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

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

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

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

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

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

A series of offers have been made to the teacher unions. The package of reforms and pay improvements offered in the Burham committee on 12 September had the Government's endorsement and represented a basis for a worthwhile settlement, beneficial to teachers and pupils alike. All offers have been rejected by the unions even as a basis for further negotiations. The reconstituted teachers' panel met on 11 November, but failed to agree a resumption of negotiations.

Meanwhile, the appalling, deliberate disruption of children's education continues. In the light of the offers that have been made and the union's unwillingness to negotiate, there can be no justification for continued industrial action. The Government will continue to work for a lasting settlement that will raise pay levels for good teachers, reform the career structure, improve promotion prospects and clarify teachers' professional duties. Only such a settlement can lead to progress towards our objectives for better schools for pupils of all abilities.

Is it not abundantly clear that the Secretary of State is failing to satisfy this most moderate of professions, although he has reduced the National Union of Teachers representation on the Burnham committee? Is it not a fact that there can be a settlement only if he makes money immediately available to the local authorities? I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State, but in view of the unprecedented damage that he is causing to the education service, he should resign immediately.

It is not I who brought about the ending of the NUT majority on the Burnham teachers' panel. It was brought about by the individual decision of thousands of teachers who, of their own free will, left membership of the NUT. It is not the Government who have failed to act in the dispute. We have made a substantial, though conditional, offer. It is the teacher unions which have consistently rejected all proposals to negotiate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pupils in my constituency of Cannock and Burntwood are being singled out for punitive action by the NUT? Does he agree that, when there is £1,250 million of new money on the table, that is a disgraceful performance, and that the best service that the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers could do would be to come back to the negotiating table without imposing totally unreasonable conditions?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The teachers' unions seem to be putting children absolutely last in their considerations.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, which I am sure are applauded and agreed with totally by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Given the difficulties that we experienced last year and the year before on teachers' pay negotiations, has my right hon. Friend any proposals for abolishing the Burnham committee and introducing something different so that negotiations will be easier for all concerned? I believe that most teachers would like to return to work and would accept the Government's offer. Unfortunately, many of their unions do not want them to do so.

I am ready to take into account any proposal that would enable more sensible negotiations to occur. Unless there is a willingness to negotiate, changes in the negotiating machinery will not make much difference.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that even among moderate teachers there is great concern about the way in which appraisal might work? Will he take this opportunity to say once again that any system of appraisal could be instituted only on the basis that it operated fairly and that teachers realised that? Will he confirm that the idea behind appraisal is to help teachers to improve their own work, and not to punish them for any shortcomings?

Precisely. The purpose of appraisal is to further the professional development and career prospects of teachers. It is coupled with the much expanded and more effective in-service training system that we propose. Taxpayers' money has been set aside to run pilot schemes on appraisal but, sadly, these are being blocked by the teachers' unions, which will not agree to carry them forward. I hope very much that they will change their attitude and allow pilot schemes to go ahead.

Did my right hon. Friend notice that the National Union of Teachers chose to carry out its lobby of Parliament a couple of weeks ago in the week after half term, rather than during half term, thereby causing unnecessary and avoidable disruption to its members' schools? Does he agree that that undermines its claim to have serious concern for the children?

The teachers' unions seem explicitly to be following a campaign of maximum disruption to children's schooling at minimum cost to teachers' pay.

To assist the settlement of a damaging dispute, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the proposals made by his distinguished Conservative predecessor, that a review body should be set up, provided that all disruption ends at once?

A review body is meant for occasions when normal negotiations are not easily practicable. Negotiations are possible given good will by the teachers. It is important to bear in mind the employers' capacity to pay. Therefore, negotiations should involve employers as well as employees.

The Secretary of State is responding to five or six questions, but is it not a fact that nearly all of them have been tabled by Conservative Members? There are about 20 questions asking the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on the dispute, and almost all of them have been tabled by Tory Members. [Interruption.] When will Conservative Members realise that shouting at me is not an answer to the teachers' damaging dispute, and when will the Secretary of State realise that new money must be put on the table to give teachers a professional wage? A moderate section of the community is asking only for the right to teach our children with a semblance of dignity, and the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to give them that, although he gave Johnson Matthey about £¼ billion overnight without questioning any of us.

