asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to give any further advice to local education authorities in relation to the development of pupil profiles; and if he will make a statement.

I shall shortly be inviting the views of the local education authorities, teachers, industry, commerce and public service employers on a statement of policy and principles for action in this field, with a view to securing the more widespread use of records of achievement for school leavers. Copies of the draft will be placed in the Library.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a pupil profile system is to develop properly those in further education and employers must be aware of its content and purpose and be consulted about it? Does he also agree that teachers will probably need more training in assessment techniques to make the scheme work properly?

Yes. The consultation paper appeal for co-operation from employers and will take account the implications for further education. widespread use of records of achievement implications for initial and in-service training o

I welcome strongly what my right hon. Friend has said and the steps that he has taken in this matter. Does he agree that for those who will not take O-level and CSE examinations some form of profile is of importance in assisting them to obtain employment?

I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's support. However, I take the view, and I hope that he will agree with me, that records of achievement should be suitable for pupils of all abilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that when local councils cut education services they maintain facilities provided originally by voluntary effort.

It is our view that those are matters best left for local resolution.

Is the Minister aware that the Sefton Conservative council has closed a learner swimming pool at St. James's primary school in my constituency, the money for which was raised completely by the parent-teacher association? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that swimming pool has been closed merely to save £8,000 a year in running costs in an area where children drown in the Leeds-Liverpool canal? Will the Minister condemn such cuts and economy measures?

It is for local education authorities to decide the extent to which they can compensate for community losses associated with school closures or any other activity within the local education authority. Education law provides a framework for that and I see nothing to be gained from issuing central prescriptions on problems which arise at local community level.

Will my hon. Friend invite the Inner London education authority to save money at the Cockpit theatre, which has promoted courses for young children, which have now been stopped, in bestiality, rape, and that sort of thing, to the detriment of its future? It is an area where money can and must be saved. The Cockpit theatre needs looking at.

I note my hon. Friend's robust remarks and leading the campaign which in many suecessful closure of a number of items. think that his point falls entirely within thetion.

asked the Secretary of State for ence whether he has any plans to meet teachers' unions to discuss the places; and if he will make a

My right hon. Friend has on such plant at pres

:ter ever gets round to meeting the leaders of the unions, will he explain to them what economic log is in having thousands of teachers on the dole another Government Department is in the process ing people to go through some phoney training gsters between 16 and 19 on the YTS scheme? Would it not make more sense to have those teachers employed in classrooms teaching those grant-aided 16 to 19-year-olds? That would raise morale in the classroom and reduce the pupil-teacher ratio at the same time.

My right hon. Friend recently met some of the associations and is due to meet representatives of the NUT on 1 November. The matter was not discussed at any of the previous meetings, nor is it on the agenda for the meeting with the NUT. My response to the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that average class sizes in England are now the lowest so far recorded, at 25·1 for primary and 21·1 for secondary schools. The elimination of large classes depends on decisions by authorities and schools about priorities as well as on the resources available.

When my hon. Friend is considering this matter, will he bear in mind that the teacher-pupil ratio is at the best level it has ever been?

My hon. Friend confirms the figures that I just gave to the House.

How much does it cost the taxpayer to train a teacher? Is it not a considerable waste of public expenditure if that teacher is not able to work? And how many unused classrooms are now available in primary schools? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would be a good idea to offer nursery education, employing many teachers who are unemployed, in those empty classrooms?

A number of those questions fall outside the purview of the original question, but it may be helpful if I say that though there will be a significant reduction in the output of newly-trained secondary teachers by the late 1980s, the output, at 7,000 a year, will mean that there will still be an appreciable margin over the estimated annual demand for 5,000 such teachers.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no reduction of any significance in the number of places in Church colleges for teachers?

We acknowledge that the voluntary sector has an important part to play in the teachers, but in a changing world we cannot to allocating a fixed and unchanging training places to colleges supported by denomination, especially when much teacnow occurs in universities.

Is it not a fact that ratio is due entirely to the fall in p whereas the rolls in secondary school When the Minister meets the teachers to discuss something, and not me Vacuo, point made by my hon. Friend the for Denton Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about eing unemployed will be one subject that the nions will raise. it not a fact that the pupil-teacher in the private secto using public money, is much than in the public sector? That is disgrathousands of highly trained teachers—beathe YTS scheme—are out of work.

