asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the provision of resources for the purchasing of books in primary and secondary schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the provision of resources for the purchasing of books in primary and secondary schools.

The Government's plans for local authority current expenditure on education in 1987–88, published in last week's public expenditure White Paper, provide for local education authorities to increase spending on school books, so long as they budget sensibly.

Is the Minister aware that the situation in Birmingham is so bad that fifth year students at Hodge Hill school have complained to the school governors about the lack of textbooks? Although the Secretary of State is widely quoted in Birmingham as having promised £100 for every fourth year GCSE student for books, equipment and staff training, in reality the city has received less than £60 per student and the school has so far received less than £30 per student, of which one third has come from the city's own resources. Is that yet another example of the Secretary of State's assurances being shown to be bogus when put to the test?

The points that the hon. Gentleman has raised are matters for the local educattion authority. Within our plans for next year we are allowing for about £100 million to be spent on non-teaching costs, including books and equipment, associated with GCSE. That includes the £10 million expenditure on books and equipment already announced by the Government, and will be supported through the education support grant.

Is the Minister aware that the amount of money spent on textbooks and library books in the Wigan education authority is 17·2 per cent. down for the current financial year on the 1979 figure? Is he further aware that at one time the cost was £5·19 per pupil, but that it is now £4·30 per pupil? Is the Minister proud of that? Is it not a standing disgrace that, in real terms, the opportunity for our pupils to advance in secondary education has been reduced because of a lack of textbooks?

I am proud of the fact that my hon hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to secure additional expenditure of £2 billion for 1987–88 compared with this financial year. That represents a cash increase of 18·8 per cent. and should increase expenditure by local education authorities in several areas, including books and equipment.

I recognise that all local education authorities would welcome additional funds for purchasing books. Can my hon. Friend confirm that some guidance will be given in the purchase of any sex education books, to ensure that no "go gay" policies, such as those in evidence in the boroughs of Brent, Haringey and Ealing, are encouraged, because parents are worried that their children may be corrupted by that sort of book?

My hon. Friend will know that we have equipped the parents and consumers of education with increased powers under our new legislation, some of which will take effect immediately, to enable them to put pressure on local education authorities and schools about the nature, type and choice of books for different syllabuses in schools.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the quality of the funding that both he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been able to secure for the education service and on recognising that this is very much a matter for the local education authorities. Does he appreciate, however, that there is considerable concern in Lancashire as expressed by the leader of the Conservative group on the county council and other parliamentary colleagues who wish to take up the matter with him, about the number of old schools not having minor works carried out because of a lack of resources?

My hon. Friend makes his point effectively and I look forward to receiving a deputation of Lancashire county councillors and Members of Parliament. These matters are for local education authorities and any statement must be judged against the background of the additional resources that we have secured for expenditure in the next financial year.

Does the Minister appreciate that publishers who produce the books and the Publishers Association, which is capable of working out the figures, conclude that there has been a savage real cut in the sums available for school books and that that is additional to the cuts in the number of books purchased for public libraries and universities? That adds up to a fearsome total. Does he think that the miserable measures that he has announced will put that barbarous policy into reverse?

I have observed the trend on expenditure by individual local education authorities. Some have been successful in increasing expenditure on books, while others have not. Some authorities have been more successful in privatising non-educational services within the education system, which enables them to spend more on books and equipment.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the wide discrepancy between local education authorities in their spending on GCSE new books? Is he further aware that Bolton has decided to invest a small amount of its funds, thereby attracting only a fraction of the central Government funding available, and that that is causing genuine anxiety among local head teachers?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has chosen this opportunity to expose the actions of his local education authority. I dare say that that decision will be judged in any election that occurs in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made towards the establishment of city technology colleges.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he is making with the establishment of city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

The Department is making good progress in discussions with prospective sponsors of the first city technology colleges.

Given that the maintained sector is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and that the establishment of city technology colleges will involve great expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman give assurances that other areas of education, such as primary and secondary schools, will not be financially penalised as a result?

I readily give that assurance. The money that will be made available to the CTCs is additional, as is made clear in the public expenditure White Paper. I remind the hon. Lady that the CTCs will improve parental choice. Therefore, I hope that the Liberal and Social Democratic parties will support them.

