co-ordinating committees in the United Kingdom from the beginning of funding until the end of this financial year is expected to be greater than £500,000.

Has my hon. Friend any evidence that these so-called designated years do any good to anyone at any time? Does he share my view that they are an excuse for inactivity and the very tokenism to which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred? Will my hon. Friend give the most careful consideration before committing public funds in future to one of these silly years?

I feel that I should be speechless in the light of that question. However, I share some of my hon. Friend's concern. His point of view will be noted not only by me but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the youth service, because of its rather weak statutory base, is always squeezed when the Government cut education expenditure? How does he justify the type of statements that he has made from the Dispatch Box in International Youth Year knowing full well that the youth service is being severely reduced throughout the country?

I always speak with as much certainty as I can. Aggregate expenditure in the local authority sector on the youth service rose by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1982–83 and 1983–84, following an increase of 5 per cent. in real terms between 1981–82 and 1982–83. That does not support the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding funds for maintenance and repair of school buildings.

Within the last few months my right hon. Friend has received the report of Her Majesty's inspectors on the effects on education provision of LEA expenditure policies in 1984 and the 1985 report of the expenditure steering group on education, both of which consider the repair and maintenance of the educational building fabric among other issues. The question of school repair and maintenance was also discussed at this month's meeting of NEDC. In addition, my right hon. Friend and I receive letters on this subject from time to time.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that LEAs are facing a crisis with regard to their buildings? For example, Lancashire county council estimates that it needs to spend £32·7 million this year to put its school buildings in order. The council is able to spend only £6·1 million because of the Government's revenue and capital restraints. Is it not time that the Government provided sufficient money for councils to deal with their buildings and stop deterioration, otherwise there will be consequent effects on education?

The allocation for Lancashire is already the second highest given to any LEA for 1985–86.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is always, even in education, a limited amount of money available within the budget, however sympathetic we may be? Does he agree that if a greater proportion of that money is taken up in wages and salaries a lower proportion will be expended on maintaining school buildings and other vital school equipment? Does my hon. Friend agree also that moderation in pay settlements must encourage local authorities to spend more money on maintaining school buildings?

My hon. Friend's interpretation is right. I am pleased to say that since 1978–79 local education authorities have increased their spending on repair and maintenance of educational buildings. Spending increased by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1983–84 -the latest year for which information is available.

Does the Minister accept that some local authorities are incapable of solving their present financial problems in respect of rebuilding and repairing schools? Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow them a one-off grant?

The hon. Gentleman's comments will be in the Official Report, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will probably read them. If costs can be maintained and savings made elsewhere, our plans for 1985–86 should provide scope for some improvement in the level of expenditure per pupil on repairs and maintenance in many authorities.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important for school buildings to be properly maintained, so that they do not become damaged or derelict? Does he accept that some pupils can contribute to the maintenance of buildings, as I know from experience? Could that be considered?

I am perfectly prepared to take on board anything that my hon. Friend says, in view of his long experience in the education service.

Is the Minister aware that some school buildings which I visited recently are in such a condition that if they came under the offices and factories legislation they would have been closed by now?

I take seriously the concern expressed in the reports and in comments made today about the state of many schools and college buildings. It is clear that that is the accumulated result of inadequate expenditure on repair and maintenance of the building stock for many years.

When my hon. Friend considers the question of schools which have amalgamated because of falling rolls and which now require larger sports and recreational facilities to cope with the larger numbers of pupils, will he bear in mind that Roman Catholic and Anglican churches in Lancashire have meticulously raised money to repair their buildings, and that they cover 50 per cent. of the children in Lancashire?

I understand precisely my hon. Friend's point. However, if the Labour party had its way, there would be no Church schools about which she could be concerned.

In his opening remarks the Minister mentioned the National Economic Development Council. Does he accept that the Department, in its evidence to the NEDC, stresses that a significant number of our pupils and students are now being taught in wholly inadequate accommodation? What will the Government do about finding extra money for local authorities and to remove the penalties in the present rate support grant system from local authorities which want their children to be taught in decent school buildings?

