To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the number of defaulters on payments granted under the student loans scheme.

As at 30 September, 5,174 borrowers owed two or more monthly instalments. That represents 9.1 per cent. of those who should be repaying their loans on time.

Is the Minister aware that that figure is without doubt an underestimate for the future? There will be many more people struggling to pay and many people leaving their courses. Why do not the Government begin to scrap the scheme, so that people like me—who come from backgrounds that are not academic and who are not used to taking on debts in the family—are not dissuaded from taking up further and higher education? Many people will not take up higher education because of the Government's student loans scheme.

There is absolutely no evidence that the student loans scheme has deterred participation in higher education—indeed, quite the contrary. The numbers have increased staggeringly during the past 10 or 12 years and will continue to do so while quality is maintained.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that student support in the United Kingdom remains the most generous in the western world? Will he confirm that the number of students has increased, from a low point of less than 700,000 under the Labour Government, to substantially more than 1 million today? Will he further confirm that the target group of students was one in eight when Labour was in office, has fallen to one in four and is set to fall to one in three?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the package of support for students in this country is generous by international standards. Grants and loans together are now worth about 40 per cent. more than three years ago when there were grants alone.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent meetings he has had with teachers' trade union representatives to discuss teachers' pay and conditions of service.

I have asked the School Teachers Review Body to report on schoolteachers' pay and conditions in 1993–94. Teachers' pay is not a matter for negotiation between teachers' unions and the holder of my office.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, with mass unemployment growing like a cancer in every town and city in Britain, teachers have got one hell of a job to do in trying to motivate young men and women to do better, because those young people see their brothers and sisters and friends without a job for three or four years? At this time, is it not totally wrong for the Government to say to teachers and their representatives that they are not fit to do their job and that they should have a pay freeze?

The hon. Gentleman is certainly a very vigorous exponent of the National Union of Teachers' case. He is a much better exponent of it than many of its leaders—I increasingly think of the hon. Gentleman as a kind of thinking man's Doug McAvoy.

Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to invent a better system for dealing with those teachers who, through either sickness or incapacity, need to leave the service? It often takes months and months for them to do so, which means that the schools of which they are a member of the staff are left paralysed as to whether to appoint another teacher. Frequently those schools have to appoint another teacher, to the detriment of their other expenditure.

I am not aware of any recent complaints about this issue, but if my hon. Friend wants to draw any particular complaints to my attention I shall look at them. The average age of retirement for teachers is 59, but, occasionally, some teachers, for a host of reasons, have to leave the profession early. It is quite right that their departure should be part of a smooth transition, in their interests and those of their families.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his attitude towards teachers' pay and his many other recent attacks on teachers are lowering the morale of the teaching profession? What is his reaction to the comments made in an allegedly confidential document from the Conservative research department which, referring to the Secretary of State, spoke of

"Too much 'fire and brimstone' and ill-defined attacks on education 'experts'"

In view of the personal attacks that the hon. Gentleman has made on me, I should like him to substantiate them by placing in the Library of the House any evidence of a single occasion when he can find attributed to me—in quotes or in any other form—attacks on the teaching profession. If he cannot do that, I hope that he will come here to apologise, because I greatly value the teaching profession. During our very successful party conference in Brighton a week ago, we could see just how the teaching profession was applauded during my excellent speech.

I welcome the large increase in real pay given to teachers in the past 10 years and the fact that record numbers wish to join the profession now. Does my right hon. Friend agree that most good teachers welcome appraisal and incentive systems that are based on school needs rather than those of the local authority? As a result, most of them welcome the local management of schools, which gives them the opportunity to have their salary related more closely to their performance.

Good educational standards such as those promoted by teachers underpin the values of our nation, and we should be grateful to them for that. The other side of that coin is to make it possible for performance-related pay to be available for the teachers in schools so that their performance may be recognised. The fact that there has been a 46 per cent. real terms increase in teachers' take-home pay since 1979, with the average salary for a teacher in England now being £20,630, speaks for itself.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's policy on the introduction of two-year degree courses.

The Government believe that there is scope for providing some existing courses on a more intensive basis, including accelerated degrees. It is for institutions to decide whether to develop such courses. The Government have no intention of imposing a uniform pattern.

If the Minister really believes in quality and standards in higher education, he must face the fact that many vice-chancellors are telling their staff that they have a Government who do not understand their problems and do not support them. Is he aware that, in every institution of higher education, people are being told that they must expect during the lifetime of the present Government a doubling of student numbers, with no increase in real resources? Is he further aware that we are facing the prospect of standards and quality in higher education being gradually reduced to something like fourth-rate battery chickens, directly as a result of the Government's policies and their decisions on resources?