Does the Secretary of State have so little faith in the existing city comprehensive schools that he feels that the additional money being ploughed into the CTCs would not create centres of excellence if it were invested in the existing schools? Does he agree that it is divisive to ask local industry to fund a school which will remove the best teachers and pupils from the community?

First, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is no longer the official spokesman on education for the Liberal party. I have enjoyed his contributions in that role. There was not much policy, but he made up for it with style. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of how CTCs will work is wrong. In response to CTCs, we have received letters from a large number of former teachers saying that this is just the kind of institution that would tempt them back into the teaching profession.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to reject the entirely predictable comments from Opposition Members? Will he take on board the fact that the CTCs are widely welcomed by industry and will do much to bridge the gap which exists between education and industry, and that if they provide centres of excellence they are entirely to be commended?

There has been an overwhelming response to the CTCs from the public and from industrialists, which has been very encouraging. There is a clear recognition that the new proposals and ideas these days come from the Conservative party, and these have been very well received.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in pursuing his general policy to create centres of excellence, of which the CTCs are a good example, he will also ensure that well-established and long-founded grammar schools are not be allowed to be swept away by the political views of Opposition parties?

My hon. Friend's question goes rather wider than the original question. However, I assure him that in the draft circular that I published in the middle of last year I made it clear that in any proposals coming before me for the reorganisation of secondary education I would want to be satisfied that schools of proven worth were not destroyed, as so many have been in the past 20 years.

How many sponsors have shown their willingness to fund the CTC in Bradford?

Support has been shown in specific cities and general areas. Some sponsors have said that they are prepared to consider funding colleges in Yorkshire—in Leeds and in Bradford. Those offers are being pursued at the moment. I have received a specific proposal from one company to pay for all the computer equipment for the CTCs in Leeds and Bradford.

Does my right hon. Friend not deplore what might be described as the "backwoodsman" approach of some local authorities—of which, sadly, my authority of Nottinghamshire is an example—in taking the view that the CTCs will be established only over their dead bodies?

Some local authorities have been very welcoming, and one has offered specific premises. Others, however, have been very unhelpful. I do not believe that those authorities are reflecting the interests of the pupils or students who live in their areas. I must thank my hon. Friend for the help that he is giving in Nottingham in that regard.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the CTCs are yet another gimmick in the long history of gimmicks that litter his career? Does he accept that they will be damaging to existing educational provision? Is he further aware that they will not be regarded as progressive by any of the informed opinion in educational circles? Do not the CTCs actually have more to do with the Secretary of State's public relations campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party? I am reminded today of his previous incarnation as Minister for Information Technology, when he set up the information technology centres, half of which are now in danger of collapsing.

The hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to the information technology centres. He is correct to say that I set up that network, and they have provided excellent training for many young people. I am proud to have set that system going. The hon. Gentleman's attitude is negative and does not respond to the technological needs of education. I assure him that the colleges will go ahead.

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

The Government are determind to see a satisfactory pay structure for teachers within the generous resources that we are prepared to make available. I am continuing to hold meetings with the teacher unions and local authorities.

In return for the extremely generous 25 per cent. pay increase on offer, will my right hon. Friend continue to insist on a salary structure that provides for proper career progression so that we can retain and recruit teachers of the high calibre required for the education of our children?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are two elements in the proposals that I brought forward on 30 October. The amount of money involved is £600 million more, which allows an increase of 25 per cent. over 18 months. That is the most generous offer made to any group of public service workers. I must also emphasise the importance of a proper career structure with incentives and promotion posts, not only to recognise greater responsibility, but to recognise good classroom teaching. That is the essence of the proposals that I have put on the table. I very much regret that the unions have not moved to them in any significant or real way.

Does the Secretary of State not realise that by destroying the negotiating machinery through which free negotiation between the teachers' representatives and the Government could have taken place he is doing something that occurs only in areas of tyranny where there are no trade unions? Is it not a fact that the dispute will lapse only temporarily and will then continue, and that every union in this country is now looking closely at the situation because if the Secretary of State has his way unions will be no use at all except as advisory bodies to the Government?