On the question of making savings in the education service, I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Audit Commission's report, which found that real savings can be made on the provision for school caretaking, cleaning and meals. I commend that line of action to many local authorities, which are at present not doing enough in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the review of vocational qualifications currently being undertaken by the Manpower Services Commission.

In paragraph 39 of the White Paper "Education and Training for Young People", Cmnd. 9482, the Government invited the Manpower Services Commission, together with the Departments concerned, to review the range of vocational qualifications offered by educational, professional, and industry-based standard-setting bodies. A group has been established for that purpose under the chairmanship of a distinguished industrialist Mr. Oscar de Ville. The Department of Education and Science is jointly involved with the Manpower Services Commission in servicing the group. An interim report is expected in September, and a final report in April next year.

Will the Minister tell the House what consultation has taken place with those involved in the colleges and other institutions which provide the appropriate courses, and what action has been taken to overcome the fears of many educationists that this is merely another endeavour by the MSC to undermine standards and quality in education and training?

Regarding the first question, the education service was included in a working group, which, between the publication of the White Paper and my right hon. Friend's announcement in July, worked on the scheme. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that it is a joint review. The MSC was placed in the lead in the review's establishment because of its responsibilities under the Government for the development of training policy. The review deals with standards of training and competence in industry and vocational education qualifications, such as City and Guilds.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support in industry for vocational qualifications that are taken at schools, such as the certificate of pre-vocational education, to count towards credits on craft-based qualifications and towards any qualifications that are taken at the end of the two-year YTS scheme?

I assure my hon. Friend that the review which I have mentioned has an interest in qualifications such as the CPVE, not least because of the potential links between that and the youth training scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the two-year youth training scheme.

My right hon. Friend has received no direct representations, but the proposals approved by the Government were the subject of extensive consultations with a number of interests.

Now that the two-year youth training scheme is a permanent feature of education and training, will the Minister take the initiative and support education and our youth by introducing an integrated system for 16 to 19-year-olds? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the injustice and the inconsistency in providing resources for training/education while still denying certain resources and finances for full-time education? Will he take the initiative in removing this anomaly?

The review group is much involved in considering the ability of trainees under the youth training scheme to emerge from the two-year scheme with qualifications. They will have the opportunity of 20 weeks off-the-job training over two years to seek recognised vocational qualifications.

Will the establishment of the two-year youth training scheme, which I heartily welcome, bring into sharper focus the relationship between training and education and the argument that has been advanced by many head teachers that perhaps children younger than 16 years could benefit from some of the elements that are contained in a youth training scheme?

I concur with my hon. Friend that, despite statutory differences, 16 years does not in itself represent a borderline and that there are applications at a lower age level.

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

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

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

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current state of negotiations in the teachers' pay dispute.

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

I very much regret that this harmful and unnecessary dispute continues. The employers have indicated a willingness to increase what is on offer, if the unions are prepared to show flexibility. For my part, I have offered additional Government resources next year for teachers' pay and to help meet the cost of removing midday supervision from teachers' standard duties provided there is satisfactory progress by October towards our objectives for improving the quality and standards in the schools. Only on this basis are the Government willing to see additional resources made available.

In the Secretary of State's attempts to resolve the teachers' pay dispute, how does he regard one of the Prime Minister's answers last Thursday, which told us that a senior civil servant in the Department of Education and Science is to receive a 30 per cent. rise in his wages, which is six times that which is being offered to the teachers? Was that "helpful" intervention by the Prime Minister naive and stupid, or merely arrogant? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that will stiffen the resolve of teachers and their unions to get a just settlement and a decent wage for teachers?

Exactly the same purposes as were being served by the Top Salaries Review Body, most of whose recommendations the Government have accepted, are being served by the additional taxpayers' money which I, on behalf of the Government, have been offering for over a year to transform the teachers' career and promotion structure, if they will only negotiate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, without condoning the strike action that is being taken by some teachers, there are grounds for being concerned about the low level of morale in the profession? Anything that he can say which reiterates his appreciation of the good work that many teachers are doing will be of great comfort to them and to the parents of children at school.

