asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many prosecutions of schools there have been for infringements of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

I am aware of none.

I am relieved to hear that. I hope my hon. Friend can reassure the many head teachers in Norfolk and the country—and, indeed, at the same time the Master of Balliol college, Oxford — who are concerned about the rigorous licensing requirements of this Act that they will not face expenditure which they can ill afford before they can put on a play or concert for friends of the school and people from the community of which the school is a part.

This legislation is the concern of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I understand that his Department takes the view that school events at which the audience is limited to staff and families of the pupils, and parent teacher functions where those attending are either members of the association or their guests, are not public entertainment and do not require a licence.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many mature students he envisages being admitted to higher education in each of the next 16 years.

The Department's 1983 projections assume that mature students on full-time courses will fall from 36,000 in 1982–83 to between 23,000 and 24,000 by 1998–99. The assumptions underlying these projections are currently under review, and my right hon. Friend plans to issue revised projections by around Easter.

Is the Minister aware that that is an extremely disappointing answer? Will he now take steps to reverse that process, particularly as the numbers of school leavers wanting university places will decline in the next 10 years and the need for technological skills will increase? Will he therefore take steps to ensure that more university opportunities will be available to mature students in the next 10 years?

I was responding on the basis of projections, and projections cannot be wrong until what they project has failed to happen. The hon. Gentleman's question clearly concerns a subject that is under review during the current year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this category of students should be actively encouraged by the Government and by universities, and that in order to do that it is essential to have far greater flexibility in grants, particularly discretionary grants, for those who have done first degrees in the past?

I do not dissent in any way from what my hon. Friend says. However, discretionary grants are not under my direct control.

As rate capping is likely to cause 50 per cent. of staff places at special schools to be unfilled, will the Minister say what the effect will be on handicapped students?

I fear that that matter falls outside the scope of the original question.

Does the Minister agree that what is wrong in his projections is the policy assumptions on which they are based? Does he accept that we need a clear commitment from the Government that they want to increase steadily the number of mature students, in order to give our country the skills that it will need for the next century?

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the projections that we have made, and those projections underlie the review that we are currently conducting.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate to discuss the present rules for formal inspection of local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the senior chief inspector regularly and our discussions sometimes touch on inspections of local education authorities. There are no rules as such for these inspections, but I expect Her Majesty's inspectorate to continue its programme of inspecting and reporting on two or three authorities, or parts of authorities, each year.

Where HMI identifies an authority as giving cause for concern, will a full inspection of that authority be implemented? If deficiencies in provision are then found, will my right hon. Friend consider using existing or new powers to remedy such deficiencies so that higher standards can be achieved?

Her Majesty's inspectorate has a large programme of obligations and it would certainly take account, in deciding how to use its staff, of the factor to which my hon. Friend draws attention. It produced a special report on ILEA on those grounds a few years ago. Since the beginning of last year, all HMI reports of full inspections are published.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that HMI has a profound influence on standards of education? Is he satisfied that there are enough inspectors in post?

I agree that HMI has a great influence on standards of education. Because of the range of its coverage, a recruitment programme is now going on to increase its strength.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest assessment of the effect the Rates Bill, in its present form, will have on the expenditure of the Inner London education authority and the level and quality of its services.

The ILEA, if selected for rate limitation, would be required to reduce its present excessive expenditure, which appears to contribute little to the quality of most of its services compared with those provided by some other inner city authorities; and to obtain better value for money.

Is it not true that the Rates Bill will, in effect, enable the Government to demand cuts of £120 million in the services provided by ILEA, and that cuts of such a magnitude could not be carried out without, for example, damaging consequences for education for the under-fives, for adult education and for remedial education for the most disadvantaged pupils in the area?

No, the hon. Gentleman is parroting the alarmist and selective catalogue of protests by ILEA elected members. I wish that Opposition Members would focus on what really matters—the quality of education for the children — instead of on figures alone. The tragedy of ILEA is that, despite the zeal and devotion of many of its teachers and the pioneering work that they have done, its expenditure is simply out of proportion to the results being achieved. Educational standards cannot be improved overnight, but the lesson of ILEA's 20 years is that throwing money at problems does not buy educational success.

Having also had an opportunity to study ILEA in depth, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that, even allowing for the problems of inner city education, ILEA is, regretfully, a very good illustration of the fact that one does not necessarily get better education by spending more money?