My hon. Friends had questions early on the Order Paper on this subject. That is why there is a barrage of questions from them. The hon. Gentleman seems constantly to ignore the fact that the Government have made available a substantial sum of extra money in addition to normal pay increases, conditional upon the teachers accepting professional terms of duty. The teachers' unions have so far refused even to consider or discuss that offer.

That is becasuse it is not enough.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he has succeeded in demoralising the entire education world? Does he not understand that teachers are as important to law and order, for example, as the police, and vital to Britain's future. It is essential that teachers be given their proper status.

I agree about the importance of teachers. I am repeatedly being told that teachers' morale has collapsed and that I am responsible for that. I am accused of starving education of resources and of continually denigrating teachers. In fact, public spending per child in schools has never been as high as it is now. I do not denigrate teachers. I recognise the difficulties that they face in dealing with a difficult job, and I applaud what they have achieved, but I believe that there is scope for better schools, and that can be achieved only by the teachers themselves.

Does the Secretary of State not realise that the Burnham committee is useless as a negotiating machinery for settling this strike? Is it not about time that he heeded the advice, not only of Opposition Members, but of his colleagues, and set up a pay review board to look properly and effectively at teachers? Does he agree that to many teachers the Burnham machinery is seen as an impediment to a settlement?

No. I do not accept that. Given a willingness to negotiate, which the teachers' unions have so far signally failed to show, I do not think that there would be any difficulty in using the present system.

If the Secretary of State is waiting for a parent backlash to compel teachers to drop their justified claims and industrial action, does he not realise that he is whistling in the wind? Parents cannot understand why the Government fell over themselves to pay bumper increases to judges, generals and senior civil servants. They gave them what we were told were incentives to deal with low morale. Parents see low morale among teachers, and they see teachers pursuing a justified claim to restore their salaries to what they were 10 years ago, when they were broadly comparable with other professional groups, managers and engineers. That is what this claim is all about, and the Government should respond to it with a sense of urgency and fair play.

I am not relying on any such assumption. The Government have recognised the need to offer pay that will recruit, retain and motivate teachers of the right quality—good and effective teachers—in just the same way as the extra money, although on a very much smaller scale in aggregate, was offered in order to recruit, retain and motivate civil servants and the judiciary of the right quality.

Does the Secretary of State recall that a few months ago there was a vote in the House on top salaries? Some would say that the House was over-weighted, like the Burnham committee, in favour of one side. The result was that Cabinet Members and all their cronies on the Back Benches voted to ensure that the Lord Chancellor received an adequate salary increase, according to their criterion. If that can be applied to their own people, and if everyone else on top salaries can get treated to an average 17 per cent. increase, why cannot the teachers be treated similarly? Surely the truth is that Tory government is all about double standards—different pay for different groups of people.

The Lord Chancellor does not take the increase that was voted for him. Secondly, the Government are concerned with better standards for children of all ability, and not with double standards.

Should not certain of the teaching trade unions change their attitudes towards their professional responsibilities and conditions of service, and instead of targeting certain constituencies for strikes and disruption, should they not be explaining the benefits of the Government's latest package and resuming normal working, while meaningful negotiations get under way?

Yes. Nothing can justify the behaviour of a profession in disrupting the education of its charges.

If the Secretary of State is so confident about his conduct of educational affairs, why will he not accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and allow a review, so that we can establish whether his confidence is well placed, or misplaced?

Because the Government believe it right that those who have to find the money—although in this case it is ratepayers' money and taxpayers' money—should be part of the negotiation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any settlement of the teachers' dispute must enhance the team work between heads and teachers in schools?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the chairman of the parliamentary Labour education committee, recently told a meeting of teachers at the House, "The heads are your enemies"? Was that not disgraceful? Will that not damage schools deeply, and damage children? Is that not typical of what some Labour politicians have said? Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw it?

If it was said, I am sure that it could not have been meant. I should like to repeat the tribute that I paid in the House to the heads and many of their deputies for bearing such a burden to keep schools open for their children, and to those teachers, in all unions—particularly one union—who have refused to disrupt.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many hon. Members on each side of the House have found his failure this afternoon to announce a new peace initiative to end the 10 months long teachers' dispute deeply disturbing?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has still not replied to my letter of 25 October, in which I urged him to set up an independent inquiry into teachers' salaries, with a remit to report as soon as possible, and with a firm commitment to fund its findings? If he is not going to resign, is it not about time that he stopped wringing his hands, started behaving like a Secretary of State, and took constructive action to bring justice for the teachers and end the disruption in our schools?