The hon. Gentleman persists in deliberately misinterpreting the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill that is currently before the other place. The Government introduced that Bill because we recognised that the Burnham negotiating procedure had utterly broken down.

The right hon. Gentleman broke it down.

No. With the greatest respect that is not the case. In July there was the Coventry agreement signed by five unions, then there was the Nottingham agreement signed by four unions and just after Christmas only two unions signed up. The problem of trying to deal with teachers' pay and conditions is that agreements have not stood up as agreements, and union support has not stood up as union support. There is a sad background of historic agreements that have turned out to be neither historic nor agreed. That is why the Government have had to act.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in any future machinery he will have talks with unions currently represented on Burnham as a matter of course? Will he confirm that there must be some room for compromise, if it is possible? Will he continue to talk towards that end, provided that the conditions that he has enunciated so clearly and rightly are met?

I re-emphasise what I have said before. My door is open. I have seen various unions. I am seeing the National Union of Teachers tomorrow and I am waiting for further proposals to come forward. My hon. Friend's first point about the representations of certain unions relates not only to teachers' unions but to further education unions. I can give him my assurance in both areas.

Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), does the right hon. Gentleman realise that for many teachers the issue of pay is now less important than the maintenance of their civil rights? Does he appreciate that no group of workers could countenance or submit to the removal of their rights to negotiate on pay and conditions, and that many of us regard his attempt to remove those rights as a civil liberties issue no less grave than the removal of trade union rights at GCHQ?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as spokesman for the Liberal party, and, I believe, for the Social Democratic party—I would not want to do him down. I made some inquiries as to whether the hon. Gentleman had ever spoken on education before, but I have not yet been able to turn up anything. Therefore, we could say that he approaches education with a mind that is open, if not blank.

Bearing in mind that in matters of education which involve our children it is more important to talk about responsibilities than about rights, and bearing in mind also the importance of reaching a satisfactory solution to the pay dispute as soon as possible, with a good pay structure for our classroom teachers, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the National Association of Head Teachers should choose this time, of all times, to start talking about extra money on the table for possible extra new responsibilities? Surely this is not the right moment for talk of that sort.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not the right time to bring that up, because in the pay structure that I recommended deputy heads and heads are quite rightly recognised as people bearing considerable responsibility. I have been glad of their support for my proposals.

By his complete rejection of the reasonable compromise put forward to him by employer leaders last week the Secretary of State has shown that, all along, he has been intent on imposing his own package, but can he assure parents that ministerial diktat will bring long-term peace to our classrooms?

Before Christmas, when I saw Councillor Pearman, I was led to believe that there would be a considerable shift in the employers' and unions' positions. I was glad to hear that. In the event, there was a microscopic shift, which Councillor Pearman confirmed to me only last week. I regret that very much. I thought that it would be a much more significant shift. For various reasons, Councillor Pearman decided not to make any significant change at all. I regret that. However, I have said that I am still willing to talk to him should he wish to speak again on this matter.

He offered the right hon. Gentleman a compromise.

He did, but the compromise was microscopic. It was so minor that there was no significant change at all. He recognised that it was so small that he did not want to put it forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the National Union of Students to discuss the level of student financial support.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the National Union of Students to discuss student financial support.

I met representatives of the National Union of Students on 30 September 1986, when we discussed a range of issues, including financial support for students. In addition, my officials met representatives of the National Union of Students on 21 November 1986 to discuss the subject.

Would the Secretary of State care to comment on the recent report by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which concluded that there was appreciable hardship for many students and that there was an urgent need to increase the level of student awards? Does he agree that many students find life extremely difficult and financially hard and that there is an urgent need to implement the Select Committee's recommendations?

I recognise that there has been a cut in the real value of student awards of about 11 per cent. since the Government came to office. First, I set up the review of student support under the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He is in America today, looking at various methods of student support. That will be taken into account. Secondly, the reduction in the real value of student grants has not prevented a record increase of 140,000 students since we have been in office.

The Secretary of State seems to ignore the fact that the Select Committee's report unanimously condemned the hardship caused to students by the Government. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House what he intends to do about that. In reality, we already have the introduction of student loans by stealth. There is a good chance that, in any case, that is what the Secretary of State wants for his election manifesto. If that is so, let him tell the House and the students today.