I agree with every word of my right hon. and learned Friend's question. I should also like to say, on behalf of the whole House, that it is a pleasure to see him here again.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many pensioners and disabled people in inner London derive considerable benefit from adult education classes and are extremely concerned about the implications of the suggested 13 per cent. cut in education spending in inner London. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes not to be alarmist, can he assure the House that the quality of adult education will be maintained after the spending cuts have been enforced?

I cannot imagine that if the Bill is passed the successor authority will ignore the importance of adult education.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many pensioners who take advantage of adult education believe that it is ludicrous that they should be charged only £1 a year for as many classes as they wish to take, and that many of them would be willing to contribute more in order to retain adult education?

That is a typical example of the unnecessary extravagance of ILEA, which reduces the effectiveness of its services.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the important article in the latest issue of The Times Educational Supplement, which states categorically that the result of his high-handedness in regard to these matters is that crisis point has been arrived at in his association with the Association of County Councils, the Association of Municipal Authorities and the local education authorities? Is this not due to the fact that—

Order. The question deals with ILEA.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. ILEA is one of the educational authorities to which I am referring.

The hon. Gentleman has question No. 19, which is rather nearer to the subject about which he is asking.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in ILEA there were 6,073 more non-teaching than teaching staff in 1983, and that the budgeted costs for non-teaching staff in the coming year are to increase by 18·4 per cent.? Does he agree that there are ILEA staff who say that £62 million could be saved on the budget by blocking that?

I agree with my hon. Friend's general thesis. ILEA spends more than twice as much per secondary pupil as the outer London boroughs on support staffing — caretaking, cleaning, administrative and clerical staff. ILEA charges 35p for a school meal, although the average charge is 52p; ILEA's expenditure on school meals increased by 25 per cent., while the national figure fell by 2·5 per cent. ILEA has plenty of scope to make savings without any damage to educational standards.

Does the Secretary of State accept that ILEA, which faces great problems, is one of the authorities which are setting standards in precisely the areas which he highlighted in his Sheffield speech — examination reform, curriculum development and under-achievement? What is the educational justification for clobbering ILEA?

May I repeat the words that I used earlier? In spite of the zeal, devotion and pioneering work of many of its teachers, the tragedy of ILEA is that its expenditure is simply out of proportion to the results being achieved. There are many examples of extravagance, such as those illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey).

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has recently received for the reorganisation of secondary education.

The three most recent proposals to have been submitted to my right hon. Friend for a major reorganisation of secondary education were for areas in the Avon, Trafford and Manchester local education authorities. Two were published on 1 December 1983 and the third on 6 December 1983.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that neither he nor our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will stand in the way of those local education authorities which wish to introduce an element of selection into secondary education or reintroduce grammar schools if they think that that is appropriate in their locality?

It is well known that local education authorities are now free to consider the patterns of school organisation as they see fit. Such reorganisation may include grammar, technical, music, or any other form of school that the authority wishes to propose. By law, any such proposals must come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will decide each case on its merits.

Will the Minister tell the House that he will not, on ideological grounds, stand in the way of an attempt by the Salford diocese to reform the Catholic education system in the north of Trafford along comprehensive lines, as the local authority, having failed to put forward any arguments against the proposals, has at a late stage tried to jeopardise them by putting forward an objection on completely specious grounds?

The House will know that I cannot comment on any particular proposal which is before us or which may come before us. I repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that my right hon. Friend will look at each case on its merits and will consider the proposals and the objections fully and carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will instruct colleges of further education to accept a youth training scheme certificate as a qualification for further full-time education.

No, Sir. At its present stage of development, the YTS certificate does not provide evidence of coverage and standards achieved on a consistent basis. The Manpower Services Commission has close contact with the examining and validating bodies, which are contributing in a variety of ways to the development of standards within the youth training scheme and the possibilities of progression to further education.

Does the Under-Secretary not believe that it is important that young people should feel that training has been worth while? If the certificate is to be worth anything, should not great pressure be put on the Manpower Services Commission to monitor these schemes?

I concur with the points expressed in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The youth training scheme certificate in its present form is essentially a subjective record of experience rather than an objective record of achievement. It must, therefore, be a matter for the judgment of educational bodies and/or employers how far they accept it as a qualification for entry to employment, training or further education.