It is not for the Government to produce a new initiative.

Why not?

It is not the Government who are intransigent. In recent months, one side has been making offers, and the teachers' side has been saying no, no and no again. It is perverse for the hon. Gentleman to blame the Government and urge us to take a new initiative. He knows from his local authority party colleagues, who lead for the employers in the negotiations, that we face people who have not moved an inch from their position of, "Pay us more now and we will talk about reform later."

As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a review on pay only, that is the last thing that the Government would contemplate. We are convinced that it is right that conditions of service and career structure must go with pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for widening parental choice about their children's schools.

The Education Act 1980 substantially improved parental rights in the school admission process. There are no present plans to take this further.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of parents of children in my constituency of Basildon were dissatisfied with the schools appeals procedure this year? Will he encourage local education authorities to examine the procedures to ensure that the spirit of the Education Act, giving real parental choice, is complied with?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his determination in promoting the interests of his constituents, but it would be perfection indeed if every child could be admitted to the school chosen by his or her parents. That cannot be guaranteed. I understand that nationally over 90 per cent. of parents are successful in securing a place at their prefered school. The latest information available to me suggests that about 40 per cent. of cases taken to appeal are decided in favour of the parents.

Does the Minister agree that the most important thing is to ensure that all schools are good enough for all children to attend? Will he persuade the Secretary of State to stop fantasising about making direct grants to primary schools and persuade him instead to ensure, first, that adequate resources are made available for the settlement of the teachers' dispute, and secondly, that there is an adequate supply of books in schools so that pupils do not have the problem of being unable to do their homework because books are not available?

The Government will continue to consider and contemplate ways of improving parental choice. However, I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government were the first Government to take steps to enshrine parental rights in legislation. When in office, the hon. Gentleman's party never did any such thing.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the geographical spread of the research funding provided by his Department.

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that out of nearly 2,500 Medical Research Council jobs in England and Wales that are funded by his Department, only 150 are located north of Cambridge? Does he not think that this is a matter of concern? The medical profession in the north of England certainly regards it as such.

There are nine such units in Scotland, as well as five in the north of England. In the context of Medical Research Council units, over the years there has been a pattern of almost as many opening as closing. Closure normally takes place on the retirement of the director of the unit. The location of the subsequent unit is determined by the choice of director. It is a fact that many of these are located in the south of England.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that injury is the largest cause of death and disability among the under-40s? Is he further aware that the trauma unit, the only one in the United Kingdom, is in Manchester, and that it is under threat? Is this not disgraceful? Will he please look at it once again?

I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall study the matter again. However, he will know, because of his deep knowledge, that Medical Research Council decisions are based on scientific judgment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a university department without a research capacity is unlikely to be able to maintain the standards that we expect of university departments? Although my hon. Friend may therefore feel that it is necessary to contemplate the closure of individual university departments on economic grounds, will he not contemplate removing research capacity from departments and introducing teaching only departments into our universities?

I take the spirit of my hon. Friend's question. About one half of the £1 billion that is spent on research through my Department's funding is spent across the nation by the University Grants Committee, through the university system. Approximately two thirds of research council money is similarly spent on higher education. There is, therefore, a wide geographical spread.

Is the Minister aware that he cannot possibly be satisfied with the regional distribution of research, when the national total is so miserable? Is he further aware that after allowing for the increase of £15 million in the science budget this year over the total planned last year for this year, nevertheless, in real terms, the Advisory Board for the Research Council estimates that the volume of research activity will fall by 8 per cent. in the current decade?

I am conscious of the difference between the growth in the science vote, measured by gross domestic product deflator terms, which has grown by 8 per cent. since 1979, and the amount of science that it will buy, but the £45 million which my right hon. Friend has been able to secure in the most recent public expenditure announcement goes a long way towards restoring level funding for the balance of this decade.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the funding of the Open University.