I must appeal for short supplementaryplease

:The thrust of the main question related to the Secretary ofte's meetings with the associations of teachers. He has met the National Association of Schoolmasters — Union of Women Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and the National Association of Head Teachers. On 1 November he is due to meet representatives of the NUT. This matter was not discussed at any of the previous meetings, nor has it been placed on the agenda for the meeting with the NUT.

Will the Minister accept that the overall pupil-teacher ratio figures which he quoted are misleading —Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have pointed out that they are misleading — because of the uneven incidence of falling rolls and the fact that some teachers in special subjects such as physics may not be reappointed, so that physics classes may in future be expected to be taught by people qualified in, say, French? Does he appreciate therefore that the overall pupil-teacher ratio is not a significant figure in the circumstances?

All ratios and statistics on a global scale embrace variations within them, but the fact remains that the figures are the best ever. Anybody who argues against them is suggesting that one can win a test match by making fewer runs.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the overall provision in schools for children with significant learning difficulties.

Generally, yes; but, as I told the National Council for Special Education earlier this year, we need to look closely at whether the aims of the special schools are ambitious enough. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that speech.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman appear to be complacent and indifferent about this matter? Many of us are aware of and entirely dissatisfied with the distinct lack of commitment by most local authorities in dealing with the spirit and intentions of the Education Act 1981 in relation to disabled and handicapped children. Will the right hon. Gentleman exhort authorities to take further action to implement those provisions as speedily as possible, regardless of Government-imposed cuts in their expenditure, and to treat the matter more seriously, remembering that we should be far more compassionate in our attitudes towards needy children of this character? What further action does the Minister intend to take?

The hon. Gentleman's attitude is entirely unjustified in relation to local education authorities, teachers and Her Majesty's Government. His question is broadly defined and I answered him in terms of the special schools. The movement of children who might otherwise have gone to special schools into schools for normal children must be judged in each case. There is money—money is being preserved in real terms for the special schools — and teachers and local education rities are co-operating to put into effect the spirit of 1 Act as fast as is practicable.

Will my right hon. Friend at dyslexia is now accepted by all education as a major cause of learning difficulty?

That is practically fighting talk. There is much dispute about whether dyslexia is an adequate description of severe learning difficulties. That there are Widespread learning difficulties is accepted. The exact name to be given for it — the diagnosis and treatment—is a different matter.

In view of the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the aims not being sufficiently ambitious in certain areas, is he satisfied with the provision being made for children with significant learning difficulties whose difficulties are the result of communication problems?

Of course I am not satisfied, nor can anyone in the education service be satisfied, because the problems are so inherently difficult. There is enormous enthusiasm and great caring on the part of the teachers. My worry is that the teachers are perhaps not ambitious enough in using all the modern techniques known across the world to overcome the various handicaps. But, as I say, the problems are inherently difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the financial implications for schools of the youth training scheme; and what additional resources he is providing for this purpose.

I am not aware of any significant financial implications for schools in the provision currently being made by the youth training scheme.

Is it not a fact that the youth training scheme—being fairly unpopular with young people, as the level of take-up shows so far—might lead to more pupils staying on into sixth forms at a time when educational provision in many local authorities, such as mine in Waltham Forest, is being severely cut? Is there not a case, in view of the relative failure of the youth training scheme, to offer options to all pupils who wish to leave school, for more educational resources for sixth forms in areas where there has not been a full take-up of YTS places?

We shall have to take into account what is known of the choice of young people when the people concerned come to negotiate the terms for next year. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the terms under which provision is made now in education are based on a bargain struck not by my Department but by the further education colleges with representatives of the employers at the beginning of this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that serious problems are being caused to many colleges of further education in Devon, including in my constituency, and throughout the country by the serious shortfall in funding YTS courses by the Manpower Services Commission? Will he exert pressure on the Secretary of State for Employment, to see whether this underfunding can be made good, otherwise local education authorities will be asked to make up a deficit which they will not be in a position to do?

I take seriously what my hon. Friend says, but, as he rightly says, these matters are for the Secretary of State for Employment, who, I am sure, will read this exchange of views.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that questions were asked about inner city areas, especially where there was a high incidence of unemployment, when the Select Committee was taking evidence on the youth training scheme? It asked whether local authorities would suffer penalties if there were excess spending on education and the Select Committee was assured that there would be no exception made for them. Does he agree that that is disgraceful?