One of the matters that the review of student support will examine is the possibility of loans as top-ups to grants. I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article in The Observer last week, which stated:

"If grants were topped up with loans we could afford more students, and if repayments were to begin only when someone was earning the national minimum wage, no one need be deterred. While the present ramshackle structure remains in place we are blighting the prospects of a generation of young people and endangering the country's economic future."

Whatever my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides should be the relative proportion paid towards student maintenance by the state and by parents in the coming academic year, will he ensure that the total figure accurately represents student costs? At the moment it does not do that, as a result of which some students receive the full parental contribution, but it is still insufficient to cover their expenditure.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's work on the Select Committee. In any change in the system of student support we must ensure that students from families who are less well off are not deterred from going into higher education. I look upon that as one of the major considerations.

When my right hon. Friend met the NUS representatives, did they give him any reliable estimate of the number of students who are already dependent on personal loans and overdrafts to help finance their time in higher education? Will my right hon. Friend bear that factor carefully in mind in considering any conclusions at the end of the Walden committee's investigations, because it seems to me that he would be wise to proceed cautiously in the direction of full-blooded loans?

I emphasise that the review of student support is examining loans as a possible top up. We start from the proposition that it would be better, if we could, to remove students from the social security system. In the early days of Beveridge it was never considered that students would be part of that whole system. A very careful review is required, and that is taking place.

Did the Secretary of State note the paragraph in the Select Committee's report which said that worries about insecurity of finance were undermining the academic work of various students? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that possible drop in standards with his supposed commitment to higher standards?

There is no record that there has been a drop in standards in higher education. I have said to the House, and I say again, that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of first-class degrees awarded by polyechnics during the past five years. We can all—not just one party—be proud of that. I do not accept that there has been any drop in quality.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scottish students believe that loans are the way forward? [Interruption.] I am president of the Scottish Conservative Students Association. Many Scottish students also recognise that they can earn money during the long holidays, and they receive substantial assistance with housing support.

I think that many students who have overdrafts may welcome a form of formal loans, the payment of which is deferred until they are earning at the average wage or above. That point has been put to me by many students in England and, I am glad to say, in Scotland.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, normally, the Government make an announcement about next year's student grant some time in November and that, on two or three occasions, he has kept putting off an announcement? Has this anything to do with the fact that the Government are not absolutely certain whether there will be a June or an October election and are therefore not quite sure whether the student vote will be crucial in many marginal seats?

Decisions on education policy, which I am making and will continue to make, must have a much larger time scale than the date of the next election. I hope to make an announcement shortly on the level of grants for the next academic year.

In view of the fact as the Secretary of State well knows, that the recommendations of the review of long-term support for students cannot be implemented until 1988–89 and that his officials admitted in evidence to the Select Committee that the maintenance level of the current mandatory award does not meet the full needs of students, will he undertake to correct this situation when considering the mandatory awards for the forthcoming academic year?

I replied to that point in answering the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I shall be making the statement on the level of student grants very shortly, probably at the beginning of next week.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would appear to be common ground that there has been a reduction in the real value of student support in recent years? Although I appreciate that there must be careful consideration of the type of student support in the future, it seems to me—perhaps my right hon. Friend agrees—that it would be proper, pending the decision, to review and bring up to date the real value of students awards. Would it not be proper also for the electorate to have a decided view before the next election of what the Conservative party means by its support for students?

With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I hope that the review of student support will be completed this year. I take his initial comments very much to heart and ask him to await my statement next week.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the provision of toilet facilities in schools.

The requirements for the provision of toilet facilities in maintained schools are set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. They prescribe the minimum number of toilet fittings according to the number of registered pupils. Separate toilet facilities are required for male and female staff. The duty of securing compliance with these regulations rests with the local education authorities.

Is the Minister aware that toilet facilities in many schools throughout the country are disgusting, inadequate and intolerable? Does he know that local education authorities, including that in Leicestershire, simply do not have the necessary funds to put this matter right? As a result, many schools in my constituency have toilet facilities which would not be tolerated if they were in other parts of the country. What steps does the Minister propose to take to provide the resources to remedy this inadequacy?