Since the letter announcing the university's grant for 1985 and indicated grants for 1986 and 1987 was issued in February, we have received 90 letters. A petition, with some 160,000 signatures, has been handed in to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the Open University students' association.

Does the Minister agree that these representations indicate support for the work of the university? How does a reduction in the funding of the Open University square with his Government's alleged commitment to adult and continuing education? Is not the university extremely cost-effective in terms of its distance learning techniques?

The petition to which I have referred shows that there is keen support for the Open University. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Open University visiting committee to make further funding recommendations. Its report will be issued shortly and my right hon. Friend will then announce his decisions. Some of the calculations on cost-effectiveness take student support into account. The cost-effectiveness of the institution per se compares very well with, that of other higher education institutions.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the contribution made by the Open University to those areas, such as Shrewsbury in Shropshire in my constituency, that do not have a university within easy travelling distance and, therefore, must make the maximum use of Open University services? Is my hon. Friend further aware that curtailing those services hits not only those rural areas but the disabled community and would not be welcomed by either side of the House?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the manner in which the Open University has contributed to the spread of access throughout the country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year there were seven applicants for every two places in Scotland and, no doubt, similar figures for the rest of Britain? Is he also aware that an efficiency study has shown that the Open University has been run efficiently? As the Secretary of State appears to think that the main aim of education is to produce more science and technology graduates, does the hon. Gentleman accept that more generous funding would enable the Open University to produce more such graduates?

An efficiency study was carried out. It identified a number of areas in which savings could be made. The Open University has been pursuing them—

They were small savings.

They were between £2 million and £3·5 million. I congratulate the Open University on the movement in student ratios which means that 50 per cent. of students study science, engineering and technology courses. In the decisions that were announced earlier this year, the Government put forward a further £360,000 to sustain that movement.

How much funding for the Open University comes from private sources, especially industry?

Of that part of the university's income which is grant and student income, 85 per cent. comes from the state. That is the percentage if one omits summer school fees. The figure is 81 per cent. if summer school fees are included. The Open University is to be warmly congratulated on the manner in which it has developed continuing education courses with industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman grasp the fact that, given the parlous state of the British economy, more highly trained people are needed? Because the Open University is a capital-intensive institution, it could take on 20,000 more students now and train them for the country, if it were not for the Government's parsimonious attitude. Will the hon. Gentleman heed Lord Briggs' statement just last week that; because of the expansion of the 30 to 60 age group, we need a second Open University? That is the size of the challenge. When will the Government wake up to what the Open University could do for our country?

One would not think from that question that, in the five years between 1974 and 1979, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power, there were 97,000 disappointed applicants, whereas in the past seven years of this Government there have been only 87,000 disappointed applicants.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications were received by the Open University for undergraduate places for the forthcoming academic year; and how many of these were unable to find a place; and how these figures compare with previous years.

The Open University has received 56,000 applications for its undergraduate programme for 1986. It has not been able to offer places to 23,900 of those applicants. That is the highest number since 1976, when 28,800 could not be offered a place.

Does the Minister accept that this has been a record year for applications? In response to the visiting committee's report, how does he expect to measure up to the legitimate expectations and hopes of many applicants, especially those in rural areas where there are no other immediate means of further education and training? Can he repeat the assurance given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 25 June this year, when he said that no student has to wait more than one year to be admitted?

Yes. In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am delighted to say that, despite the scare noises that have been made about the fees currently being exerted by the Open University, applications continue to rise in the way that the hon. Gentleman described.

The Minister means extorted.

On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course I recognise the need that exists in parts of the country, but the Open University will maintain its level of students in 1986 at its current level.

How many of the applications were from people who wished to study the arts and the humanities? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to contradict the impression that is now abroad that the Government are somehow biased against those who wish to study the arts? Would that not be a strange and perverse attitude for a Tory Government to take?

I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. The Government retain their support for the arts, which has always pervaded our party. Half of the present student intake is doing science, engineering and technology, and that figure has increased.

Is the Minister aware that in Scotland, for example, there were over 7,000 applicants this year for only 2,000 places at the Open University? In view of the indisputable fact that the Tory Government's cuts are excluding thousands of potential students from their only chance of improving their education, is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that he is slamming shut the door of what was once called the Open University—one of the Labour Government's finest achievements'.