I can only repeat what I have said many times, that many teachers do excellent work, often in difficult conditions. As for morale, I wish I could be sure that all teachers realise that the Government have been offering for a year additional taxpayers' money in order to transform promotion and career prospects for teachers.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention to have a well motivated properly remunerated, well rewarded teaching profession which is able to recruit and retain good quality candidates, so that, for example, good quality chemistry graduates may feel that a career in teaching will be attractive? Will my right hon. Friend clearly state the sort of restructuring proposals which he would be able to commend to his colleagues in the Cabinet?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have made it plain for over a year that the Government are prepared to find additional money from the taxpayer in order to transform the promotion prospects of teachers. I hope that the teachers' representatives and the employers will soon get down to negotiating such a package, so that this opportunity to improve the schooling of our children is not lost for the second year running.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he was prepared to accept a higher settlement than that which was publicised, and that it was acceptable to the teachers but was blocked by the Prime Minister? Does he not recognise the strength of feeling among teachers, and that the teachers' case is overwhelmingly supported by parents? How much more damage is he prepared to see done to our schools?

I respect the hon. Gentleman, but the first part of his question is based on a complete misconception. The hon. Gentleman is wholly remote from the truth in the suggestion contained in the first part of his question. As to the second part of his question, I wish that he and his colleagues in the Opposition parties would address their minds to the Government's overwhelming priority, which is better schooling for all children of all abilities. That is the great purpose that the Government are seeking to serve, and I hope that the Opposition will give their support to that purpose.

Is it not the case that, in negotiations over many previous years, pay and conditions of employment have not gone together? My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on trying to bring pay and conditions together in these. negotiations.

If my hon. Friend is saying that in recent years pay and conditions have not been negotiated together, I regret that that is the truth. I am grateful to him for encouraging the efforts which the Government are making to bring the two together.

When will the Secretary of State face reality? In the Select Committee this morning I told him that if the Government had given the £250 million to the teachers which they gave gratuitously to Johnson Matthey, we would not have all this trouble. Is it not a fact that, as a result of all the money being paid to generals, admirals and top civil servants, the Government do not know where they are? While talking about the subject this morning, the Secretary of State said the opposite to what the Prime Minister said about vouchers. He said that he was against them. The other afternoon the Prime Minister said that she was for them.

The hon. Gentleman is misleading himself. If he looks at the record he will find that in the Select Committee this morning I said that vouchers, after careful examination by the Government, were off the agenda. I have not said I am against them. On the first point, I must seek once again to try to recruit the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the great purpose of improving schooling for the children of all abilities of this country. If yet another year passes with an indiscriminate increase to the teachers and nothing in return negotiated by union leaders, we shall not make progress to what should be a common purpose, namely, better schooling for children of all abilities.

If the purpose behind the pay offer to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier is to recruit, retain and motivate people of the right quality, how can that purpose be fulfilled by two such enormously different pay offers as that to the teachers and that to top salaried people? Is that the reason why, at a conference last week, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were greeted with cries of "Rubbish". "Shame" and "Crap" — [Interruption.] Is it not time that the Secretary of State resigned?

Order. That is not a very nice word to use.

I was quoting from a newspaper report, Mr. Speaker.

Even if some remarks of mine are not greeted as immediate revealed truth, I still maintain that the purpose behind the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations and the purpose behind the Government's offer to the teachers of additional taxpayers' money for the right package are precisely the same—to recruit, retain and motivate, in this case, teachers of the right quality.

Will my right hon. Friend disregard the extravagant and crude language of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and look at the offer of remuneration for midday supervision by teachers, which is very valuable? Is there any reason why negotiations on his offer of remuneration to teachers undertaking midday duties should not be started with those teachers and unions prepared to talk?

Even from my hon. Friend I am not prepared to see unravelled the package on which the Government's offer of additional money from the taxpayer is based.