No, I do not agree. The Government were approached and asked to exempt authorities from holdback to the extent that the overspending came from YTS spending implications. The Government did not recognise that there was justification for that exemption.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a valid implication for schools is the extent to which the curriculum might require amendment to prepare pupils better for the youth training scheme, which many of them might later join?

I tend to agree in more general terms with my hon. Friend. There are initiatives to widen the curriculum for a number of pupils. In their initiation of what is called the lower attaining pupils scheme, the Government have provided extra money for pilot schemes for this purpose.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall receiving a letter recently from a head teacher in the north of England, whose school had done especially well in developing what has been called the new sixth form? This head teacher's sixth form has been reduced by 25 per cent. recently as a result of the impact of the youth training scheme. He argued that the YTS was much more expensive than the courses that he was running in his school, much less suitable for his pupils, and a scheme that would produce a poorer record in placing them into work.

These are matters of opinion. I can respect the teacher who has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman, without necessarily agreeing with all his conclusions. More of the age group concerned are staying on at school for a varying number of reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are now taking part in the assisted places scheme; and what have been the annual increases since its inception.

Provisional figures indicate that about 13,000 children in England are now taking part in the assisted places scheme. The three annual intakes this represents were 4,185, 4,431 and, provisionally, 4,700.

Is it not a fact that successive inspectors' reports have revealed that the provision of books and equipment is parlous in many schools in the public sector throughout Britain? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, side by side with the horrific cuts in the public sector of education, public money, which the Government call taxpayers' money, is being used to enhance and enlarge the private sector? Does he accept that this is being done when many thousands of our children are suffering because of cuts in the public sector?

I continue to welcome the progress of the assisted places scheme. It provides the bright child from ordinary circumstances with an opportunity to apply for a range of provision that is not necessarily offered by his local authority. The hon. Gentleman's subjective interventions are always welcome. His known and class-ridden hostility to the scheme guarantees proof that we are moving in the right direction.

Is it not a fact that the Labour party's policies have led to many 'former direct grant schools being closed to the children of those parents who cannot afford to pay the fees? Is it not welcome that the assisted places scheme has made it possible for all children in many local communities to aspire to enter schools which, throughout their history, have been open to and have served the whole of the communities in which they operate?

My hon. Friend is right. He may be interested to know that in the 1982–83 school year 40 per cent. of the assisted places attracted full fee remission and that 70 per cent. of the places went to pupils from families with below average incomes.

If the Minister is opposed to subjective information being offered to the House, will he give the House objective information by revealing precisely how much the assisted places scheme has cost taxpayers since its inception? Will he tell the House also how much has been cut from the public sector provision during the same period?

I understand that £16·5 million has been provided for the assisted places scheme for the financial year 1983–84.

By what scale of morality, either secular or religious, can the Minister and his colleagues justify spending almost £9 million in this year, on subsidising privileged schools when they have found only about £1 million to help in the integration of handicapped children in ordinary schools?

We can justify the scheme on financial grounds because it has been a great success in widening education opportunities. It has more than met its objectives in helping children from poorer backgrounds.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with progress in implementing the provisions of the Education Act 1981.

In general, yes. The new assessments and statements procedures are now in operation. Many local education authorities have conducted a review and reappraisal of their special educational provision and arrangements in the light of the Act.

Will the Minister confirm that some local education authorities are not fully implementing the 1981 Act, especially in integrating handicapped pupils with their fellow pupils?

All local education authorities and schools have been urged to review their provision for children with special educational needs. I accept that there may be some variation between local education authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities employ educational psychologists; and if he will list them.

All English authorities do except for the Isles of Scilly. Numbers for the rest of the United Kingdom are the responsibility respectively of my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing demand within local authorities for the services of educational psychologists? How can they meet that demand in the face of Government cuts in resources for local authorities?

The number of educational psychologists employed by English local education authorities has increased from 935 in 1979 to over 1,000 in January of this year.

Does the Minister accept that the great and valuable service that is provided by educational psychologists is matched by the remedial classes into which they are able to put those whom they are endeavouring to help? Is he aware that money is being wasted because the psychologists are not allowed to place sufficient numbers in remedial classes? This is happening because the teacher cuts have been too great to allow appropriate allocation.

