asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on future funding of United Kingdom universities, with particular reference to research and staff salaries.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) announced on 20 May, the Government are willing to consider some additional funding for the universities provided there is clear evidence of progress in implementing necessary changes. These include the development of the policy of selectivity and rationalisation, better financial management and improved standards of teaching. Any new structure for academic pay will have to provide the necessary flexibility to enable institutions to recruit and retain staff of the required quality.

Is it not a shocking thought that after seven years of Conservative Government there should be talk about the possibility of closing one or more universities in this country? Does the Minister recognise that in the past seven or eight years the eight Scottish universities have suffered a cut in their financial resources overall of over 10 per cent. in real terms and that in the forthcoming academic year all of them will suffer substantial cuts? Will he give an undertaking on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they will fight like tigers in the Cabinet for increased resources? A sickly smile will be no substitute for that.

I know of no plans to close universities. As for the position in Scotland, the University Grants Committee does not discriminate geographically.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while it makes sense to link research funding to the excellence of that research, it necessarily implies that there must be fair criteria for selecting the quality of research and a fair method of appeal for those who disagree with the category within which they have been put?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I draw his attention to the fact that these judgments were not arrived at haphazardly. They were arrived at not only by the UGC, but in consultation with the Royal Society, research councils, medical charities, other learned bodies and other very distinguished individuals. Therefore, I stress that the judgments were not arrived at lightly.

Is the Minister aware that poor pay and chances of promotion are the major factors affecting recruitment into universities? Does he accept that lecturers and vice-chancellors agree that there is a 24 per cent. fallback in cash? What will he do about it?

I shall not weary the House with the arguments about the so-called 24 per cent. cut in pay. I am looking to the future on this question, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will, too. As indicated by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Science. we hope that the university authorities, vice-chancellors and the Association of University Teachers, will come up with some movement in the areas of flexibility, structure and appraisal, which will enable us to look again at academic pay.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the institute of agriculture at Stirling university, which has managed to raise more than £1 million of outside research funds, has a gold medal and has won two international prizes in the past three years for its research, has been described by the UGC as having a research department of average calibre and that, instead of having applied research, it might merge with the biology department? Is he satisfied that these people are able to make objective decisions, because, rather like the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), there is widespread concern about this and no means of appeal?

I should like to make it clear that the judgments of research quality do not reflect judgments of whole universities. For example, they do not take account of teaching. They are judgments made department by department. I go back to what I said earlier. If my hon. Friend does not expect the list of impressive institutions and individuals to which I referred to make those judgments, who else can do it? Certainly not the Government.

Why, after the Prime Minister's pledge at the 1983 election that the real level of university funding would be kept level, was the current grant cut by 5 per cent. in real terms last year and why, in the coming year, do universities face a cut of 2 per cent. in real terms?

Again, I invite the hon. Gentleman to look forward and not to hark backwards. I draw his attention to the fact that serious, positive and forward-looking discussions are currently taking place between the vice-chancellor and my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate about the provision of text books in schools.

My right hon. Friend has received no representations on what Her Majesty's Inspectorate has to say about the provision of text books in his recently published report on "The Effects of Local Authority Expenditure Policies on Education Provision in England". He has offered to discuss the report as a whole with local authority elected members.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the HMI report on Britain's schools confirms what many parents and teachers have been saying for a long time—that most state schools in England are desperately short of books and equipment? Does he further acknowledge that the new Secretary of State will have a mammoth task on his hands and will need much more public money if he is to correct that state of affairs before the next general election, when education will undoubtedly be a major topic?

I hope very much that education will be a major topic at the next election. I am bound to say that I do not think that it will redound to the credit of the Opposition when it is. The hon. Gentleman has been even more selective in referring to the HMI report than I had anticipated. The report is unequivocal, that in the majority of cases lack of money is not the main reason for shortages. The HMI report says:

"In nine-tenths of schools—

What about books?