Can the Secretary of State say whether, in the Cabinet, he supported the decision to give so-called top people very large increases in salaries?

What did Labour do in 1978?

Does the right hon. Gentleman even now not understand the outrage of paying his Department's chief civil servant an extra 30 per cent. to supervise a policy of limiting the pay increases of classroom teachers to 6 per cent. at the most? I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for sheer inconsistency, insensitivity and bad timing, the decision on top people's pay is hard to beat.

The answer to the hon Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to the second part of his question is that in 1978 the Labour Cabinet accepted the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body for salary increases of 35 per cent. for the grades covered. Why is what was right for a Labour Government in 1978 wrong for a Conservative Government now?

Are not applications to enter teaching training colleges vastly down this year compared with last year, and is that not proof of the argument that we must pay teachers more if we are to attract the right people?

Even though the hon. Gentleman's factual assumption is wrong, because broadly the quantity is still at about the same level, he is still right in general to be worried about the quality and types of skills being recruited to the teaching profession. That is why the Government are concerned to find an answer to the long continued shortage of certain skills in teaching and why we are anxious to make sure that we are recruiting and retaining the right quality and motivation. Those are all reasons why the Government have thought fit for more than a year to offer additional taxpayers' money for a package that will help to achieve all those purposes.

Mr. Greg Knight, No. 11. Mr. Michael Colvin, No. 12. Mr. Michael Stern, No. 14.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take points of order afterwards. It takes up time out of questions.

Question No. 8, Mr. Speaker.

I absolutely withdraw. I apologise to the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the present and future representation of teachers and local authority representatives on the Burnham committee.

On 2 May I announced my decision to review the composition of the teachers' panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee. All the teacher unions have now submitted relevant membership figures, which are under consideration within the Department. I expect to complete the review before the end of the calendar year. I have no present plans to make wider changes in repesentation or to the negotiating machinery generally.

While I welcome and support my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 is outdated, that the Burnham structure should be abolished as soon as possible and that a new general teachers' council should have the opportunity to advise on matters of pay structure and assessment?

I certainly agree that at present the Burnham structure does not seem to have many friends, but that does not mean that it is obvious what could be put in its place, legislative time permitting, which would be better. Nevertheless, the Government are considering the options and will be glad to receive the views of the local education authorities. I am not able to agree with my hon. Friend that a general teachers' council would necessarily be a reinforcement to educational quality, but I am willing to listen to arguments

Is there not a better way of negotiating teachers' salaries in place of one which, when there is a disagreement, does so much damage to the children, the teachers themselves and the parents?

I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in attaching all those consequences to the structure itself. It is the representatives of some of the teachers' unions who have drawn those damaging consequences upon the children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on future prospects for education in the light of the continuing teachers' dispute.

The Government's commitment to improved standards remains firm, and we shall continue to pursue the policies for improvement set out in the White Paper "Better Schools" with vigour and determination.

In relation to the continuing dispute, will my right hon. Friend confirm that arbitration has been on offer to both sides since virtually the first day of the dispute and that such arbitration, if it took place, would take place in the light of the current circumstances, and with no predisposition to any offer which is now or might be on the table?

My hon. Friend is asking me to agree to that which I cannot immediately accept. Arbitration is available, if both sides agree.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the future prospects of the teaching profession and of education depend on an acknowledgment in the House by him that, on present available information, teachers' pay in real terms is below that recommended by Houghton in the mid-1970s? Will he confirm that the present offer still places teachers' salaries, in real terms, below the levels of the Houghton recommendations?

I totally reject any idea of a return to comparability. The teachers' increase under Houghton was removed entirely within a very few years, before the end of the life of the then Labour Government, by the inflationary storm to which it helped give rise. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to encourage more inflation which is itself, in the words of his former party Leader, the father and mother of unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet the leaders of the National Union of Teachers.