Nothing in my answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) suggested any lack of support for the service.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give his assessment of the effect in the university sector of the Government's measures to reduce public expenditure.

The reduction in provision for the universities following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on 7 July did not require any cuts in grants to individual institutions, other than the Open university.

Is the Minister aware of the confusion that exists in the universities? First, they were fined for taking in too many students. They were then told to take in more students, but they were given no extra money to finance the greater intake. Who is responsible ultimately for planning in the university sector? Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that there will not be yet another change in policy when the outcome of Viscount Whitelaw's "Star Chamber" is known?

For 1984–85 the University Grants Committee has asked universities whether they will be able to take any further students. The response to the question will be received by 31 October. The UGC will then determine how the allocation of places should occur.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy towards the university sector has encouraged many universities to consider more favourably arrangements that will lead to beneficial co-operation with the private sector and industry? Is this not a good outcome of the Government's policy?

I confirm what my hon. Friend has said.

Does the Minister agree that one of the consequences of the see-saw policies in the university sector will be both cuts and increases next year, which will cause colleges to suffer next year? Does he agree that it is high time he accepted the right of every student with the correct academic qualifications to gain entry to a centre of higher education? Does he agree also that the consequent economic, social and education values would far surpass any limited problems that he might have in public expenditure terms.

There has been no evidence up to now that anyone with appropriate qualifications has been denied access when he wished it, although I acknowledge that it is not necessarily to the course or institution of his choice. With regard to 1984–85, the committee of the National Advisery Body for Local Authority Higher Education met the Secretary of State to discuss its anxieties about the maintenance of access within the advanced further education pool. The Secretary of State has made available a further £20 million for its disposal.

That is not true. It is a lie. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. I normally take points of order after Question Time. Does it relate to this question?

As the rector of the University of Dundee, may I put it to the House that the Minister has been telling lies?

Order. That is not a point of order.

He called him a liar.

Is not the encouraging development in this area, within the period covered by the question, the financial management of the UGC, which is not, I appreciate, the direct responsibility of the Government, and which has led to a decisive switch away from the arts and towards the applied sciences in the universities?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in drawing the attention of the House to that development, which is continuing in the current year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science from what higher figure to what lower figure of expenditure per secondary school pupil the Inner London education authority would need to reduce its expenditure in order to comply with the lower limits indicated by him in his written answer of 20 July.

As I said in my reply to the hon. Member's previous question, it is for the authority itself to decide on its priorities for spending within its own budget. The figures that I quoted show quite clearly that the authority should be able to make significant reductions in its spending without reducing its ability to provide an effective service.

Does the Minister not recall that in his answer on 19 July he claimed that the ILEA was overspending by 66 per cent.? Therefore, why should we not conclude that, in the view of the Government, spending on each pupil should be reduced by a similar figure?

The hon. Gentleman cannot avoid the inescapable fact that the financial and educational difficulties of the ILEA, which weigh heavily on the people of inner London, came about entirely because of the Labour party's policies. I remind the House that in the two years from 1981–82 to 1983–84 the ILEA's budget increased by 20 per cent. when pupil numbers were falling faster than the average.

Has the ILEA produced any measurement by which it could show that any of its voluntary extra spending was producing better educational results?

I am not aware of any such evidence, although I should be pleased to see it. The Labour party would do well to advise its friends in the ILEA not to pursue their expensive, misleading and alarmist campaign.

Will the Minister confirm that if the ILEA were to meet the Government's expenditure targets it would have to abandon adult education, close nursery schools, double the price of school meals and entirely stop the grants that it gives to enable older children to slay on at school?

The House will be aware that the hon. Gentleman is quoting from a campaign leaflet which it would do well to ignore.

Not true.

The ILEA's provisional target for 1984–85 is £798 million. As for all other authorities, it was set at a level reflecting its relative level of spending this year and the Government's assessment of what reduction it might reasonably be asked to make next year. In fact, it is 6 per cent. above its target for this year.

asked the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science what information he has as to the number of local authorities that employ education welfare officers.

Local education welfare services are provided in every local education authority in England.