I am not sure that that supplementary question deserves a reply, but, as I am in a generous mood, I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the funding of higher education will continue to attract a fair share of resources within public expenditure and that the expansion of higher education, which is viewed on the basis of projections rather than targets. is likely to continue in the 1990s, while quality is maintained. We intend to maintain quality by ensuring that proper arrangements are in place at the institutional level and the level of the funding council.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students applied for student loans during the last academic year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students applied for student loans in the academic year 1991–92; and what was the figure for the previous year.

About 264,000 students applied for a loan in 1991–92. That compares with some 192,000 students in the previous academic year.

Is the Minister aware that, even before the term begins, students in Leeds are forced to pay half their maximum loans—about £400—on securing their accommodation? How on earth does he expect students to avoid being in debt to the tune of about £2,000 before their courses end? It is all very well for him to say that they will have jobs and therefore will be able to pay that money off, but why will the Government not bring forward proposals so that students are not saddled with crippling debt?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not discovered as a result of his investigation of the issues that regional variations in housing costs are among the factors taken into account when access funds are used. The hon. Gentleman was talking about hardship cases—a familiar cry from Labour Members. The vast majority of students are not in hardship, there is no evidence of such hardship, and my evidence for saying that is that the take-up rate of student loans in the last full academic year—the loans are available to all students who want them—was about only 37 per cent.

Does the Minister recall that, when we debated the Bill applying to student loans, we were told that there would be a big reduction in the numbers taking degrees? What has been the reduction?

There has been absolutely no reduction in the number of people taking degrees. Indeed, the number of degrees taken has gone up consistently under Conservative rule and the quality of those degrees has been maintained. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.

Although we welcome the recently announced Government survey of student incomes, we argue that such a survey is not strictly necessary. The Minister claims that there is no hardship among students. I urge him to check at random among all the higher educational institutes throughout the country to see the true situation. Will he take it from me that at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 72 per cent. of students eligible for the full grant are on an overdraft, one fifth of students whose parents are due to pay a contribution do not do so, or do not do so in full, and two thirds of students receive no extra support at all from their parents? Is he further aware that 22 per cent.—more than one fifth of students—have had to consider leaving university because of the financial hardship which they are suffering?

May I begin my reply in a conciliatory spirit by welcoming the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to his new responsibilities on the Front Bench. Many of us on this side of the House think that he should have been there a long time ago.

Our excellent university of Lancaster has 10 applicants for every place available because we offer the courses that students want and have the fifth highest pass rate in the country. We are building more student accommodation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on always speaking up for Lancaster university. I can vouch for the fact that it is an excellent institution. It was the first university that I visited when taking up my responsibilities, and I agree with the main points that my hon. Friend made.

Do students from other European Community countries studying at universities in the United Kingdom have a right of access to those student loans?

I shall need to let the right hon. Gentleman know about that and shall write to him accordingly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will alter the LMS budget formula.

The local management of schools budget formula is a matter for each local education authority to determine within the statutory framework. We shall, however, be consulting later in the year on the need for revisions to the LMS framework to take effect from April 1994.

I welcome that reply, although I hope that the revisions will be brought forward to April 1993. Will the Minister assure us that there will be no Government-originated cuts next year in LMS budgets in schools? Does he understand that many experienced teachers are ending up on the scrap heap because the LMS formula discriminates against them?

There is no evidence whatever for the hon. Gentleman's over-dramatic assertion. I assure him that the local management of schools systems is working extremely well and that all the heads and teachers to whom I talk say that they would never want to go back to previous systems. We believe in the system, in local school decision making, and we think that there is growing evidence that the more decision making is given to heads, teachers and governors, the better is the quality of education decision making at local level. We are fully committed to that.

My hon. Friend will know of my concern about certain aspects of how the formula operates, particularly with regard to the average in and actual out of teachers' salaries. Will he assure me that, at the end of the review period, the matter will be looked at in detail? The curious effect is that it does not extend choice to governors in their appointment of staff but limits it, if the formula continues to discriminate against that aspect of our budgets.

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concerns, which he has expressed frequently and most eloquently. I assure him that the review will cover all matters relating to the local management of schools, including the average actual that he mentioned. However, we must not lose faith with those authorities and schools that have demonstrated that they are well able to make the local management of schools system work, including the average actual salary matter. In our review, we shall take that very much into consideration. We must not penalise those who have made it work well, in an effort to bale out those who cannot or will not make it work properly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the criteria used for determining the allocation of access funds.