I acknowledge the reasons for my hon. Friend's response at this stage, but does he agree that it is somewhat premature automatically to reject this suggestion? Does he agree also that it is in the interests of everyone to give every encouragement to the YTS, and that its ultimate acknowledgment in that context would give it the status which all of us wish it to have?

The advisory group on content and standards for the YTS, which includes representatives from the Business and Technician Education Council and the City and Guilds of London Institute, has been addressing itself to issues of standards and assessments in the YTS to identify competences which can be objectively assessed in a work-based scheme. When more progress has been made, the validity of a YTS certificate as a qualification for the next stage will be clearer.

Will the Under-Secretary admit that the reason why he will not accept this proposal is that if he did he would have to ensure that the youth training scheme was a training scheme and was not being used by employers on Merseyside and in other places as cheap labour?

That is a rhetorical question.

In view of the various initiatives currently being taken, which tend to bridge the gap between education and training, will my hon. Friend confirm that it would probably be wiser policy to maintain a flexible response than go for direction?

Yes, I agree. The shape of FE qualifications for the YTS age group is likely to change in the next few years with the introduction of the certificate of pre-vocational education. Last year my right hon. Friend invited both the CGLI and BTEC to set up a joint board to implement the new qualifications. We hope to issue a consultation document later in the spring. As my hon. Friend says, flexibility is the key.

Will the Under-Secretary and his colleagues show some courage, which was notably not displayed last week when the White Paper "Training for Jobs" was issued, and start asserting that the Department of Education and Science has a role to play in setting education standards on the YTS, and that some body—the MSC or the Department—should make up its mind whether the YTS is a general education, is a training-for-life scheme or is job specific? The educational content should be first-class, whatever the intention.

Last week the White Paper was issued by both my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I shall interpret the hon. Gentleman's question. The White Paper was neither an attack on local government nor a condemnation of FE colleges. LEAs already work constructively with the MSC. My Department enthusiastically supports the White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his proposals to increase the level of attainment in schools.

I outlined the Government's programme to improve standards in our schools in the debate on education held in the House on 20 January. I am now discussing, with the Government's partners in the education service, how our objectives may best be achieved.

Is the Secretary of State aware that few people in education believe his recent statements and that teachers and parents find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile those statements with the right hon. Gentleman's support for the most massive cuts ever in education? What is to be gained from such a deplorable confidence trick? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that higher attainment levels cannot be achieved without adequate resources for schools and higher education?

I should not have expected such rhetoric from the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). He is far above that. My impression was that there was general approbation for the purposes which the Government outlined. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, despite all the difficulties, more money from taxpayers and ratepayers is being spent per child in real terms this year than ever before. The hon. Gentleman must do better than that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that commerce and industry have a vital interest in the educational attainment levels of our children? Will he try to ensure that the needs of commerce and industry are taken more fully into account in determining education standards in schools?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been chairman of a local education authority. He will be comforted to know that a group of Ministers are about to embark, in conjunction with many groups of employers, on a more systematic attempt to identify what employers really seek from the school process. We hope to be able to clarify the picture for schools and for parents as a result of learning from employers.

The Secretary of State's objective of failing fewer children in secondary school examinations is entirely welcome, but will he give an assurance that it is no part of his plan to develop technical education for the so-called less able and to preserve academic education for the more able, but that the objective is an integrated education for the benefit of all children?

I should correct the hon. Lady a little before agreeing with the general thrust of her question. It is our objective to have fewer children failing examinations, but at the same time to raise examination standards. We intend to encourage the spread of technical education for schoolchildren of all abilities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the change in emphasis in the Department's utterances away from organisation and towards standards in education is entirely welcome? When does he expect to announce the conclusions of his review of proposals for the 16-plus examination?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that his comments about standards are common ground to both sides. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have said that we hope to announce a decision on the 16-plus examination by the middle of this year.

Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State is putting forward plans to raise standards at the very time when local education authorities throughout the country, including my county of Durham and the Under-Secretary of State's county of Kent, are being forced by the system of targets and penalties to cut spending on teachers, books and equipment? Does he not realise that he is trying to construct another high-rise block, when the foundations are crumbling away?

The hon. Gentleman would be more effective if, like me, he accepted the truth that many—although not all—local education authorities have scope to redeploy.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of those going into higher education in each of the next 16 years he envisages being male, and what percentage female.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the revised and updated projections of demand for higher education that my right hon. Friend plans to issue by about Easter.