I had agreed to meet union leaders jointly with employer representatives on 9 May, but the National Union of Teachers declined. I have made plain my readiness to meet representatives of the teachers' side of the Burnham committee to discuss the proposals I made on 21 May.

When will there be such a meeting with representatives of the NUT? One is inevitable. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the NUT how the professionalism that he claims for teachers is reflected in his ideological statements about how teachers should teach and what salary they should get? In view of public opinion, much of it from behind the right hon. Gentleman, which we shall hear again later this week, the Secretary of State must be aware that there is a great contradiction between his treatment of members of the NUT and other people.

The hon. Gentleman has made so many points that I do not know where to begin. I am willing to meet representatives of any of the teacher unions, including the NUT. It is they who are emphasising professionalism, not me. I repeat that the Top Salaries Review Body recommendation was supported by a Labour Government. Why was it right in 1978 and not now?

Would the agenda for such a meeting include the second report of the National Council for Educational Standards? Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on that report's findings?

I do not want to be tempted too far, but the findings of that report give plenty of ground for thought and analysis.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to meet the chairman of the Burnham committee to discuss teachers' pay.

I have no present plans to do so.

Without risking quotation, will the Secretary of State seek to gain the agreement of the chairman of the Burnham committee on two points: first, that the dispute should be brought to an end as soon as possible in the interests of children and teachers; and, secondly, that the review body recommendation last week makes that far more difficult to achieve? Will the right hon. Gentleman get the agreement of, or listen to, the chairman of the Burnham committee, who will tell him that only new money from the Government can achieve an end to the dispute? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that on board?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the role of the chairman of the Burnham committee. He fills an entirely independent role and presides over the meetings of the two sides of the committee. He takes no direct part in the negotiations. I am always happy to meet him, but I do not think that such a meeting would contribute directly to a settlement of the dispute.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Burnham committee, will he draw his attention to the fact that these so-called independent review bodies produce more problems than they find answers?

I do not anticipate a meeting, and certainly not one on the substance of the dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his current policy towards the retention of selective secondary education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards grammar schools; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is content with the existing legal framework, which gives freedom to each local education authority to maintain its existing pattern of school organisation and, if it wishes, to propose changes in that pattern. Using this freedom, some local education authorities continue to maintain selective secondary schools. The freedom to submit statutory proposals to reintroduce grammar schools was restored by the Education Act 1979.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that many parents would like the opportunity to consider an alternative? Is he considering any proposals to widen parental choice?

We are always considering proposals to widen parental choice. Our stance is in stark contrast to that of the parties opposite, all of which agree with the abolition of grammar schools and parental choice as Conservative Members understand it.

Are there serious plans to reintroduce direct grant grammar schools to help children who are deprived of an excellent education because they come from areas where they are unable to receive an education according to their abilities? If so, when is my hon. Friend likely to produce them?

As I said a few moments ago, we are continuing at all times to consider the various options of organisation available to us. Undoubtedly in the fullness of time certain proposals will be made known, but I am not yet in a position to say what they are.

Can the Minister explain why the Catholic sector in the northern part of the borough of Trafford has no grammar school provision, only secondary modern schools, when Trafford is a selective authority and 40 per cent. of primary school children go on to grammar schools? Does the Minister accept that that effectively reduces the secondary modern schools to "sink" schools?

The Conservative party has always regretted the passing of the grammar and direct grant schools. I assume from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is in favour of the total abolition of selective schools in the borough of Trafford.

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

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that her Minister for Housing and Construction, speaking in Newcastle last week, described the board and lodging accommodation used by homeless people as bad, badly managed and filthy? I prefer the description squalid, exploitation and humiliation. Will the right hon. Lady turn her attention to the conditions in which the vast majority of those using such accommodation live and introduce new laws to enforce satisfactory conditions?

On the whole, housing accommodation in this country has improved during the lifetime of this Government. That is a fact. The hon. Gentleman referred to the supplementary benefit board and lodging payments. He is aware that it will be a matter for debate in the House later this week.