Very few. The allocation criteria are a matter for institutions, provided that they are consistent with the Department's general guidance on the use of access funds.

The Minister should be aware of the reasons for setting up the access fund. It was to provide financial help to students in further and higher education whose education was being inhibited because of financial constraints, problems and difficulties. The Minister must be aware of the problem that I brought to his attention—a lone parent with two children was refused an access grant to finish her degree course, and that jeopardised her course's future. Will he look at the criteria again to make sure that it does not discriminate against lone parents, who are mainly women? Will he also increase the measly £26 million a year? After all, the Government can afford it because they took £70 million from student housing benefit.

As the hon. Gentleman says, he and I have corresponded about his constituent, Sheena Borthwick, who is a student at Sheffield Hallam university. As he knows, decisions in this case and in similar cases are best taken by the higher education institutions themselves because they are closest to the problems. Access funds are generous if properly targeted, and the £26 million for this year is perfectly adequate for the task if institutions manage the funds properly and concentrate on cases of real need.

Does my hon. Friend agree that students appreciate the availability of access funds which are directed to those who are most in need? Does he agree also that, during the general election, the Labour party was callous to suggest that there was money for all, money for the mushrooming number of students who are entering further and higher education, because Labour did not say where the money would come from and did not come clean and tell young people who wanted to enter further and higher education how many of them would have been deprived of the opportunity to benefit from that education?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour specialises in uncosted promises and unbankable assurances. There is no reason why we should pay any attention to Labour's higher education policy.

The Minister speaks about uncosted promises. Will he confirm that when the hardship funds were set up the Treasury saved £100 million on housing benefit and income support that students could no longer claim? Will he also confirm that many local authorities are no longer able to provide discretionary grants to students who want to enter further education? Yesterday, there was an announcement about pit closures. The nation and many of the people who will be thrown out of work could benefit from training and education. Has the Secretary of State been asked by the Department of Employment to make extra money available through hardship funds and discretionary grants in areas where unemployment will result from the closures?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new Front-Bench responsibility. The answer to his latter question is that the training and enterprise councils are taking a lead.

Will my hon. Friend look into the unnecessary hardship being caused to students from Derbyshire where, for no reason other than budgetary and administrative incompetence by the county council, many students have not yet received their mandatory awards? Many others have been on their courses for more than a month and have not been told whether they will receive their discretionary awards.

My hon. Friend mentions a regrettable fact which merely shows the typical behaviour of Labour-controlled Derbyshire council. I note what my hon. Friend says and urge all councils to pay mandatory awards as efficiently and swiftly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what respresentations he has had about changes in governors' responsibilities following the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988.

Many governors have told me of the considerable satisfaction their role brings. I pay tribute to them for the job they are doing in such large numbers.

I am surprised that the Minister has not had representations on this matter or has not noted Denbigh high school in my constituency which is worried that under LMS, and possibly under grant-maintained status, it may well be penalised under any number of Acts, such as the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Employment Protection Act 1975, because there is no provision for the protection of the corporate identity of governing bodies. Does the Minister propose to do anything about that?

The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that I have not noticed his letter because if he sent it to me, it was a mistake to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for education in Wales. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by telling him to whom to address his letters. On his other point, about the corporate identity of governing bodies, we shall be addressing this in the forthcoming education Bill. I shall draw the point made by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has responsibility for the school to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

When my right hon. Friend looks at the responsibilities of governors, particularly in administration of LMS funds, will he see whether it is possible, in the review that has been announced to the House, to look at the cost of inspections under the admirable new system? Is he aware of a school not far from the House that is being required to pay £25,000 for a school inspection out of budget? Is that not an enormous imposition on a school in one year?

Charging for school inspections will be a matter for Professor Stewart Sutherland, Her Majesty's inspector of schools and the head of the Office of Standards in Education. If my hon. Friend will give me the name of the school, I will draw his point to the attention of the chief inspector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the numbers of children in nursery education.

It is for local authorities to determine the scale and form of provision for the under-fives, but the House would wish to be reminded that 175,000 more under-fives attended maintained schools in England in 1991 than in 1979 and that 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds now enjoy education or group child care or both.