Is the Minister aware that we strongly welcome the Department's decision to revise its figures, but will he now publish the assumptions on which the new figures have been calculated and tell us how many extra students he expects to get as a result of the Secretary of State's proposals to raise standards in schools?

Comments were made on our first projections even before the AUT came to see us. I was glad when the AUT made its contribution. The process of reviewing the projections involves examining the existing assumptions as well as the challenges that have been made by other bodies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that too high a proportion of higher education is paid for by the Government? What measures does he think are necessary to encourage industry to fund higher education more, through bursaries and research contracts? If that were done, would not higher education be more related to the nation's economic needs?

My right hon. Friend and I would welcome a greater element of private money in the higher education system. It is especially valuable in terms of enabling institutions to start their own initiatives.

In view of the undeniable fact that women are just as good as men in every subject, including engineering, science and technology, does the Minister agree that there is a massive waste of talent in Britain today and a waste of women? In view of that, why does he not indulge in an energetic campaign to persuade girls in schools to take up the opportunities available to them, despite the stupid and widespread protests against education for some girls?

My views are strongly in accord with those of the right hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to say that the increase in the number of girls studying science, engineering and technology is increasing at the same pace as their participation in higher education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to improve the quality of school education in Liverpool.

My right hon. Friend's policies are directed towards improving the quality of education in all areas, including Liverpool.

Has the Minister had the chance to consider the report of the North-Western Society of Education Officers, which says that levels of absenteeism, including truency, are as high as 40 per cent. in some Liverpool schools? Is he aware that 24 of the 27 schools that are affected by the Labour party's reorganisation plans in Liverpool have objected to those proposals and that some 70,000 parents have now objected to the city of Liverpool? Will he undertake to stand by his statement of last year that parental choice is non-negotiable?

I have received today a copy of a synopsis of observations on the report. I understand that the conclusions reached in it are contested by the Liverpool education authority. My Department is currently examining the report. One benefit of the current review of the school curriculum, which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should be a reduction in truency because the subject matter will be more relevant and therefore of greater interest to children.

Does the Minister agree that the opportunistic tendency to wild exaggeration for publicity purposes does not improve the education of children in Liverpool? Is he further aware that; in the past decade under the Liberal and Tory administration in Liverpool; 13,000 young children have been crowded into classes of 30 or more and have not benefited from that administration taking advantage of falling school rolls to enhance the standard of education? Is he aware that Her Majesty's inspectors of schools condemned that administration? Will he guarantee that the Government will applaud Liverpool city council for doing something about education in Liverpool at long last?

The House will know that the Department has before it proposals for secondary reorganisation in Liverpool. I cannot comment upon them. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has the right to ask Ministers any questions which he sees fit to ask.

Will the Minister bear in mind, when reorganisation of Liverpool's secondary education is being considered, that reorganisation has been avoided and evaded by the Liberals and Tories in Liverpool for between eight and 10 years? Will he also bear in mind that it took the Labour party to grasp the nettle of reorganisation?

I can only repeat what I have just said. The proposals are before us for secondary reorganisation in Liverpool, and a decision will be announced as and when we are ready to make that decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the future of the Inner London education authority.

About 1,600. About 1,300 express concern in general terms about the future of the ILEA. The remaining 300 or so consider the specific proposals for the ILEA in the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities", and the consultation paper, "Involving the boroughs in inner London education". With very few exceptions, these latter representations welcome the retention of a single education authority for inner London, and about half of them express a preference for a directly elected joint board, in contrast to the White Paper proposal for a joint board whose members are appointed by the inner London boroughs and the Common Council.

In view of those representations, would my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the proposal that the new ILEA should be a directly elected authority?

There are attractions in the idea, but the problem is that the Government seek that the responsibility for running all the local authority services should rest with the boroughs and districts. That is the main reason why, on the whole, we prefer the proposal in the White Paper.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has had virtually no representations supporting his own policies? That is the experience of my postbag. Will he further confirm that the Government's proposals are highly unpopular with the people of London who are concerned to have decent education, and not his ridiculous proposals?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak for all the people of London. I certainly do not despair of persuading public opinion that the proposal of the Government for the implementation of the popular decision to replace the ILEA is the right one.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the future structure of the ILEA, one of the most worrying trends at present is its pursuit of purely political campaigns, thereby diverting resources that should be used for education into politics? Will he consider taking steps to amend the law to prevent the ILEA or, indeed, any other education authority, from doing this?