The report says:

"In nine-tenths of schools it was the inadequate identification by teachers of pupils' educational needs and poor management of resources which were more telling factors than the level of capitation."

Will my hon. Friend confirm that HMI said that more money and resources would not resolve all the difficulties in our schools? As a practical example, does my hon. Friend agree that in the Inner London educaton authority more money has been chasing a reduction in the quality of education?

As ever, my hon. Friend is accurate in what he says. If money guaranteed the delivery of quality, as I have said before, the standards in ILEA would be second to none. Unfortunately, that is not so.

Is it not a fact that the revelations of the HMI report have alarmed the Government so much that the one for 1985 will be the last such report?

We have not seen the last of those reports. I am delighted that this Government actually publish them. If the previous Government had published those reports, they would have shown that between 1975 and 1979 spending per pupil on books and equipment fell by 6 per cent. in the primary sector and by 8 per cent. in the secondary sector in real terms.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the need to get the right balance between the number of teachers and books used by pupils? Does he recognise that there are more teachers per pupil than ever before and that perhaps the provision of more books is needed in some areas? Will my hon. Friend also remember that modern technology has taken the place of many books, and that should be taken into account?

As my hon. Friend points out, local education authorities have often chosen to spend more money on equipment than on books. Anyone who looks at the figures for books and equipment can see that trend over the past few years.

Does the Minister accept that the HMI report is a clear warning to the new Secretary of State that inadequate levels of provision are threatening standards? If he doubts my word, he should look at paragraph 98. Does he agree that more resources and investment in education are now desperately required?

On a number of occasions, both in the House and outside, I have made it clear that if we wish to accomplish all our educational objectives we shall have to see more investment in the education of each child. I have said that again and again, and even on television in the presence of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the HMI report makes it absolutely clear that it is important in the education service to make the best use of the resources that we spend. If we do that, we put up a better case for more resources in future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now vital that all schools should publish annual accounts so that everyone can see precisely what is spent under every individual heading, including text books?

Yes. I invite my hon. Friend to take part in this afternoon's debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill. I am sure that what he says on that will receive a warm response from me or my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase funding for the advanced further education pool for 1986–87.

No, Sir. The advanced further education pool for 1986–87 was determined in November 1985 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) at £661 million. That represented an increase of 6 per cent. over 1985·86.

In the light of the recent survey of employers' demands for graduates increasing by 4 per cent. annually, will the Government take an early opportunity to respond to the National Advisory Board's plans to reduce polytechnic intakes by up to 9,000 places? Is the Minister not now in danger of repeating mistakes that he has already made in universities in the public sector?

The allegation that the Government have a policy of cutting places at polytechnics was rubbish two months ago and it is rubbish today. There has been a great deal of selective quotation from the HMI report, and I, too, would like to make a selective, but truthful, quotation:

"Advanced further education still has some scope to provide for some further increases in the total numbers of students."

Will the Minister come clean? The fact is that the NAB secretariat, working on figures from his Department, is planning for a cut in the number of students at polytechnics of 9,000 to 10,000. That will mean even less opportunity for young people seeking higher education. Will the Minister announce more money so that these dreadful cuts will not take place?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman must go through all that again, but it becomes rather tiresome for us after a while. I invite him to read carefully the HMI local authority expenditure report, not on schools, but on AFE provision. The increase of 6 per cent., which I mentioned in my initial answer, which the public sector of higher education has enjoyed this year should be set against a projected inflation rate of 3·75 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the consultation document about the education of deaf-blind children.

A draft consultation paper was circulated for comment on I May to the local authority associations, voluntary bodies and other interested parties. A final version will be issued to local education authorities, schools and other relevant bodies after the consultation exercise has been completed.