That is a complacent answer. Is it not a continuing waste and a disgrace that 32 local education authorities in England provide no full-time nursery education whatever? Will the Minister congratulate the Welsh Labour-controlled local authorities which provide such splendid quality and such a high proportion of nursery education? Can the Minister explain why a child is far more likely to get a chance of nursery education if he lives in a Labour-controlled area than if he lives in a Conservative-controlled area?

That illustrates the rather pathetic dogma peddled by Labour Members, which roughly runs along the lines of, "If it is not supplied by a local education authority, it cannot be supplied at all." Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that what we have seen develop over the past 12 or 13 years is a mixed and diverse system which responds to the real needs of people in communities. Some of that may well be provided by local education authorities. A lot will be provided by the excellent other sources which make provision of the kind that parents want. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said.

How many European Community countries start compulsory education at the age of five?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. The answer is, hardly any.

How many?

It is difficult to be specific as the criteria by which the starting age is defined vary from country to country. However, we can be certain that this country is providing universal provision at age five and substantial provision before that in the maintained sector. That is well up with most of our European partners, and ahead of most.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps the Government propose to take to help integrate more physically handicapped children into the general school system.

It has been the Government's policy since the enactment of the Education Act 1981 that all pupils with special education needs should, wherever practicable, be integrated into the mainstream of school education. Our proposals for legislation will significantly improve all aspects of the arrangements for provision for these pupils.

Will the Secretary of State note that before coming to this place I spent 10 years teaching in a school in which physically handicapped children were integrated? I can testify to the benefits of that experience both for those children and for able-bodied children. I am worried, however, about whether the Government will ring fence the money necessary to adapt schools so that physically handicapped children can be integrated, especially at a time when schools are being charged from their own finances. As I understand it, there is no extra funding for physically handicapped children but only for children with learning difficulties.

I had not realised the hon. Gentleman's experience in these matters. I pay tribute to what he did in the circumstances that he has outlined. If ever he wants to talk to me about these issues, I shall be pleased to see him. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in England—my figures are for England only and not for Wales—the numbers of handicapped children being educated in mainstream schools has risen from 15 per cent. in 1985 to 37 per cent. during the current year. The Audit Commission has recently drawn to the attention of local authorities in its excellent report entitled "Getting in on the Act" just how much more local authorities could and should do in this direction.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the campaign against grant-maintained schools is that they will not provide places for children with special education needs? Will he allay that fear and the fears of the parents involved?

I can certainly do that. All grant-maintained schools will have to take pupils with special education needs. I deplore the attacks by some on grant-maintained schools, including the claim that such schools will not take pupils with special education needs. That is a straight insult to the professionalism of teachers in grant-maintained schools. We have only to consider excellent secondary schools which have gone grant maintained, such as Bishopshalt school in Uxbridge and St. Helen's school in Bluntisham, Cambridgeshire, to realise what centres of excellence grant-maintained schools are in dealing with children with special education needs. The schools should be congratulated.

Will the Secretary of State rectify an omission by his junior Minister? When his hon. Friend met the Spastics Society in September he welcomed the society's report, "A Hard Act to Follow", but somehow omitted to mention another report which found in favour of the Spastics Society and the National Union of Teachers on exactly the same subject, entitled "Within Reach: Access for Disabled Children to Mainstream Education". In both reports the underlying theme is that resourcing is crucial. Will the Secretary of State confirm that provision of resources for children with special needs will be made over and above the general education budget?

I welcome any report made by the Spastics Society which is directed to this important area. The society has responded positively to the consultation document issued by my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools. The response has been positive. Resources and available moneys are always important, but equally important is the way in which money is spent. In that respect, report after report has pointed the finger at local education authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on progress with the development of grant-maintained schools.

There are now 278 grant-maintained schools educating some 200,000 pupils. A further 30 schools are now approved. I announced yesterday that Sawtry village college, Cambridgeshire had become the 300th school to be approved for grant-maintained status. The applications of 179 more schools are currently being considered within the Department or being published. I am delighted that so many schools and parents have opted for this successful new way of managing themselves in such a short period.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. There is so much noise in the Chamber that I can barely hear what is happening. I ask the House to calm down so that I can call Mr. Jacques Arnold to ask his supplementary question.

My right hon. Friend will know that three of the schools that he mentioned are to be found in Gravesham, where parents voted by a majority of five to one, rising to nine to one, in favour of grant-maintained schools. Has my right hon. Friend noticed that since such schools were established, thanks to local decision taking and local value for money, those schools are showing greater flexibility and providing better education for the young people concerned?

The schools in my hon. Friend's constituency are beacons of excellence, providing improved standards while also looking after those children who need help and support, including those with special education needs.