No, I do not think amendment of the law is necessary, but I do think that the alarmist and very politicised campaign by the ILEA is treachery to its own higher purposes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the money that the Inner London education authority is spending at present? It is living as if there were no tomorrow. It desperately needs financial control —[Interruption.] As a school governor I have already come across many instances of gross waste of money. The ILEA desperately needs to be abolished.

My hon. Friend is right in saying that, subject to the decision of this House, the ILEA as it is today has no tomorrow, but the elected members should surely recognise that their prime duty is to the children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many graduate scientists employed by the Agricultural and Food Research Council were involved in research work on 31 March 1983; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that, on the date in question, 3,961 employees of the Agricultural and Food Research Service in its institutes and units were in the science group. Three thousand and sixty-three of these were graduates, or had equivalent qualifications.

How do the Government justify the destruction of hundreds of agricultural scientists' and technicians' jobs? Do the Government not recognise the contribution that they have made, and can continue to make, to agricultural productivity in this country and elsewhere?

Of course I acknowledge the contribution that is made, but in science, as in other subjects, one has to establish priorities, and the Agricultural and Food Research Council has, partly on the advice of a Select Committee of the House, made changes in its priorities.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering the future of such research, that in Britain agricultural research is badly needed on an extended basis on certain subjects?

I think that my hon. Friend may underestimate the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to the pure research done by the Agricultural and Food Research Council, but of course I acknowledge the work that is done.

Why did the Government go ahead with the cuts in agricultural research after having been advised by the secretary of the Agricultural and Food Research Council that they were contrary to the economic interests of agriculture? Why are the Government raiding the Medical, Science and Engineering Research Councils to pay the redundancy costs of agricultural scientists, who remain undiminshed in their economic effectiveness?

The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is in a particularly good position to know the answers to those questions, as he initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject, to which I replied, on 22 December. I revert to my earlier answer, when I said that the council is to determine what are the priorities not only within subjects but also between them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about travel expenses for students.

We have received some 45 representations of various kinds, including from the National Union of Students, two local student unions, one vice-chancellor and one local education authority.

Is the Under-Secretary aware of the hardship that many students would suffer if the present system of paying students' travel expenses based on distance travelled was replaced by a flat-rate allowance, especially in Scotland — though possibly in parts of England and Wales, too — where many students commute long distances from their homes? Is he aware that some students would lose over £500? If Members of Parliament can get travel expenses based on mileage, why should not students?

As is made clear in the consultation document on these changes, the purpose of them, among others, is to make administrative savings. Any change that achieves a worthwhile simplification of the present arrangements will inevitably involve an element of rough justice. Awards for Scottish students are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that parental free choice in education is effectively being denied in many instances because travel expenses are not available for students travelling to schools outside their own areas? Will he encourage local authorities to adopt a more flexible and reciprocal attitude, because in many instances such schools are closer than the schools in students' own catchment areas?

The main question was about students rather than about schoolchildren.

Is the Minister aware that the introduction of such a scheme would be a catastrophe for my constituency, which sends more students to universities per head of population than any other part of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that if the scheme were introduced it would mean the difference between having and not having a university education for hundreds of students annually? Will he urge his right hon. Friend not to introduce any such scheme?

I explained that awards in Scotland are a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) asked a question on this subject last week, in answer to which the Minister said that he had not yet decided whether to propose any change in the system under which travel costs incurred by students in receipt of awards from the Scottish Office were reimbursed.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that among the many unique features of St. Andrew's university is the fact that half the students come from England? Will he ensure that educational nationalism, which is an unfortunate feature of other sectors of higher education, does not creep into university education in the awarding of grants of this kind? Will he also bear in mind that point of cross-border students?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that, but I can tell him, encouragingly, that the coach fare between London and St. Andrew's is only £9.

In spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, may I ask him to confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have power to continue the present system by which Scottish student travel awards are paid, no matter what changes may be made for English students by his right hon. Friend?

I can only repeat that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not yet made a decision.

Can the Minister tell the House what criteria will be used to assess handicap that would entitle handicapped students to reimbursement for fares?

Disabled students who, because of disability, incur travel costs in excess of the amount allowed in the grant in respect of attendance at their course will still be able to claim reimbursement of excess expenditure in full.