The hon. Member may deploy his rhetoric for as long as he likes, but, as I said earlier, in a shorter period of time his Government disappointed more applicants than our Government have over a longer period.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received from the Moslem community about the teaching of religion in schools.

My right hon. Friend has received no representations of this sort in the recent past.

Following the Swann committee's recommendations, what is my hon. Friend doing to help teachers who need additional training in that respect?

The Government have decided to extend the in-service training grant scheme to include training and are responding to ethnic diversity. We have taken some measures with regard to initial training, and we are anxious to increase the supply of ethnic minority teachers. We are therefore considering the comments received on the consultation document on that subject which we issued last July.

Does the Minister read the Daily Jang which is the most widely read Urdu newspaper? Has he read the article about the need for more language laboratories for teachers who are trying to teach Urdu in schools?

I am bound to say that I have not read that publication as frequently as I should. I shall, of course, now do so and take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.

to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for further assistance to the Open University.

I call Mr. Donald Stewart to ask question No. 8.

Already answered, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many university mathematics and science lecturers have been appointed over the last year and are expected to be appointed over the next year.

Statistics on university academic appointments generally in 1984–85 are not yet available. However, about 260 new posts in mathematics, science and engineering were created last year under the "new blood" and information technology initiatives. Further new posts in those disciplines will be established over the coming year as a result of those initiatives and of the engineering and technology programme announced in March.

How does the Minister respond to the National Audit Office report, which states that his higher education policies have led to unnecessary chaos and disruption? Is it not ironic that he is now having to recruit new posts, especially in the sciences, when his policy only four years ago led to massive cuts in the same higher education posts?

The report of the National Audit Office is the subject of question No. 12. The reductions effected between 1981 and 1984 were in response to public expenditure restraints. It is widely acknowledged that there have also been benefits flowing from the new blood over and above the replenishment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Does the Minister not firmly agree that the whole future economic prosperity of this country depends on a highly trained and educated labour force, particularly in science and technology? Why are the Government insisting that all university science and mathematics departments should at least consider the implications of a 2 per cent. cut for each of the next five years? It is appalling that people should be taken away from their teaching and research roles to spend a considerable amount of time planning for cuts which clearly will be economically distastrous for the country.

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that if the UGC had not included science, engineering and technology in its planning exercise, he would have been the first to be on his feet to say that the cuts in the arts and humanities were too severe.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking in the light of the National Audit Office report on university funding; and if he will make a statement.

The National Audit Office report itself identifies some action that has already been taken. My right hon. Friend will consider whether any further action is necessary in the light of any report the Committee of Public Accounts may make to the House.

Is the Minister satisfied with his complacent response? The National Audit Office report shows that this Government's record on university education has led to a reduction in staffing ratios and has affected the balance of staff within departments and between departments. The reality of this Government's record is that it has damaged the fabric of higher education. We need action, not words, from the Minister.

It is perfectly true that there has been a reduction in funding for higher education, particularly in the universities, from 1981 onwards, but the staff-student ratio that has emerged is still consistent with maintaining quality within the system.

How will the gaps be filled at the senior levels with the highly qualified and able teachers and researchers that are identified in this report when there is a drift away from such posts by university teachers, who are demoralised by the present pay levels?

The hon. Gentleman will find that there is greater concern within the university system about the age profile lower down the system rather than at the top.

Is not the message of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that cuts have a malign and perverse effect that is highly damaging to our nation's future? Why does the autumn statement outline further cuts for higher education over the next three years?

It is a consistent part of public expenditure policy on higher education that efficiency savings of approximately 1 per cent. per annum will continue to be looked for.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for expenditure on arrears in maintenance and repairs to Britain's schools.

If local education authorities take advantage of the scope for efficiency savings and contain costs generally, the Government's plans for expenditure in 1986–87 provide the opportunity to redeploy resources in support of local priorities, and these might include the repair and maintenance of school buildings.

Has the Minister seen the report from the Confederation of Parent-Teachers' Associations? It points to the fact that 52 per cent. of primary schools and 72 per cent. of secondary schools have dilapidated fabric? It speaks of leaking roofs, draughty windows, rotten window frames, decaying plaster, dilapidated wiring—a general decline in standards. Does the Minister intend to do anything about that? Does he realise that Conservative voters do not believe that the Government can save money on the back of education? Why does not the Minister respond to what they want?