The Secretary of State made it clear in his White Paper that he wishes all schools to seek grant-maintained status. Will he explain to the House what evidence he had about the performance of grant-maintained schools before encouraging mass opt-outs? In particular, will he tell the House how many grant-maintained schools have been subject to a full inspection by and report from Her Majesty's inspectorate?

The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is none, but they will be inspected shortly because all schools will be subject to full inspection under the four-yearly cycle. The answer to the hon. Lady's first question will be evident in November when we publish the A-level and GCSE results of all schools in Britain.

Such problems as there are with grant-maintained schools are problems of success. In that regard, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to reassure local authorities such as mine—Hillingdon borough—with a high proportion of secondary schools which have opted out, that there will not be a disproportionately large withdrawal of Exchequer grant from those local education authorities?

We always look after Hillingdon as well as we can. The Hillingdon local education authority should be congratulated on the way in which it has promoted grant-maintained schools. It has done an excellent job. It has brought schools to maturity, to the edge of the nest as it were, and they have flown. They are now running themselves and producing excellent standards in an efficient and caring environment.

If opt-out was meant to highlight dissatisfaction with local education authorities, is it not clear that Conservative councils cause far more dissatisfaction? Is the Minister aware that there have been more opt-outs in Tory-controlled Kent and Essex than in all Labour authorities put together?

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and I am glad that she got her question in before closing time. It is not surprising that in some parts of the country the number of schools opting to go grant maintained has thus far been small because Labour local authorities have done everything possible to prevent ballots. However, within the past two weeks, in Bradford, Nottingham and Salford schools have balloted and have opted for the first time to become self-governing, seizing the chance given to them by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the general election campaign.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the national average of the proportion of three and four-year-olds in pre-school education in each local educational authority area; and what is the figure for Redbridge.

In January 1991, 48 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in England attended maintained nursery or primary schools. In Redbridge, the proportion was 29 per cent.

Information that I obtained from the Library shows that in the current year the Government are giving nearly £745 for every three and four-year-old in Redbridge—yet the figures that the Minister just provided reveal that Redbridge, which is controlled by a Conservative council, has a deplorable record by comparison with the average local education authority. When will the Government ensure that the standard spending assessment paid by taxpayers to the Conservative council in Redbridge is spent on educating three and four-year-olds in that borough?

That is rich coming from the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten, if he ever knew, that the last Labour Government inflicted—[Interruption.] Oh, yes! Labour Members will hear this, Madam Speaker, even if it is so long ago that they have forgotten. It was the last Labour Government who inflicted damaging cuts in the provision for the under-fives, which fell substantially from 440,000 in 1976 to 415,000 in 1978. We will take no lectures from Labour Members about provision for the under-fives.

rose.—

Order. Before we proceed, I ask for order in the House, so that we can hear right hon. and hon. Members' questions. There has been a great deal of barracking from the Benches on my right as well as from those on my left. I would like less of that from now on.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's commitment to putting Britain first, will he confirm that the Government attach priority to getting this country out of recession and creating jobs?

All across Europe and beyond, economic circumstances are very difficult and in recent months have worsened noticeably in a number of countries. We are seeking the right policies to bring back not just recovery to this country but recovery with low inflation. The interest rate reductions that we have been able to make and the increasing competitiveness of the exchange rate will enable us to lead this country back to recovery with the low inflation and sustained growth that we need.

In the light of the statements made by the president of the Bundesbank and by the chairman of the Italian central bank that a general realignment was available to the British Government prior to Black Wednesday, will the Prime Minister answer the question that his Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to answer when he appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee or at the Dispatch Box? Was there or was there not a general realignment—either formal or informal—on the table?

I am happy to answer that categorically. No, there was not—formal or informal.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

Referring to matters that are in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some linkage between electricity privatisation and the current problems in the coal industry? This morning I heard from British Rail that if the proposed mine closures go through, British Rail will face a bill in excess of £200 million in terms of lost revenue and redundancy payments. Will my right hon. Friend please give a clear assurance that if there are to be any further privatisations, either of industry or of the nation's transport infrastructure, a full cost-benefit analysis will be provided to the House so that it may assess the full national implications?

Many of the problems faced by the coal industry—those that it faces at present and those that it has faced over many years—preceded privatisation. They have far more to do with the demand for coal and the changing energy market in this country. It is for that reason that there has been a severe contraction of the coal industry, not only in this country but in France, Belgium and Germany, and elsewhere.