Will the Minister confirm that the figures for student travel in the consultation document for England and Wales issued last week would mean that most students would not have their problems dealt with by the local administration? Would it not be possible for the small number suffering hardship to continue to claim under the present system?

When a change is made which has the purpose of broad simplification it is inevitable that there will be cases of rough justice. I acknowledged that earlier. Any complication of the system would mean a loss of the original advantages.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make real and meaningful cuts in public expenditure?

Yes. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of national income so as to make room for reductions in particular in direct taxation. I remind my hon. Friend that we are now paying in income tax £1·5 billion less than the country would have been paying had the Labour tax regime still been in existence, and we are also paying some £2 billion less in national insurance surcharge.

In view of the tragically deteriorating situation in the Lebanon, will the Prime Minister tell us what arrangements, if any, she has made for keeping the House informed about any decisions that become necessary regarding our troops in Beirut? Will she, in taking decisions, be sure to clear her mind of any idea that if our troops were to be moved out they would be leading a retreat, as she once put it to me? Will she take all pains to ensure that our troops are quickly and safely withdrawn from a position which is unacceptably dangerous and from duties which are proving to be impossible?

The situation in Beirut is serious and has deteriorated further overnight. I have held two meetings with ministerial colleagues today. We are in urgent and constant touch with our multinational force partners and with the Lebanese authorities. We have also been in touch today with the British ambassador in Beirut and with the commander of the British contingent. The safety of our forces is a major factor in our thinking. We are also watching closely the situation of the remaining British community in the Lebanon, and our ambassador has their safety constantly in mind. A statement will be made to the House if and when there is anything further than can suitably be reported.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the success of her visit to Hungary last week, may I ask her whether she anticipates that the public success of that visit will be followed by an initiative that may reduce military tension between east and west Europe?

The visit was very valuable. I do not think that the fact of such a visit should raise great expectations. Discussions between East and West to improve general understanding and to secure more results on disarmament will inevitably take a long time. It is clear that we must not relax our vigil in any way, but because we genuinely wish disarmament to take place we must take every opportunity for further discussions and to bring the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table at Geneva.

To try to reach a settlement of the dispute at GCHQ will the Prime Minister consider a threefold package in which certification under the Employment Protection Act 1975 remains on the table, but a no-strike agreement is negotiated with the unions and the Government withdraw their administrative decision to deprive any of the workers at Cheltenham of their trade union rights?

The principle that members of organisations concerned with national security should not be members of trade unions is a familiar one. It already applies to the police and intelligence services. I believe that our proposals are the only ones that will fully achieve the Government's objectives. Nevertheless, if the unions wish to see me again I shall agree to that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition— [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it out."] Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take it afterwards.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Afterwards. We must listen to the question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that should there be a renunciation and a dismantling of the British nuclear deterrent—

Give us the next question as well.

Order. We shall deal with very few questions at this rate.

I hope that I am in order in persisting with my question, which is important. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any renunciation and dismantling of the British nuclear deterrent system would, in effect, mean that we should lose any hope of influencing world opinion—or any other opinion—when we try to renegotiate a disarmament treaty?

The British nuclear deterrent is a fundamental part of the defence of the West and, in the last resort, of the defence of this country. If we gave it up unilaterally there would be little hope of bringing the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table and persuading it to reduce its nuclear weapons.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Not now.

Is the Prime Minister aware—

I was going to ask him to read them all out to save time.

Shut up, Dennis.

A visit by a member of the royal family to a regiment in the United Kingdom of which he is colonel-in-chief is an internal matter for the United Kingdom, and a proper reason for such a visit.

With regard to my right hon. Friend's visit to Hungary last week, what assurance, if any, has she received from the Hungarian Government that the ordinary people of that country will be able to visit our free country, and that there is light at the end of the tunnel for them?

Talks with Hungary were on the basis that we have our system and defend it, and are anxious to start discussions with those in the other alliance to try to get greater understanding and reduce international tensions. It was recognised that, although we may be on different sides of a political divide, it is in our common interest to achieve greater understanding and to try to reduce weaponry, always keeping a balance so that we each preserve our security. We did not discuss the details of personal cases.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that members of the royal family will be free to visit all parts of the United Kingdom, even though countries that still claim from time to time to be independent and sovereign attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the vast majority of Northern Irish people welcome the recent visits of the Duke of Edinburgh, and herself, to those parts of Northern Ireland suffering from Irish Republican terrorism?