Is the Minister aware that the consultative document acknowledged some important facts about deaf-blind children? First, it is difficult to make local authority provision for them becuse of their numbers. In some cases it is impossible to do so. Secondly, many of them are inappropriately placed in mental handicap schools. Thirdly, most of them have no communication whatever. They are deaf and blind, living in a world of total silence and darkness. However, the Government have produced a consultative document which is a scandal and which has been condemned by Sense— the organisation for deaf-blind children — and by parents. Does the Minister accept that the only answer is nationally co-ordinated provision? Will he take away this rotten document and rewrite it to ensure that there is proper provision for these children?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the placement of deaf-blind children, like any other children with special needs, is a matter for the local education authorities. It is true that we do not know how many children should be classified as deaf-blind. One of the objects of the consultation exercise is to clear up the terminology and establish a basis for estimating and for action.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposed closure of the Derby school for the deaf in Preston, at which some of my constituents have children? Is he further aware of the campaign to save this much needed and much valued facility in central Lancashire? Will he do all he can to ensure that this particular sort of education is continued for those who need it?

I am aware of this campaign and I know how hard my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) has worked for it. I invite him to come and see me to discuss how this provision can be maintained or improved.

Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, at the end of the consultation period, he can guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to ensure that there are enough qualified teachers for the deaf and blind in every part of the United Kingdom?

There are at present no training courses especially for teachers of deaf-blind children. I believe that the future training needs of such teachers ought to be considered, and that is presently under consultation and review.

What representations has my hon. friend received from the National Deaf Children's Society regarding the training of teachers? What are his proposals for improving the training of such teachers?

My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Science attended a meeting of Sense on 20 March. The training needs of teachers of pupils with profound multiple learning difficulties, and, in particular, deaf-blind children, will be reviewed in the light of the consultation process which is now taking place and will end, I hope, on 16 June.

Following that last reply, when the Minister is considering his response to the report of the Advisory Committee on Supply and Education of Teachers, which proposed that the initial training for teachers of the deaf should be phased out, will he ensure that an adequate supply of trained teachers coming forward from in-service training is maintained?

I can and will give an undertaking that we shall do our best to achieve that end.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to re-distribute resources from those local education authorities with surplus capacity of school building accommodation.

The Government's plans for local authority expenditure on education assume that authorities collectively will remove surplus places in line with Government targets. The grant entitlement of individual authorities is not directly related to occupancy of school places but will reflect changes in pupil numbers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have a serious problem in Bradford? There is a growing school population and a third of school buildings are over 83 years old. That has led to overcrowding and a bad state of repair in many places. Will he take action to ensure that the £700 million, which was recently identified by the Audit Commission as being wasted on maintaining surplus capacity, is redirected to places like Bradford, where £17 million is needed to clear up the backlog of repairs?

I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency of Bradford, North later in July. I recognise that much of Bradford has basic need problems because of a rising school population. That is why the authority has received the second largest capital allocation of any of the metropolitan authorities in each of the last two years. I look forward to seeing for myself the problems raised by my hon. Friend.

When the hon. Gentleman visits schools in Bradford, will he go to the one which was recently visited by the city's director of education, where he had to carry an umbrella inside because the roof was leaking so much? Will he also find the £1 million which is necessary to repair electrical faults in the city's schools and do something about providing more money so that more than three schools can be redecorated this year? On that basis, it means that schools in Bradford get redecorated only once in every 100 years?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful question. Progress in removing surplus places is a key to improvements in provision for repairs and maintenance. If authorities can remove places in the worst state of repair, maintenance staffs will have more time for the premises for which there is a continuing need.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas such as Berkshire, where there has been a rapid increase in population, which has led to a grave shortage of accommodation in primary schools, we look with amazement and envy at other authority areas where there seems to be so much surplus accommodation which is being wasted?

Authorities' grant entitlement is not directly related to the occupancy of school places, but will reflect changes in pupil numbers. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me on that point about Berkshire, I shall look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about resources for universities and polytechnics.