We take seriously the concern expressed in the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I must make it quite clear that the problem that we face is the accumulated result of inadequate expenditure on the repair and maintenance of building stock over many years, and under successive Governments.

Has my hon. Friend any comment to make on those Labour authorities which are well aware of the shortcomings in school buildings but refuse to spend money in areas that return Conservative councillors?

I condemn such action by any local authority controlled by the Labour party. However, I am not at all surprised that such policies are being practised.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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. This evening I shall be giving a reception for Fellows of the Royal Society.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to welcome the enormous measure of all-party support that she received in the House yesterday following her statement on the Anglo-Irish agreement? Will my right hon. Friend reflect with sadness on the extremist reaction of certain hon. Members from the Province? Does she not agree that surely the time to judge the agreement is in two or three years, when it has had a chance to work? Do not those who prejudge the agreement misjudge the very real yearning of the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland, for a new and constructive approach towards achieving peace and stability in the Province?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I very much welcome the reception given to the agreement. I believe that most people wish to give it a really good chance to work, and that most people will take a constructive approach and condemn those who use violence to defeat democracy.

Is the Prime Minister aware that 72 per cent. of the electorate, including 62 per cent. of Conservative voters, now believe that a freeze on the testing and deployment of nuclear weapons is the way ahead at Geneva? Has the right hon. Lady told President Reagan that the Government are prepared to have the Polaris system counted in in the discussions and to freeze the purchase of the Trident if that would help the peace process?

I do not believe that either the independent French or independent British nuclear deterrent should be counted in in the discussions, for obvious reasons. If there are negotiations between the two super powers on the broad basis of equality, balance and verification, to count in the British and French would mean that we would determine exactly what the United States says, and the right hon. Gentleman must see that that would be utterly impossible.

In view of the meeting taking place in Geneva between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is imperative that there is a positive result from the conference, it must be remembered that unless the human rights issue is included—rights which, regrettably, do not exist in the Soviet Union—and unless Mr. Gorbachev adheres to the Helsinki final act, nothing positive will result from the conference?

It is, of course, imperative that we continue to have a sure defence. I believe that the human rights issue is on the agenda at Geneva. It would be wise to wait to see what comes out of Geneva, rather than attempt to prophesy.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that as the Government expect to receive £4·75 billion next year from the sale of British Gas and other public assets, the tax cuts that she proposes for March will be wholly financed by those sales?

No. The right hon. Gentleman should wait for the Budget before talking about tax cuts. We will not be in a position to determine what will happen in the Budget until we have the latest economic forecast, which usually comes in February. That will depend upon many things, and it is thoroughly mischievous to try to say in advance what will happen.

I take it that the Prime Minister does not deny the Chancellor's estimate that £4·75 billion is to be obtained through asset sales. If that is the case, what other means of financing the tax cuts is possible? Is not the Prime Minister trying to set up a smokescreen to obscure the truth that, having increased taxes year after year when she promised to cut them, she now proposes to sell off national assets to buy a few squalid votes?

The privatisation programme stands in its own right, because we believe in putting more companies into the hands of the people, with the possibility of enhanced share purchase. Even if the proceeds of privatisation are added to the public sector borrowing requirement, that figure as a proportion of GDP is expected to be the lowest since 1971–72. Will the right hon. Gentleman contrast that with the record of the Labour Government in 1975–76, on which the equivalent PSBR now would be £33 billion?

The right hon. Lady flagrantly and pathetically avoids answering my question, so I shall repeat it. If she proposes to raise £4·75 billion next year from the sale of public assets, what possible alternative financing is there for the tax cuts that she proposes?

Public expenditure is projected to remain broadly stable in real terms over the survey period, whether those asset sales are included or excluded. I do not propose to make any statement about taxation cuts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor particularly did not make any statement about fiscal adjustments. The right hon. Gentleman is intentionally being thoroughly mischievous.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies of Ireland is that those who should take the lead in ending the maiming and killing of people in our land are the very people who talk of treachery, where only courage and vision have been shown at this time? Is it not important that those fanatics, whether they be IRA or Protestant, should seek a way in which all peoples can live at peace and be united in this land?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that men and women of good will in Northern Ireland, in the whole of the United Kingdom and in the Republic should join in defeating the IRA.