I am indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his interest in school lavatories. I should like to point out that the total net provision in our current capital spending plans for education is some 18 per cent. higher than it was in the plans for 1986–87. This reflects the increased spending power from capital receipts by which authorities may supplement their allocations. How local authorities choose to spend their capital resources is, as ever, a matter for them to decide.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of so-called adequate toilet facilities in some small rural schools is not of itself a good reason for accepting the closure of those schools, particularly when such schools have good academic standards and are otherwise catering very well for all the children, as they did for preceding generations?

I have never recommended a school for closure because of a lack of toilet facilities, and I shall never do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received from local education authorities wishing to introduce a tertiary level of education.

My right hon. Friend is currently considering four proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 which involve the introduction of tertiary education.

Does the Minister realise that all over the country there will be demands for tertiary education, which is a natural follow-on, indeed a national follow-on, from comprehensive education?—[Interruption.] For the benefit of those shouting, the Minister told me the other day, on the delegation, that the demand for tertiary education was begun by a group of Tories.

That is a wicked and unfair accusation. The schools in south-west Sheffield were excluded from the Secretary of State's approval of the proposals for the rest of Sheffield because that area contained a number of schools which had good and successful sixth forms and because there were substantial opposition to those proposals in the south-west area.

Will my hon. Friend reassure parents in Leeds, where a dogmatic councillor has assumed the role of chief education officer, that he does not expect them to submit to a tertiary scheme universally applied across the city and that there is worth in maintaining a mixed system which retains schools that have sixth forms of proven worth?

Whatever comes out of the city of Leeds, I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposals will be considered fairly and squarely, and on their merits. In the light of the answer that I have just given in respect of the city of Sheffield, any school of proven worth must make the strongest representations to us under the law.

Will the Minister confirm that his Department approves of tertiary education in principle and that circulars have said that this form of education is one way of dealing with a very real problem, namely, the surplus of school places? In this respect, is it not disturbing that in the case of the borough of Harrow, which is Conservative controlled and had very good grammar schools, when the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education and Science schools of excellence were shut down without a murmur and turned into sixth form colleges and are now becoming tertiary colleges, yet in the city of Leeds, when the same scheme is put forward, people say that it is politically motivated? It means that we are not getting the right discussion of real problems. It is not right to dimish these.

Proposals come to us under section 12 of the 1980 Act for a variety of reasons, including the elimination of surplus places. I assure the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that when the proposals come to us each set is considered on their merits and in the context of the educational provision for the area that they serve.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was my most distinguished constituent at one time, is only emphasising the valuable point that decisions on matters such as these should be left to the properly elected local authority?

I should like to point out that we on this side of the House are totally opposed to a commitment that would enforce tertiary provision on all local education authorities. How local education authorities make proposals, and why they make them, is a matter for them. We have a duty under the law to consider each set of proposals on their individual merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when next he intends to meet representatives of the teachers unions to discuss future negotiating procedures.

I am meeting representatives of the National Union of Teachers tomorrow. I am sure the issue of future negotiating procedures will be raised.

In view of the difficulties in recent times, in his quieter moments does the Secretary of State really believe that to impose a solution and, in the process, to take away the negotiating rights of the trade unions, is the best way to secure peace in the classroom?

It has not been possible to secure, through negotiations, an agreed proposal. The proposal that came to me from Burnham was conditional upon my providing more money than I said the Government were prepared to make available and also upon a structure which the Government find unacceptable. A regrettable feature is that the whole of the Burnham procedure—a sort of joint negotiating committee without my being represented—has led to confusion and indecision. That cannot go on. We must resolve this dispute.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the teaching unions has threatened to concentrate its campaign about future negotiating procedures on marginal Conservative seats such as mine? It has told me that I am on its hit list. Whatever disruption that union may cause, I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall not bow to such scurillous tactics. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue resolutely to put first the interests of children, parents and that responsible and professional majority of teachers who simply want to get on with their important job?

I do not know which union made that threat, but I am sure that if it fulfils it and carries out its threat it will succeed only in increasing my hon. Friend's majority.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposals put forward by the employers and teachers for new negotiating machinery meet all the Secretary of State's objections to the old Burnham committee? Therefore, will the Government allow the proposals to work by amending the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill in another place?