I have received representations from the University Grants Committee, the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, institutions of higher education, hon. Members and other bodies and individuals.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Birkbeck college of the University of London, which caters for 3,000 part-time students, is facing a cut of 35 per cent. in its grant this year — the largest cut facing any university institution in the country? Will he further confirm that it will be virtually impossible for the college to survive a cut of that magnitude? Does he care?

Birkbeck's grant for 1987–88 has yet to be determined. The UGC makes a block grant to London university and it is for the university court to decide how that is allocated between its constituent colleges. The UGC's weighting nationally for part-time students is only one of the factors that the court will need to consider. I understand that the UGC is visiting London university tomorrow, and I am quite sure that the funding of Birkbeck college will be one of the issues discussed.

Does my right hon. Friend, who I am sure we all welcome to his post, have confidence in the competence of Britain's vice-chancellors? If so, can he tell us how many of those vice-chancellors are happy with the recent allocations?

Yes, I have confidence in some. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I cannot name them all yet. I do not know them all yet. I know some, and those I have met seem decent chaps. I have already met the Committee of Vice-Chancellors to discuss a matter to which I shall refer in my speech later today. During the next few months I shall be meeting many of them and the UGC to discuss the level of university funding.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it seems somewhat strange that the allocation of resources by the UGC to university departments is on the basis of research only, and that there is no reference to teaching? Is it not strange that we can have a section of the education system in which there is no regard whatever to the standard of teaching?

The recent report of the UGC on the relative merits of various types of research is a very interesting document. There was an exchange earlier about how it should be assessed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the document does not take account of teaching by universities. That must be considered in the full roundness of the funds that are available to universities.

Following the speech by the Under-Secretary of State, in which he said "enough is enough", will my right hon. Friend strongly confirm that the Government attach great importance to the university sector, believe it to be an essential national resource, and want to see it develop effectively?

I can certainly confirm that. The universities are asking for level funding for the academic year 1987–88. My predecessor made it clear on 20 May that the Government will consider additional resources if the universities demonstrate their commitment to the pursuit of improvement in academic standards, cost effectiveness and management efficiency. I reconfirm that pledge.

When the Minister is talking to the chaps about the full roundness of the expenditure that he will allow, will he pay special attention to those universities that have suffered particularly badly in the past seven years? Based on the figures given by his hon. Friend, Hull university is minus 22 per cent. in real terms over that period. What will the Minister do to raise the morale of teachers in those universities and encourage students to go to them? Will he recognise that in areas of great depression and high unemployment a university is an enormous economic influence? Any cuts at such universities affect the whole community and not just the university.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the university in his own town and I pay tribute to it. In my discussions with the university vice-chancellors and the UGC over the coming months I shall make it clear that I am committed to a very strong university sector.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. Does he accept that level funding for higher education in the near future has a special meaning for higher education in the sense that there is a relative price effect which requires that higher education should be slightly more generously treated than some other forms of comparable public expenditure?

I appreciate that point. It is important to recognise that there are ways in which cost savings can be made without seriously affecting the quality of education that is available.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment and also on saying that he is committed to a strong higher education sector. Does he agree that strength implies an increase in cash? Expenditure on higher education has been cut in real terms over a number of years and is being threatened with future cuts.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. Over the period of office of this Government there has been an increase of some 80,000 students in higher education. When the hon. Gentleman next takes advertising space to comment upon the Government's higher education policy, perhaps he will say that in the Thatcher years there has been an increase of 80,000 students, and that the Opposition want a return to the Labour years when there was a cut of 2,600.

Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why the English UGC gave the Scottish universities only 40 per cent. of the increase, small though that was, that it gave to the English universities? How does he explain this kind of discrimination?

This is a matter that I shall be discussing with the UGC.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the number and proportion of school leavers taking up places in higher education; and if he will make a statement on future trends.

The increase in the number of young entrants to higher education as a proportion of the relevant age group from 12·4 per cent. in 1979 to around 14 per cent. last year is very satisfactory. We hope that there will be further increases over the next decade.