Reverting to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), as the Prime Minister says that the equivalent of the just over £10 billion PSBR in 1977 would now be £33 billion, does that not illustrate how seriously our currency has been devalued under her management?

No one in the House could exceed the right hon. Gentleman's own record on devaluation.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the report in The Guardian today that she may be having second thoughts about the Anglo-Irish agreement? Is she aware that a large number of reasonable, non-extremist English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish unionists would welcome a reconsideration?

I think the general view is that the agreement should be given a chance, that it is contructive, and that it is welcomed because it should get everyone who believes that violence should not be a part of democratic life to join in defeating violence.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

What does the Prime Minister intend to do about the decline in traditional industries such as engineering? It is deplorable in a community like mine, which has one of the main railway engineering workshops in the United Kingdom. BREL is closing that workshop. When will the Prime Minister reverse the decline and do something about unemployment?

Because of reduced maintenance requirements of modern rail rolling stock the work force of British Rail Engineering at Springburn is to be reduced from 1,680 to 460. We cannot alter that. The new rolling stock requires less maintenance. I understand that the Scottish Development Agency has undertaken a study to make recommendations on how to generate employment and has made suggestions about how best to go about it.

Has my right hon. Friend had drawn to her attention the article by the political editor of the Mail on Sunday to the effect that the Government have abandoned their plans for rate reform in England and Wales? In view of her very firm commitment during her speech on the Loyal Address, can she confirm that that remains Government policy?

Yes. I hope that a Green Paper will be published early in the new year.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister now agree with even her own supporter, the CBI, which has called for at least £1 million more to be put next year into spending on contruction and training to create jobs? Will she agree to that, instead of sucking up to the electorate with more promises of tax cuts?

The CBI stresses in its proposals that any increase in spending on certain areas must be contained within the same overall total. It also says that employers are more inclined to believe that the level of unemployment results from excessive pay increases, overmanning, poor productivity and management failures rather than from Government policies.

s asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the hefty sentences handed out by courts yesterday and last week to bunches of brutal thugs and rapists? Will she join me in congratulating the judges who have indicated that we will not tolerate violence of that kind, be it against male of female, be it done by black or white? Is not that a message that we must hand out loud and clear?

I agree with my hon. Friend that some of the crimes that we have seen recently warrant very serious sentences indeed. The sentences are justified on the basis of punishment for the offender, as a deterrent to others and to protect the law-abiding citizen.

s asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Reassuring as it is to the House that the right hon. Lady knows that human rights are on the agenda in Geneva, may I ask whether she will undertake to use every possible opportunity to emphasise to the Soviet authorities that mutual trust between nations requires that they should comply with human rights within their own countries, and in particular that a modest gesture, such as the release of those comparatively few Jewish people who have been waiting for many years to join their families outside, would do a power of good and create much goodwill for the Soviet Union?

The answer is, yes, to both parts of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. As he knows, we frequently raise the matter both in general and in particular cases. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary did so when he last met Mr. Shevardnadze. The matter will again be raised in Geneva. I respectfully suggest that we would all be very pleased if rather more than a moderate gesture were forthcoming.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are some on the Tory Benches who believe that the Anglo-Irish agreement will tend to increase rather than diminish the level of violence? Does she further recognise that that view is widely shared by Ulster Unionist Catholics as well as by people throughout the Province? Concerning the detail of the agreement, may we have an assurance that the representations by the Government of the Republic at the Anglo-Irish conference will be made public on all occasions?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that I hope he will join in thoroughly condemning all who resort to violence, and will make that perfectly clear. The answer to the second point, about representations at the intergovernmental conference, is that they would not normally be published.

Does the Prime Minister consider that distinguished Member of the Dublin Parliament, Senator Mary Robinson, to be an illiterate extremist who has thrown away the advances made in this document by her resignation, announced this morning, from membership of the Irish Labour party

"on the basis that it was negotiated without the involvement in any way of the majority community in the North and was unacceptable to all sections of Unionist opinion, and not just to extremists."

I do not believe that the agreement is unacceptable to all shades of Unionist opinion. Part of its purpose is to give them greater security and greater assurance about their future.

By the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.