As the British merchant fleet now carries only one quarter of the total of United Kingdom trade—a statistic which has the most alarming implications for our economy and defence—will my right hon. Friend take time during the recess to send for and study the report now being prepared in the Ministry of Defence in response to requests, complaints and anxieties voiced on both sides of the House, with a view to proposing, I hope, early remedial action?

As my right hon. Friend knows, I am very much aware of the importance of a merchant fleet to the defence of this country. I am taking a close interest in the report being prepared by the Ministry of Defence.

Since the Government have awarded pay increases of up to 46 per cent. to safeguard the quality and morale of generals, judges and civil servants, why will they not allow the additional 1 per cent. which would have the same effect on teachers and help resolve the present damaging dispute?

This year the Government have implemented the review body reports on nurses and midwives, at a total cost in a full year of £314 million, on doctors and dentists, at a total cost of £122 million, on the armed forces at a total cost of £205 million, and the Top Salaries Review Body proposals at a total cost of £10 million. We have implemented all the reports of the review bodies.

If the Prime Minister is so attracted by the 1978 precedent, why has she not chosen to follow it in staging this pay award over three years or more? Why has she disregarded the 1978 precedent, when an inquiry was simultaneously set up into the problems of low pay in the public service? That issue seems to interest the Prime Minister not at all. All that she means, when she quotes the figures, is that she is prepared to subsidise extravagance for the rich but will not afford justice for the generality of people. Has she no understanding that social justice must play a part in economic policy and that if it does not that economic policy is doomed, as the right hon. Lady has demonstrated in the last six years? Will she now answer a simple question — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] — about the social justice? Will she justify a policy which authorises massive pay increases for the well-to-do on one day and abolishes wages council protection for the very poor on the next?

The 1978 report recommended in July 1978 that that report be staged and completed by April 1980—July 1978 to April 1980—whereas this report says:

"We urge the Government to implement our recommendations in full."

Now answer my question.

Although those were average increases of 35 per cent. — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions and I intend to answer them.

Go on, answer them.

The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Order. It is pointless for right hon. and hon. Members to tell the Prime Minister to answer the question when she is seeking to do so.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), as a member of the then Labour Government, accepted that report, as did Labour Members then supporting that Government, and as The Times commented the next day:

"The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer received general support from Labour MPs for the big increases in pay recommended by the Boyle Committee."

The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to answer the question that I put to her, from which we must assume confirmation of what we know already, that social justice is not a consideration that enters into the thinking of her party.

The right hon. Gentleman's questions were answered, and he does not like that. He was a member of a Government who accepted average increases for the top of the Civil Service, the top salaries review, of 35 per cent. We, on the same basis, have accepted average increases of 12·2 per cent. The whole of the Labour party supported those increases — [Interruption.] — as did the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is now Leader of the SDP, and as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who was engaged on the Lib-Lab pact. They supported them because they were reasonable salaries for people with onerous duties to carry out and because they were necessary to retain, recruit and motivate those people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the disgraceful and misleading film on the police that has been produced by the GLC? Does she think it right that ratepayers' money should have been spent in this way? Is there any way in which she can prevent members of the public having the film thrust upon them, particularly people in schools and youth clubs, where it is due to be circulated free of charge?

I have seen many pamphlets connected with this matter and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has paid great attention to them. I believe that Londoners will recognise them as the crude political propaganda that they are. It is another reason why the majority of Londoners will be grateful that the Local Government Act, the measure to abolish the GLC, has now passed all its stages.

The 1978 Top Salaries Review Body contributed to the sense of unfairness that led to the winter of discontent in 1979 — [Interruption.] There is not much hope for hon. Members if we cannot learn from mistakes. I ask the Prime Minister whether she can learn from anything that has been done by anyone else. The sure lesson is that pay comparability with the private sector for top civil servants is all right, but that it is not all right for other civil servants. The right hon. Lady's Government abolished the independent pay research body. That is indefensible. Will the Prime Minister explain what is now to be done about the civil service grades which hitherto have been deprived of comparability?