The proposal that has been put to me by the NAS, and now by the TUC, simply says that they would like a joint negotiating council. They do not say what my position should be in such a negotiating council, what representation I would have or whether I would have an initiating or a responsive role. I am still waiting for specific proposals. Some may still emerge.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 January.

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.

In 1987, will the Prime Minister begin to speak and act on behalf of the whole nation?

With the increased standard of living of the whole nation, including those on benefit, I believe that we speak and act on behalf of the whole nation.

Has the Prime Minister read reports today of the American diplomat's husband who has allegedly sexually assaulted a young English girl and who was prevented from being prosecuted by diplomatic immunity? Does the Prime Minister consider that the Vienna convention is outdated, bearing in mind all the parking fees that are left unpaid, the driving offences that have gone unchallenged, the death of WPC Fletcher and today's sordid episode?

I read the report, and inquiries were made. An incident did take place involving the husband of a member of a foreign embassy in late 1985. Contrary to press reports, the case was not one of rape or assault, but of indecent exposure. Fortunately, there was no physical injury. None the less, of course, this was a serious matter. We immediately asked the embassy to waive the immunity of the person concerned so that action could be taken against him. The embassy declined, but withdrew the person concerned the next day.

Will the Prime Minister join me, and I am sure Members on both sides of the House, in warmly welcoming the reports that BTR has called off its bid to take over Pilkington? However, is she aware that the case has highlighted the need for a radical revision of the Government's decision to confine references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to strict questions of competition? Does she agree that at a time of so many conglomerate takeover bids such narrow terms of reference cannot properly safeguard the wider industrial and technological interests of the nation?

As the right hon. Gentleman has noted, the market took its own decision much more quickly than would have happened had the matter been referred. With regard to the specific question that he mentioned, as he knows, there is a review under way. The issues need to be looked at carefully and thoroughly. The guidelines published by the then Secretary of State in 1984 were designed to meet companies' wishes for stability and predictability. It would be quite wrong to be panicked into ill-considered changes, and for some time further review has been under way.

That review was decided upon last June, which was very welcome, and the advice and subscriptions of comment closed at the end of July. Why has it taken so long for us to obtain a report at a time when the value of conglomerate bids has gone up from under £1 billion in 1979 to an annual rate of £9 billion now, so distorting the whole possibility of the future of so many productive and innovative industries in this country?

Some mergers go through and are of great benefit and lead to the very much better use of assets. Some are fought off by the market and some go through with the market. We must consider carefully why matters should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If they cause a monopoly and reduce competition the matter is easy to decide, but the decisions must not be arbitrary. If we are to define new rules, we must be quite certain that they are such that the market can clearly understand them and they do not lead to arbitrary decisions.

Will my right hon. Friend join me and many of my hon. Friends in congratulating Pilkington's work force on producing a highly successful conglomerate in the north of England? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite many of the comments to the contrary, this is a model of industry in the north of England, which proves that in the north there is industry that is alive and well and prospering?

I have visited some of Pilkington's factories, and, as my hon. Friend says, I have been very impressed with the work that they do.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 January.

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

With regard to the north-south divide, which the Prime Minister seems to suggest does not exist, is she aware that, despite her reply to the previous question, unemployment in my constituency is over 30 per cent. and 5,500 people are signing the register, out of which 278 are young people under the age of 18 seeking their first job and are already beginning to think that they are on the scrap heap? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about the situation in my part of the world?

With regard to what the hon. Gentleman calls the north-south divide, the difference in income has not changed much since 1975 and travel and housing in particular cost more in the south. Employment has grown since 1983 in every region, save Wales. Unemployment in the past few months has been falling fastest in the north, north-west and Wales.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 January.

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

Without in any way prejudging the outcome of the Department of Trade and Industry's investigation into Guinness, does my right hon. Friend welcome the resolute action taken by its new chairman Sir Norman Macfarlane? Does she agree that if the City and business are to command confidence nationally and internationally they require people like Sir Norman to enforce unimpeachable standards of probity and integrity?