I welcome the increase and hope that the trend will continue. Does my hon. Friend agree that his figures belie the assiduously cultivated propaganda that apparantly fewer and fewer potential students can afford to embark upon courses in higher education? Does he further agree that, essentially, the policy must be to ensure the quality and relevance of courses in higher education for the needs of our society as well as for the edification of students themselves?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his perspicacious remarks. The Government are trying to get both quality and numbers. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stole my best lines, but it is a good story, so I can elaborate a bit. We have now not only the largest ever absolute number of students, but the largest ever proportion of 18-year-olds in education. We have also a rising proportion of school leavers with the necessary A-levels and the highest ever numbers of mature students. That does not seem to be a bad show overall.

Will the Minister admit that a large number of students who, in 1979 and 1981, would have got into higher education, cannot do so now because of the cuts that the Government have imposed on that sector? The index of qualified students shows that that is the case. Have the Government not failed to provide places for students equally well-qualified as those in 1981? The Government's record is abysmal compared to the industrial nations with whom we compete.

The hon. Member's path to the Dispatch Box is paved with banana skins. As in his last supplementary question, that was last year's story. He knows, and I have just given him the details, that we are increasing the numbers and are proud of it. The age participation index, to use a technical term, is up. The qualified participation index, which means the number of school leavers with the necessary couple of A-levels, is also increasing.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the 1984–85 figures for pupil unit costs broken down by local education authority to be available.

I am arranging for the information to be published in the Official Report.

I thank my hon. Friend for publishing the information. Will he confirm that expenditure per pupil is now at an all-time high? Will he further confirm that many of the low-spending authorities, such as Hampshire, are achieving the best results, and that many of the higher spending authorities are achieving the worst results? Will he take powers to ensure that any extra resources will be directed to those authorities that will obtain the best value for money with them?

I welcome and agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. I can confirm that although there is an association between satisfactory levels of resources and the quality of the educational process, available evidence suggests that there is little correlation between levels of attainment, as measured by public examinations, and the level of spending on education.

Were the Government not planning to cut education spending per pupil in successive public expenditure White Papers, and is not the only reason why it has risen that Labour and other local authorities have ignored the Government's spending targets? If the Minister says that it does not matter what is spent per pupil, why is the Prime Minister claiming unto her own the record of the higher spending Labour authorities and boasting that educational spending per pupil is now at a high level?

I take this opportunity to congratulate those education authorities which do well by their children, which seek value for money in education expenditure, and which spend moderately but wisely. I remind the House again that while there is evidently a link between expenditure and results, there is no correlation between them. If there were, the Inner London education authority would be so far ahead it would be out of sight.

If I gave my hon. Friend a choice between a first-class teacher teaching in a shack and a third rate teacher teaching in a palace, what would his selection be? Anticipating his reply, I suggest that the point kindly illustrates that it is not resources and bricks and mortar that turn out good pupils, but the standard of the teachers in our schools.

My hon. Friend, who is at least always populist in these matters, is absolutely right. I would always come down on the side of the quality of the teacher, because I have seen many examples of good teachers in mediocre surroundings doing extremely well, and the reverse of mediocre teachers doing badly in well-built structures.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of local education authorities have now returned completed survey forms concerning building improvement needs; and if he will make a statement.

Local education authorities were asked to return completed survey forms to my Department by 1 April 1986. At the end of May, 44 per cent. of authorities had made either complete or partial returns for the sample schools in their areas. In all, about one-third of the total number of forms due have been received so far. Authorities which have not made their returns as yet are being heavily pressed by my Department to do so as soon as possible.

Will the Minister assure the House that when this survey is completed he will respond positively and make funds available to local authorities to enable them to deal with repairs and maintenance of their school buildings? Does he accept that Lancashire county council has already proved that it needs an extra £44 million over the next five years to bring its schools into good order? Will he make extra money available now to Lancashire to deal with that problem?