The right hon. Gentleman fully supported the review body when he was Foreign Secretary, in order to stay Foreign Secretary, but he now contemptuously disowns it in opposition.

Is it not possible to make a mistake?

The right hon. Gentleman deserves to be treated with utter contempt.

May we have an estimate of how much of the £10 million that is to be paid in top salaries will return to the Exchequer in income tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that since hon. Members on both sides of the House have voted to improve their financial position they should have some humility in discussing this matter?

I cannot give my right hon. Friend a precise estimate. He is aware that the top rate of tax is 60 per cent. The numbers in the Civil Service top grades have been substantially reduced during this Government's lifetime. A total of 814 people were in the top posts when we came to power; now only 654 are in post. Numbers have been substantially reduced. That grade of people costs the country less in real terms now than when we came to power.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the West Midlands region, one of the most densely populated regions in the country, has 100 fewer consultants in post than the national average? Is she further aware that the region has issued a priority list of 40 consultant posts which it wants to fill immediately? Will she use her influence with the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure that resources are made available to make those appointments?

The last Labour Government set up the Resource Allocations Working Party and we have continued it. The object was to ensure that the Health Service was as similar as possible in terms of service to people in all areas of the country. That causes problems to hospitals from which resources are removed. Sometimes we do not achieve the credit deserved from hospitals to which resources are given. If there is a discrepancy, as the hon. Lady suggests, I assume that it will be dealt with by the Resource Allocations Working Party.

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

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on successfully concluding the extradition treaty with Spain. Is it not intolerable that British criminals now residing in Spain will get away with their crimes because the legislation is not retrospective? Will my right hon. Friend call an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister of Spain to arrange for such criminals to be booted out, to come back to this country to face the consequences of their illegal acts?

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his team of officials on the way in which they have negotiated this extradition treaty with Spain. Although, as my hon. Friend said, it will not be retrospective, it will apply to anyone who enters or re-enters Spanish territory after it comes into force. Some of the United Kingdom fugitives in Spain may have to leave the country and re-enter to renew their residential permits. Others may be affected by a new law which gives the Spanish authorities stronger powers to expel undesirable aliens, so it should be an effective treaty.

Has the Prime Minister read early-day motion No. 921, and if so does she accept the constitutional principle that it asserts?

The right hon. Gentleman is referring to talks that are at present continuing between the Government in Dublin and the Government in the United Kingdom. He will be aware of the communiqué that was issued after Chequers, and of the full constitutional position, which protects the Unionists in Northern Ireland. Discussions continue, and should any agreement be reached, it will be a matter for debate in the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Is the hon. Member's point concerned with questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, may I revert to the question that was put to the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), when he sought to cane hon. Members for doing rather well out of the previous pay review body? In case it may be misunderstood, may I put it on the record——

Order. That is a continuation of Question Time, and the hon. Gentleman, who has been here much longer than I have, must know that that is not in order.

rose——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) knows that the whole House disapproves of the practice of continuing Question Time. I am sorry that he was not called.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we have a great deal of work ahead of us this week., and there is an end of term atmosphere in the Chamber today, but you may have noticed, as I did, that during the early questions on education, when there were few Members in the Chamber, it was nevertheless very difficult to hear the contributions of one or two Members. I am sure that other hon. Members had the same difficulty. Similar difficulties must have been experienced in the Public and Press Galleries. That being so, is it possible to remind hon. Members that they are professional public speakers, and that everyone is entitled to hear what they have to say?

Order. I do not think that the House has any difficulty in hearing the hon. Member.

Further to my point of order——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I were to be successful in catching your eye during Question Time and were to pose a question related to someone else's supplementary question and tried to introduce a new topic, you would rightly correct and admonish me.

I am protector of the Back Benches, but today the Prime Minister was called upon to answer a somewhat lengthy question from the Opposition Front Bench. That is fair enough.

On another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Well, a totally different point of order?

Yes, Sir. Can you confirm for me that we had to wait five years, because our pay rise was phased over a whole Parliament?

I cannot remember.