Yes, Sir. I agree with my hon. Friend and his comments about Sir Norman Macfarlane. As he knows, the City is very important to the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom. It in fact contributes to the economy net earnings from overseas of over £7 billion, which is as much as, if not more than, North sea oil at its peak. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that probity and honesty be seen to be maintained and we are anxious that if there are cases to the contrary they should be rooted out, and so, indeed, is the City.

Order.

—and a Financial Services Act 1986. A fraud investigation group has been set up, and a Banking Bill and a Criminal Justice Bill are in progress. Some of the measures that we have taken are now being implemented, and still more are in the pipeline.

When will the Prime Minister tell the House her conclusions following last year's review of takeover and merger policy? Will those conclusions include the need to consult employees, as well as shareholders, in what ought to constitute a wider definition of the public interest?

The right hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier. Guidelines were issued in 1984. A review is under way. He also heard me say that any fresh guidelines must be quite clear and specific. There must be no question of an arbitrary reference of these matters, because if there is we shall suffer and not get inward investment. My conclusions will be made known when they are ready.

With labour costs falling and export opportunities rising, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is about to enter an era of unparalleled manufacturing output which will bring prosperity and jobs to all areas?

My hon. Friend is correct. Manufacturing productivity has gone up very rapidly and it is therefore thought that labour costs are staying level. This gives us a tremendous opportunity further to increase the volume of exports. Manufacturing industry is doing very well and its export orders are almost at record levels. Good times are very much in prospect.

What words of comfort does the Prime Minister have for the Pilkington work force and the people of St. Helen's for having seen off BTR? Will the Department's review of merger policy ensure that Pilkington will not be in danger of being swallowed up by some other financial conglomerate in future?

As I said earlier to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the companies concerned and the market decided the future. If we had followed the advice of the Opposition it would have taken months more to decide it; months more of uncertainty.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her recent visit to the west midlands was extremely well received? Is she further aware that many of the stouthearted people in that region are determined to play their part in Britain's industrial recovery and do not believe, like the Opposition, in a divided nation?

I am glad to see my hon. Friend back in his usual place and showing his customary vigour. I very much enjoyed the visit to Birmingham and the west midlands. I was well received and found the area confident. Immediately on my arrival I was presented with a copy of the Birmingham Evening Mail, which had a record number of situations vacant in 29 pages.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 January.

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

I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not manage to hear the entire question I put to her several weeks ago about the power industry. This was entirely due to the noisy and unruly behaviour of Conservative Members. Is she aware that Babcock Power, one of our major builders of power stations, has announced that 26 per cent. of its work force throughout Britain is to be made redundant? Will she consider bringing forward orders for the power stations that Britain needs so that we can keep together a highly skilled and specialised work force?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, the decisions will have to wait a little longer, until after the Sizewell report has been published, considered, debated in the House and decisions made upon it.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reassure our farmers that she understands the plight that they face, and will she repudiate yesterday's policy announcement from the Opposition that they will introduce rating of agricultural land and buildings?

My hon. Friend makes a vital point. He knows our policy towards the farming industry, which is vital to Britain's future. Although it has to make changes, we are trying to see that those changes are made at a rate which the industry can absorb. We totally and utterly condemn any suggestion that farming should be rated.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 January.

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

In view of the reply that the Prime Minister gave a few moments ago and her support for the one-nation policy, will she consider sending a task force of the appropriate Ministers to the north of England to find out what the situation is there, because I am sure that the Government are totally ignorant of the situation in that part of the country?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in trying to give any impression that the north of England is down and out, when many parts of it are very prosperous. The road systems are excellent, the buses are excellent and the hospitals are excellent. In many cases the airports are excellent, the railways are running, and when I was recently in Manchester, and previously in Newcastle and also in Scotland, I made the point that if one wants extra investment and jobs one boosts the advantages of a region, which are many.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said that, apart from Wales, there was job growth in every region.

Order. Initially, I cannot see that there is any point of order. It must be a matter in which I can rule.

It is a point of order, because the growth rate of unemployment in the north of Ireland was 9·8 per cent. and I would not like to be——

Order. I shall try to call the hon. Gentleman on another day. Statement by the Home Secretary.