Does my hon. Friend agree that hard core truancy is directly linked to crime, particularly in inner cities? Does he therefore agree that one of the prime roles of education welfare officers should be to make parents responsible for sending their children to school's'

We should like education welfare services to be focused more on school attendance issues. We are considering how those services might make a greater contribution towards reducing worrying truancy levels. The last major national survey of truancy was in 1974. It showed that in maintained middle and secondary schools in England and Wales nearly 90,000 pupils, 2·2 per cent. of the total, were absent with no good reason.

With the understandable concern about truancy, why does not my hon. Friend require local authorities to submit annual trancy figures to his Department?

Every requirement that we make of local education authorities involves a cost. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Does the Minister accept that schools contribute to truancy and that if their syllabuses were more akin to the needs of the children, and more attractively presented, truancy would decrease?

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentlemen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated programmes regarding the low attendance of pupils.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has now studied Her Majesty's inspectorates' report on standards in schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received following the publication of Her Majesty's inspectorates' annual report on education expenditure for 1982.

I have studied carefully Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report on the effects of local authority expenditure policies on the education service in 1982 and have received a small number of representations specifically about it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the public, having a proper and substantial interest in education, are entitled not only to be fully informed about this important report, but to be assured that the matter will be considered properly? Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to make sure that there is a debate on the matter so that the Government and, perhaps, Conservative education authorities can respond to the charge that they are a pernicious influence on our young people and the state sector of education?

I agree that the public should be informed, but it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who was my predecessor—not any member of the Opposition— who decided to publish the report. I have followed his example. The Opposition have plenty of opportunities to choose that subject for a debate if they wish.

I acknowledge that the overall figures on expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios are good, but what action does my right hon. Friend hope will be taken to remedy some of the specific deficiencies identified by Her Majesty's inspectors?

In general, the remedying of individual deficiencies identified in the report is for the local education authorities.

Given the Secretary of State's belief in parental choice and that Her Majesty's inspectors found no appreciable difference between the standards of education in co-educational schools and single sex schools, what is the Secretary of State's view on local education authorities which propose to remove totally the single sex option?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but as I have a quasi-judicial function in relation to proposals by local education authorities, and as I suspect that his question conceals a local dilemma, I must reserve my position.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that before Her Majesty's inspectors report on standards in schools is sent to him, a draft is prepared by the headmasters and directors of education for the schools concerned? [Interruption.] Therefore, does he believe that the report submitted to him is unbiased?

Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I ask for silence? This is an important Question Time and there is much noise.

No doubt Her Majesty's inspectors ask for factual information before they visit schools, but there is no question of bias.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the moves to reintroduce the process of selection, which has already failed the nation once? Does he agree that that selection process has a great deal more to do with saving money by not educating the nation's children properly than it ever had to do with educational standards?

I am not sure how that issue arises on this question, but I shall certainly not dissociate myself from any initiative or proposal that a duly elected local education authority decides, in its own wisdom, to propose to me. I have to take account of the arguments for and the objections to any such proposal or initiative. I shall continue to do that and judge on the merits of the case as it affects children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the steps taken by him following the publication of the recent report on the selection and appointment of head teachers.

I intend to convene a national conference early in the new year on the selection of head teachers for schools. The conference will be greatly helped by the Open University's report, the full version of which will be published next month.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of head teachers are doing a first-class job but that a significant minority are falling down badly, to the detriment of the education of children in their care, and that that affects those children's school careers and lives? Does he agree that it is essential to do something about bad head teachers?

I agree that it is extremely important to try to get the best head teachers possible. That is why the report on the selection process is potentially so valuable.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many student places in higher and further education have been cut since May 1979.

Between the academic years 1978–79 and 1982–83, total full-time home student numbers in universities in Great Britain and in non-university higher and further education in England have increased by 136,000.

Further to the earlier allegation about ministerial lies, which some hon. Members seem to get off with more easily than others——

Order. I could not hear that allegation and I should not like to hear it.

We did.

I did not make the allegation. I simply referred to the allegation that had been made. Is the Minister seriously denying that there are thousands of young people, who have recently left school with university entrance qualifications and are capable of benefiting from higher education, who are being denied a place in an institution of higher education, because the Government have abrogated their stated principle? Would the Minister really rather see those people languishing on the dole queue than benefiting from the opportunity of higher education, which is their right?