My right hon. Friend's predecessor undertook to inform the House of the outcome of the survey, and I dare say that action and debate will follow from that. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I point out that Lancashire's prescribed capital expenditure allocation of £12·5 million was the third highest in England after Hampshire and the Inner London education authority, and represented 58 per cent. of the authority's bid against the average for England as a whole of 43 per cent.

While no Conservative Member thinks that there is a limitless pot of gold for this purpose, will my hon. Friend bear in mind when working out his allocation of resources that if maintenance work is left too long it becomes more and more expensive as the years go by?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Between 1981–82 and 1984–85 spending nationally on the repair and maintenance of school buildings increased by 13 per cent. in real terms.

Will the Minister give special attention to Brent education authority and consider that authority's returns? For the past 15 years there has been such a dereliction of buildings that the expenses are now astronomical. As this is an inner city area and was rate capped for some time, does he accept that insufficient rate support grant is being given to allow the education authority to carry out the job that it wants to do?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Opposition parties must bear a fair share of the responsibility for the decline in the repair and maintenance of the quality of our school stock. I am old enough to remember the time when a Labour Secretary of State for Education responded to the allocations of funds to local authorities with a bias against those authorities which would not go comprehensive as they were being forced to do. That was the start of much of the problem for many local authorities.

On reflection, the Minister will realise that that is rubbish. The real point is that there is insufficient spending on school buildings. Unless those resources are spent, we shall have to spend more in the future. Will he accept that there is overwhelming evidence from the trade unions, the Building Employers Confederation and from HMI reports about the appalling state of our schools? When will he allow local authorities to spend some money and employ large numbers of unemployed building workers to put our schools into a decent state of repair?

I must state straight away that what I said was not rubbish. It was true. We must accept that the state of our school stock is the cumulative result of inadequate spending on the repair and maintenance of the building stock over many years. The bias against Shire counties imposed by the Labour Government, supported at that time by the Liberal party, is one of the manifestations with which we have to cope.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of applicants to higher education gained admission in the years 1979, 1982 and 1985.

Information on the total numbers of applicants to higher education is not collected centrally. For universities only the proportions of those applying who were accepted for entry in 1979, 1982 and 1985 were 49·5 per cent., 45·3 per cent. and 46·9 per cent. respectively. Many of the unsuccessful university applicants will have gained admission to public sector higher education.

Is it not true that the numbers attending university have risen by less than I per cent. since 1979? Does that not compare unfavourably with our competitors in the Western world and Japan? Is not the great necessity that industry should have more graduates? What are we doing about that?

That was an interesting bundle of misconceptions. First, as I said earlier, British business is receiving more graduates. Secondly, Britain's record in producing graduates is not nearly as had as the hon. Gentleman implied or as bad as the newspapers unfortunately often imply. Thirdly, although it is true that the number of students in universities has been broadly static since 1979, that must be viewed within the context of the massive expansion in the public sector system. I am sorry to hear Opposition Members, who naturally want to have a go at the Government, implicitly criticising higher education in this country, which has done an extremely good job by accepting more students for the same money.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there are any difficulties, real or imagined, with the present grant system, it is high time he reopened the debate on introducing loans as an alternative to grants? Loans would provide a real incentive and give real equality of opportunity to those seeking places in higher and further education.

I have nothing new to say on loans today.

Will the Minister reconsider his earlier statement that the University Grants Committee does not discriminate on a geographic basis? Does he not accept that as a result of the UGC's funding mechanism, and his approval of it, there will be a geographic imbalance in university and higher education places?

I can only reiterate what I said earlier, that such issues cannot be decided on geographic grounds. The quality judgment of research at the universities of Warwick and York belies those who say that there has been a concentration in the south-east.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June 1986.