I confirm that it is an internal matter for the United Kingdom when a member of the royal family goes to visit a barracks or a regiment of which he or she is colonel-in-chief, or when I do the same. I should like to say thank you, as would most right hon. and hon. Members, for the excellent work of Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland in trying to keep law and order in the Province.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that London ratepayers were done out of over £200 million in 1982–83 by incompetent budgeting by the Greater London council? Will she condemn the use of much of that money on anti-Government propaganda and various forms of social engineering? Will she further condemn the speech by the leader of the Greater London council in Sheffield over the weekend, in which he said that Labour councillors should defy the law on rate-capping?

It is true that there was substantial over-rating by the GLC recently, which was put into the reserves. Apparently a small amount will be given back this year, but a great deal will be kept by the Greater London council. I agree with my hon. Friend that those moneys should not be used on party political propaganda. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the law relating to local authorities must be observed in the same way as any other law must be observed, because it has been properly passed through Parliament. In a democracy one cannot be selective about the law that one obeys.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I have in my hand a copy of the planted questions for her to answer, which were circulated among Tory Back Benchers? Is she further aware that that is an abuse of Question Time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is she further aware that it reflects the insecurity that she is showing if she has to plant easy questions so that answers can be prepared for her before Prime Minister's Question Time? To save further humiliation to Conservative Members, would she like to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 4 now?

If the hon. Member looks at it dispassionately, he will not find any difference between the competence with which Conservative or Opposition questions are answered.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister recognise that the future of the Henry Robb shipyard is fundamental to the engineering industry in Edinburgh? Is she aware of the widespread concern that Ministers are doing precious little, if anything, to save that yard? Will she have discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland and ask them, at the minimum, to ensure that that yard gets the chance to tender for the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, which is due to be ordered shortly?

The hon. Gentleman asked me a similar question at the previous Prime Minister's Question Time. I said that the two orders that he very much wanted for that shipyard had gone to other shipyards which also needed them, and which were thought more suitable. I cannot guarantee any future orders for any particular shipyard. That is a matter for British Shipbuilders to decide. With regard to finding work in the hon. Gentleman's area, a number of contracts have recently gone to firms in his area. For example, Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. has been awarded a contract worth more than £20 million for aircraft shelters. Ferranti (Edinburgh) has another defence contract and the Edinburgh-based Miller group has won contracts worth around £18 million, including the construction of a five-star hotel. There are jobs coming into the area, which I hope very much will help some of those without work.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), is it not without precedent—[Interruption.]—for a typed list of supplementary questions to be circulating on both sides of the House during Prime Minister's Question Time? Is that not an astonishing and poor reflection on those who are prepared to lend themselves to such a subterfuge? It is not just a grave abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time. Should you not, Mr. Speaker, allow for the extension of Question Time so that some proper and unrehearsed questions and answers can now be heard?

Order. The House will know that I had a previous incarnation. This situation is not unique.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that several years ago, when the present Secretary of State for Energy was the Secretary of State for the Environment, there was an incident similar to the one referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). As a result of the planted questions carefully arranged by the right hon. Gentleman, a Committee was set up to investigate the matter. As you have the sheet of questions there in front of you, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this matter should be taken up in the same way as it was between 1970 and 1974. It is a very important matter. It was recorded as an abuse of the House on that occasion. It must be the same today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may surprise you to know that I have been trying to put a question that was not planted. [Interruption.] I rather wondered whether you might pander to my eccentricity.

Order. If I may deal with the hon. Member's eccentricity, I first must say to him that he has been called four times, and that he was not fortunate today.

rose—

Mr. Willie Hamilton.

The only way that I can get in is on a point of order. Pending your reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the setting up of a Committee, Mr. Speaker, could you ascertain exactly who circulated these questions, who prepared them, whether they were prepared by civil servants or by the Office of the Prime Minister herself and whether she was in any way responsible for circulating them?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that I was to ask Question No. 5 of the Prime Minister but that due to the hilarity occasioned by wholesale planting of these questions I was denied the opportunity of putting my question, asking a supplementary and being given an intelligent reply from the Prime Minister. May I have your assurance that in future you will speed through the first four questions if I happen to have No. 5?

I accept that had there not been such hilarity we might have reached the hon. Gentleman's question.

Before the Prime Minister leaves, Mr. Speaker, since you do deprecate that practice, will the right hon. Lady apologise for the way in which she has organised the planted question?