It is an embarrassment for the Opposition that the number of full-time home students in higher education has increased by 51,000 since 1979.

Will my hon. Friend explain why some adult students in full-time higher education receive full grants because their parents are not regarded as being able to make a parental contribution whereas other students, whose parents are deemed capable of making a parental contribution but cannot or will not, do not receive a full grant? Is that just? If it is not, what will my hon. Friend do about it?

I can only give my hon. Friend the answer that I have given him before. Removing the parental contribution would cost £180 million a year. At the moment, that is not within our power.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he expects education expenditure to be held at its present planned level in 1983–84.

Central Government expenditure on education, much of which is subject to cash limits, is expected to be held broadly at the level planned for 1983–84. There will be some overspending by local education authorities, but most of the overspend is by a limited number of authorities.

Should not cutting the pupil-teacher ratio be a principal objective of policy? Is the Secretary of State aware that when local education authorities cut education expenditure they blight the lives of youngsters? Will that not have a long-term ill-effect on them?

We are cutting the pupil-teacher ratio. It is at a record low.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the HMI reports say that an increasing number of schools are dependent on parental contributions? Does he agree that that means that children in schools in poorer areas of the country are suffering even greater disadvantages? Will he confirm that the Conservative party now believes in pursuing a policy of inequality of opportunity?

On the contrary, we are striving to achieve as much equality of opportunity as is practical, bearing in mind that local authorities decide on the deployment of public money in education.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 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.

Has my right hon. Friend read in today's newspapers the welcome news of next month's reported 1 per cent. cut in mortgage interest rates? Does she agree that that is tremendous news for all home buyers? Does she welcome the final abolition of the building society cartel and the resulting increase in competition, which must be good news for investors and borrowers?

As my hon. Friend says, home buyers and savers stand to gain from a vigorous and competitive building society movement. I note that, since market interest rates went down to 9 per cent., money has flowed into the building societies well. I hope that that augurs well for the many citizens who are profiting from the Conservatives' home buyers policy.

Is the Prime Minister aware——

Take his pulse.

—of the havoc that has been caused by the latest local government spending cuts? Is she aware that the cut in home improvement grants in Scotland from 90 to 50 per cent. has led the Conservative group on Glasgow district council to say that it feels betrayed and stabbed in the back by the Government? Does she intend, as one of her advisers recommended in The Times last week, to abolish local government and replace it with the medieval model?

My right hon. Friends are proposing a grant figure, which means that if local authorities spend at their target rates rate increases next year should be extremely low. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a consultation paper on the rate support grant. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is equally efficient in his dealings with Scottish local authorities.

Did any British troops take part in the landing of American and Commonwealth forces in Grenada? Were there consultations between the United States and the British Government? What action has the Commonwealth Secretariat taken on this matter?

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that this question relates to the Prime Minister's official engagements.

I should be quite happy to answer my hon. Friend's points on an open question. No British troops took part. As to consultations, we received a message some three or four hours after my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke in the House yesterday on a statement. The United States sought our advice at that time. We communicated to the United States our considerable doubts about initiating action. We asked it to weigh several points carefully before taking any irrevocable decision to act. We understand that the view of several Caribbean states weighed heavily and conclusively with the United States. The perspective of those Caribbean states is undoubtedly different from ours, as they are much closer to what is happening. As my hon. Friend knows, they have been prepared for a landing and contributed to the forces that landed on Grenada today.

Having heard her Foreign Secretary yesterday say that he had been in the closest possible touch with the Americans and had no reason to think that there was any likelihood of their miltary intervention in Grenada, will the Prime Minister learn the lesson that no undertakings that may be offered by the United States—either as to the use that it might make of missiles stationed in this country or as to the consultation that would precede such use—ought to be relied upon?

What my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday was the accurate information available to us then. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent anything that my right hon. and learned Friend said. My right hon. and learned Friend did not mention any United States undertaking not to intervene, for the simple reason that there had been no such undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman, whose questions we always listen to with the greatest possible interest, tried to draw a parallel with cruise missiles. With the greatest respect, there is no parallel at all.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as a result of the Government's cuts in NHS manpower, the real job loss in the NHS in the west midlands is not the 140 that her Secretary of State claimed, but 3,626? Will she report this fact to her "Star Chamber" of Ministers when they next discuss the cuts the Government are making?