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

Does the Prime Minister approve of the suppression of parliamentary debate on the conduct of affairs because she is frit?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that various parliamentary tactics are used in all parts of the House. I do not recall the Opposition complaining when opponents of the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill used a variety of parliamentary devices to try to prevent the private Member's motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) being reached on 7 June 1985. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the shadow Leader of the House participated in that.

As one who received his first chance of higher education at Birkbeck college, London university, while otherwise in full-time employment, may I ask my right hon. Friend to intervene in the matter of its grant to ensure that it continues to do its splendid work?

Much as I admire Birkbeck college and its splendid work, my hon. Friend will be aware that I cannot intervene in the matter of its grant.

Now that—[Interruption.]

Order.

Now that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister's former policy adviser, Sir John Hoskins, have both advocated Britain's joining of the European monetary system, for how long will the right hon. Lady continue to resist it?

I give the right hon. Gentleman the same reply as I have given previously to the Leader of the SDP. Whether it will be received equally, I do not know. At present, there is no intention of joining the European monetary system. To do so would deny us an option that we have at present. If there was speculation against sterling there would be only two ways of dealing with it if we joined the EMS. One option would be to use up precious reserves, which could be done only to a very limited extent. The second would be by sharply increasing the interest rate. We would be denied the option of taking the strain on the exchange rate. I do not think it right to deny us that option at present.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that it is the well paid who affect disdain for tax cuts? Does she agree with me that the fastest way to get people back to work in areas of high unemployment like the northern region is through lower taxation, higher take-home pay and social security reform?

I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. Lower taxes is a long-term way of creating jobs and creating more incentive. There also is a great deal of equity in reducing the level of taxation on those of average and below average earnings.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June.

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

Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to condemn those of her hon. Friends who denied my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the right to express his opinion and have it debated in the House? Will she undertake to restore to Back Benchers an additional private Member's motion on Friday?

Opposition Members cannot bear from this side of the House the tactics that they have frequently used themselves. The House will recall that on 25 March 1965 the late Richard Crossman, assisted by his parliamentary private secretary the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). dragged out a debate on planning to prevent discussion of a private Member's Bill introduced by the late Airey Neave on pensions for the over-80s. They were successful.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is the only party with the policies, the will and the determination to defend Great Britain against its enemies?

Yes, the Conservative party is the only party that has a clear, united policy on the defence of this country and would be a reliable ally in time of trouble.

On the matter of defending essential British interests, given the very high standards of engineering and technological skills in Rolls-Royce, and the great significance of that company for the manufacturing sector of our economy, will the Prime Minister now give us an undertaking that she will use the full powers of her Government to ensure that British Airways' huge engine order is placed in Britain?

British Airways has asked all three major aero engine manufacturers to provide quotations, as it usually does when considering the purchase of a new aircraft type. When it has completed its evaluation and has made a judgment about how many of the aircraft it wishes to acquire, it will put proposals for approval to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are arrangements between General Electric and Pratt and Whitney and Rolls-Royce. The essential thing is that Britain wins its orders on merit and performance.

I fully acknowledge that. First of all, of course, it is necessary for British manufacturing industries to stay in business in order to be able to compete to win those orders. Does she recall that it was the Government of which she was a member who rightly rescued Rolls-Royce from extinction? Does she not believe that she should be much more forthright and positive in her determination to ensure that the interests of that company, its workers and its technologists are properly safeguarded now?

Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman agreed that to be efficient and thriving a company has to win its orders on merit and, in fact, Rolls-Royce does. Why does he not concentrate on the possibility of Rolls-Royce winning on merit? It is for British Airways to evaluate the quotations from the technical and financial point of view. Rolls-Royce supplies the engines for most of the British Airways fleet at present, and I am sure that this will be a factor in BA's judgment, but I hope that Rolls-Royce will win on outright merit.

So do I, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Lady going to hat for Britain?