Having been found out seeking to close down the coal industry quickly by rigging the market, are not the Government now asking to be allowed to close down the coal industry slowly by rigging a review? Is that not the proposition that their Back Benchers are being asked to swallow?

No, that is not an accurate reflection of the policy that the Government are following—as yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made perfectly clear. No one doubts, and no one has disputed, that over many years, under all Governments, there has been a continuing and severe contraction of the coal industry, owing to factors that were unavoidable.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the 1 per cent. cut in interest rates that was made on Friday, which will do so much to help all the people who have to repay mortgages and to help businesses, large and small? Does he agree that the key to resolving our unemployment difficulties and taking us out of the teeth of the world recession is low inflation, which we are achieving?

We have now achieved low inflation in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying inflation rate, at a level that we have not seen for many years. It is undoubtedly helpful to British industry that it has been possible to reduce interest rates to 8 per cent. I was particularly pleased by the consequential mortgage rate reductions that were announced today.

It is crystal clear that, whatever else he did yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade did not announce a review of the pit closure programme. Will the Prime Minister now agree to establish a genuine and independent review before any pit is closed for ever?

So that there is no dispute or misunderstanding anywhere in the House, let me make clear the position of the 10 pits identified by my right hon. Friend, and that of the others that he mentioned in his statement. In our judgment, the 10 pits that he specifically named have no sustainable economic future, but the full statutory review procedure will take place. I have no doubt that, during the moratorium on the other pits, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will wish to hold its own inquiry, and the Government will give that their fullest co-operation.

I remind the Prime Minister of the question that I asked him, which was whether he would establish a genuine and independent review. If the Prime Minister really believes that he has a strong case, what has he to lose from an independent inquiry? What is he afraid of?

Let me refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave. When we have completed the consultation and the examination—which, I repeat, will be made public and which, I repeat, will also be laid before this House—there will be every opportunity for every view to be taken into account before matters proceed.

Is it not now clear that the only satisfactory alternative to constantly shifting statements from the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, and to the unseemly Dutch auction which is going on among Conservative Back Benchers, is for this House tomorrow night to vote to refer the whole matter to our own Select Committee and for that to be the responsibility of Members in all parts of the House?

It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not listening, for I said that it was an assumption of the Government that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry would wish to consider this matter and that we would provide whatever evidence was necessary to the Committee. Notwithstanding the tremendous emotions that have arisen about this whole affair, it is bogus of the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to recall the vast number of mines that were closed by the Labour Government, the large number of miners who were put out of work by his Government and the activities of his Government in recent years that played a significant part in reducing employment in the mining industry from 700,000 down to the present level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern that is being expressed about the closure programme is very much bound up with the wider concern about the direction of our economy, post-ERM? Does he not agree that with a low value for sterling it really is essential that we have a policy of import substitution, of "Buy British", and that we should not build gas-fired power stations when we have already got 50 per cent. too much gas generating capacity? If my right hon. Friend were to put those facts into the review, he would find that he had the enthusiastic support of people like myself, who are deeply concerned about what is being proposed.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the changing level of the exchange rate offers the most remarkable opportunities for British exporters and also offers a better incentive for import substitution than we have seen for many years. My hon. Friend also needs to remember that we are by instinct a trading nation and that we must bear that in mind in all the policies that we follow. As I made clear a few moments ago, what the Government are seeking to do and will continue to do in the period up to and including the public expenditure round is to look at the difficulties that this economy faces and at the right possibilities and the right policies, in order to build on present economic circumstances a proper level of growth for the British economy and for British industry.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

Can the Prime Minister understand that it is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who has spoken for Britain? Can the Prime Minister name one independent expert who is prepared to say that gas will produce cheaper electricity than coal? The President of the Board of Trade could not name one yesterday. Can the Prime Minister name one this afternoon—yes or no?

If that were not the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain to the House why the demand for gas among consumers across the country is rising dramatically and shows signs of rising even further.

Despite all the difficulties being faced at this moment by this country and by other countries, will the Prime Minister give the House and the nation reassurance that we shall continue our efforts to aid countries in the developing world which suffer even greater difficulties than we do?

We have a very proud record indeed in that respect, in terms of the quantum of aid that we provide, in terms of the quality of aid that we provide, and in terms of keeping open markets in this country for the exports of those countries which, in many ways, is the greatest assistance that we can provide to the developing world. In my statement in a few moments on the European Council, I shall also set out some extra help to other countries which face particular needs at present.