The numbers employed in the NHS went up enormously during the lifetime of the last Government—very much more than in the lifetime of the Labour Government. The same is true of the amount spent on the NHS. Even after a reduction of half of 1 per cent. in NHS manpower in Great Britain, the numbers employed under this Government will far exceed anything under the last Labour Government.

Which of the right hon. Lady's policies has her "Star Chamber" been licensed to breach?

I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the important duties that he has assumed and I hope that he will enjoy the job. As I announced at the Dispatch Box before the House rose for the recess, our objective is to keep to the planning totals for this coming year and the following year which were published before the election and upon which the election was fought. That is still our objective. Therefore, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is none.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her felicitations. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we are glad that she has made such a full recovery from the personal problems that she experienced at the beginning of the recess. If the lady is still not for turning, what is the purpose in having a "Star Chamber"? Can it be nothing more than a clumsy cover-up for the divisions that exist in the Cabinet and the indecisions that exist in the Prime Minister?

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has asked a well-studied supplementary question, but had he consulted his right hon. Friends and colleagues he would have known that all public expenditure annual surveys cause problems. That is well known, and to refer to my noble Friend, Viscount Whitelaw as a "Star Chamber" carries no weight at all.

In her busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend yet found time to intimate to President Reagan that the resumption of the supply of American arms to Argentina before that country has formally ended hostilities with us, before the European Community has received an answer to its request for information about those who have disappeared, and before there is an established democracy in Argentina, is not only an unfriendly act but is not likely to help secure a peaceful settlement with Argentina?

When I was in the United States, I made it very clear to the President that any resumption of the sale of arms to Argentina by the United States would be received with very grave concern—[Interruption]— and deep criticism in this country, and that such criticism would be justifiable.

I agree with those hon. Members who are drawing the noise to my attention. I cannot hear either.

What consideration has the Prime Minister given to the recent OECD report that the figure of more than 12 million unemployed in Europe is rising? With her experience of four years in Government, does she expect her policies to bring unemployment down, or will it go up? What instructions has she given her "Star Chamber" to bring unemployment down?

The policies that the Government are following have the best chance of creating permanent and endurable jobs for the future. The youth training scheme is now working extremely well, as is the community enterprise programme. Enterprise allowances are also in place. That is the best chance the country has of creating new jobs and wealth, and public expenditure is designed accordingly.

asked the Prime Minister under what circumstances Her Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into discussions with a democratically elected Government of Argentina on the future of the Falkland Islands.

I see no possibility of discussing the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with Argentina. I hope that a new Argentine Government will respond more constructively to our efforts to achieve more normal commercial and economic relations.

Why is the Prime Minister not willing to say that she will talk to a democratic Government in Argentina to try to find a peaceful solution that could be accepted by the islanders, instead of building up arms on both sides which could result in further conflict? Does she not agree that that could play into the hands of the generals in Argentina who will be waiting in the wings when a democratic Government take over?

No. The best deterrent to any further Argentine attack is a strong force on the Falklands. I believe that the whole House is very much aware of that. There would be no point in discussing sovereignty at the moment. That would be an insult to all those who gave their lives to restore freedom and justice to the Falkland Islands. If the Government in Argentina are truly democratic, they will know that the essence of democracy is self-determination. That applies to the people on the Falkland Islands as much as to those anywhere else.

Have not democratically elected Governments in Argentina previously been overthrown and replaced by dictatorships? Therefore, whatever the regime in Argentina, should not we be quite clear that British subjects and British territory cannot be handed over to Argentina?

Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend that the kind of Government in Argentina does not affect the fundamental rights of the Falkland islanders to choose the regime under which they wish to live and to choose to stay British, as they have said they wish to do.

If the right hon. Lady is always concerned about reducing public expenditure, how does she justify the Minister of State, Department of Employment being subsidised out of public funds as Tory party chairman——

Order. The question relates to Argentina.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any leasing proposals would be as unacceptable now as they ever were, because if Argentina were to be granted sovereignty with leaseback and then broke the agreement we could not then move in armed forces without invading Argentine territory? That must be why any consideration of leaseback will, into the foreseeable future, be unacceptable.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The House made it clear that leaseback was not acceptable and the many debates that we have had have made it clear that the wishes of the Falkland islanders are paramount.