Yes, but one does not bat for Britain by protecting industries that would be inefficient. One bats for Britain by backing industries that win on merit, and that this Government have done with Rolls-Royce—merit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that virtually all of us on the Conservative Benches support her desire to reduce the burden of taxation on those on average earnings and below? Does she agree that perhaps the most cost-effective way of doing that would be an extension of the earlier policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce employee national insurance contributions?

Yes, but I think that the better way is to do what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did in his last Budget. He has concentrated enormously on raising thresholds. However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a very sharp increase as one comes into the first pound on which tax is paid, which is very damaging to incentives. One has to consider all three: the thresholds, the standard rate of tax and the national insurance contributions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern caused by the very circumstantial suspension of the deputy chief constable of Manchester? Will she assure the House of her vigilance in protecting the integrity of the report that he prepared on Northern Ireland and the integrity of a good and professional policeman?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Greater Manchester police authority has appointed the chief constable of West Yorkshire to investigate allegations that have been made. It would not be right for me to comment on the case or its implications while it is under investigation.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that Birkbeck college, which she says she cannot help directly, could be helped enormously indirectly if the fees of mature students were made tax deductible?

My hon. Friend is proposing quite a fundamental change in the tax system, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have heard his question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with her Secretary of State for Employment that the unemployed in my constituency have never had it so good?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would quote my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment accurately, which he did not do. [Interruption.] I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment pointed out that those who are working have average earnings and a standard of living that are higher than ever before, but I shall add my own comment. There are occasions when sometimes higher pay for those in work is taken at the expense of putting more out of work.

Did my right hon. Friend see last night's "Panorama" programme on unemployment in Cleveland? If not, will she kindly do so and take instructions to ensure that Smith's Dock is not closed?

No, I did not see the "Panorama" programme last night. My hon. Friend will be aware that the problem with shipbuilding in this country stems from a shortage of orders, particularly for merchant ships. Unless there are more orders about, it will not be possible to keep all our merchant shipyards going. It is, of course, a matter of great regret that some of them have had to close.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to meet the director general of the British Tourist Board? If she does, she will discover that as a result of her slavish actions towards American foreign policy, especially the mad-hatted and ill-conceived bombing of Libya, hundreds and thousands of would-be American tourists arc not coming to this country, resulting in millions of dollars being lost to our economy. As that is the result of her statements and action, what is she positively doing to rectify the situation?

I hardly think that the hon. Gentleman's question is calculated to get more American tourists to come here, but I hope that they will return to this country, and we are doing everything possible to that end.

When my hon. Friend considers the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, will she bear in mind that this Government funded the RTM 322 through Rolls-Royce, the European fighter aircraft which is powered by Rolls, the AVM, which is powered by Rolls, the Hawk trainer, which is powered by Rolls and which has been sold to the United States, and the IAE 2500 engine, which is also partly owned by Rolls?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his carefully rehearsed question. I hope that Rolls-Royce will win on merit. It does no good for the efficiency of British industry to protect it from foreign competition. That is the way to reduce our efficiency and ultimately to reduce our standard of living.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June.

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

Does the right hon. Lady believe that France, Germany, Italy, the United States and all our other competitors, if placed in the position that is faced with British Airways, with a major industry having a major contract, would, under any circumstances, allow it to go abroad?

Rolls-Royce, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has arrangements with the two other big aero engine competitors which I have mentioned. An order for one often means a great deal of subcontracting to the other. I repeat what I have said. Rolls-Royce and other industries have to win on merit. If the hon. Gentleman wants universal protectionism, that will be bad for our exports and bad for our standard of living.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many successful small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere do not look to the Government for cash handouts, but wish to have better access to Government contracts, in particular, the £34 billion a year which is spent on purchases of goods and services? Will she take steps to ensure that such better access is made available to the small business sector?

I know my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. It is important that small firms are able to compete for Government contracts. I think that he is aware that the central unit on purchasing is examining, with purchasing Departments, small firms' access to Government contracts. We expect to receive its report towards the beginning of July, and I shall keep in touch with my hon. Friend.