asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made in the implementation of the proposals, contained in "Training for Jobs", for the funding of further education.

The Manpower Services Commission is seeking views from employers and from the education system on the implementation of the new funding arrangements, which will operate from April next year.

Is not the failure of the Secretary of State at recent meetings with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils to convince them to change their opposition to the proposals in the White Paper "Training for Jobs" a classic illustration of the danger of making decisions without adequate consultation first? Would it not be common sense, whatever sense of Government virility may impel the right hon. Gentleman, to accept gratefully the AMA's proposal for a national review body to examine the whole matter of non-advanced further education, instead of making rash and ill-thought-out decisions?

I regret that at the moment the local authority associations do not seem eager to co-operate with the MSC. I do not find it possible to accept the AMA's proposal, because the Government's decision to change the funding stands, although obviously we want consultation on the implementation of the arrangements.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute embarrassment felt by the MSC when the Department issued the White Paper "Training for Jobs", because there had been no consultation with the MSC? That delayed the fulfilment and completion of the corporate plan.

It was a decision by the Government, for which the Government must take responsibility.

Is the Secretary of State aware that what he is doing in technical and vocational education is a disaster? The right hon. Gentleman must bear the responsibility for destroying the coalition that produced the vocational and technical education for our young people. The high-handed way in which he has treated the AMA and the ACC is well illustrated, yet again, by the fact that, when the matter is put to it, the Conservative-controlled ACC will choose the Labour-controlled AMA's proposals, not the right hon. Gentleman's. Is that not symptomatic of the disastrous proposals and way in which they have been introduced?

There is much common ground. The local authority associations do not say that everything in non-advanced further education is perfect. They agree with the Government that there is room for improvement. The MSC is already a client of work-related non-advanced further education to the extent of 9 per cent. of its services. The Government propose only that that level should increase to 25 per cent.

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

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

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

As I told the House on I May, I very much regret the teachers' unions' rejection of the employers' 4·5 per cent. pay offer. I believe that offer to be a fair one. It strains to the limit the employers' ability to pay, and it is for that reason that they have, rightly, refused arbitration.

Does the Secretary of State agree that he was once very concerned about standards in schools and that one of the key elements in achieving good standards in schools is the maintenance of high morale among teachers, pupils and parents? Has not his handling of the dispute done irreparable damage to that morale? Will he allow the whole issue to go to arbitration, and do something to restore the morale of our teachers, pupils and parents, so that we get value for money out of our education system?

The Government as a whole are certainly ardently in favour of increased standards in schools, but arbitration will not solve the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Surely Opposition Members realise that the employers have now offered as much as — and possibly in many cases more than—they can afford. The arbitrator may not make the ability to pay the crucial criterion, and he cannot provide more money.

The Secretary of State has said that the present offer "strains to the limit" the money available to the employers, but has not the Secretary of State for the Environment been straining the ability of local authorities to pay by inflicting cuts on them during the past five years? Why does not the Secretary of State fight against those cuts in order to protect the educational standards of our people?

The Government of which I am a member fought and won elections in 1979 and 1983, when the central plank of our platform was to bring public spending under control and so reduce inflation. We have done that in the interests of every person in this country. We cannot imperil that success by increasing public spending in order to give pay increases which the country cannot afford. That road leads right back to the inflation of the 1970s.

Is the Secretary of State aware that 60 per cent. of teachers earn less than £10,000 a year and that, following intensive training, it takes a scale 1 or scale 2 teacher 14 years to reach the maximum of £8,000 or £9,000? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that compares unfavourably with other similar professions, such as the police? What does he intend to do to force employers to accept arbitration, in the interests of the high morale of the teachers and children in those schools?

I have tried to explain that arbitration is no solution to the problem, since the arbitrator could not provide more money.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that teaching is a profession, and that the three main characteristics of a profession are the maintenance of high standards, adequate rewards and not going on strike? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend continue his efforts to put together a package that emphasises the raising of teaching standards and the restructuring of teachers' salaries?

Some such possibility is under discussion within the Burnham framework. I hope that it will succeed in hammering out a system of rigorous teacher assessment which might be associated with the conditions to which my hon. Friend has referred. However, I should emphasise that the teachers have benefited and will continue to benefit from more job security than perhaps any other group in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure anxious parents of young people who are about to take public examinations that the effects of the teachers' action and any subsequent days of strike will not affect their children's opportunities when they take those examinations?

The evidence so far is that children who have been taking examinations have not had their work disrupted. I hope that whatever happens in future — naturally, I hope that the teachers will soon accept the offer—that will continue.

Has the Secretary of State forgotten that it was the votes of his representatives on the Burnham committee that prevented the dispute from being settled at an early stage? Since he bears responsibility for the costs that local authorities will incur at the end of the day, may I ask him to recognise that they should not be penalised for going to arbitration and accepting its conclusions?

I take my share of responsibility, but the proceedings inside Burnham are confidential. I repeat, a fair offer has been made and is still on the table.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the present position may be, in the end GCE and CSE examinations will be affected? Is it not disgraceful, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this dispute, that teachers should so abuse their pupils' interest as to use them as so many bargaining counters in a pay dispute? Does he agree that such disgraceful conduct deserves to be condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

I repeat, I do not believe that the teachers are doing themselves any good by their present conduct. I deeply regret the disruption to the children's education, including any repercussions for those taking examinations.

It must be agreed that the teachers are among the most orderly members of the work force. Is it not disgraceful that they should have been provoked into strike action? Is the Secretary of State aware that a young teacher's take-home pay is about £65 a week, whereas, for example, a policeman, with only three months' training before he is in uniform—and with slender qualifications compared with those of a teacher, whose training, in addition to qualifications already held, lasts at least three years—receives massively more? Why should such a disgraceful situation obtain in Britain today?

The teachers' present pay, let alone what it would be were the offer to be accepted, is at a level which I am told is attracting candidates of the desired quality for teacher training.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over the weekend I met a teacher who claimed to be doing a 64-hour week? Has he heard broadcasts in which other teachers have claimed to be working very long hours indeed, taking into account time spent on school clubs, marking, and so on? Will he bear that in mind when the restructuring talks are resumed, and will he press for that resumption as soon as possible?

No one doubts that most teachers do very long hours during term time, and some work even between terms. That is not in doubt.

Is the Secretary of State aware that teachers' pay has fallen 31 per cent. below the level set by the Houghton committee? Does he accept that the only fair and just action that the Government should take is a phased return to decent pay levels, or is he not interested in rewarding the work of teachers, which he concedes is extremely valuable to the country?

A country cannot conduct its economic affairs to the benefit of all the people if past relativities are sought to be frozen.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the teachers' unions that many local authorities, by keeping their budgets within the money available, have tried to cut everything but the money available for teachers, and that for many authorities increases above 4·5 per cent. would mean a reduction in the number of teachers to cope with the grant of the additional awards, which would not be in anybody's interest?

That might be true of some local authorities. If more than 4·5 per cent. were to be contemplated, there would have to be reductions in such crucial elements of education as books, equipment and maintenance, and even consideration of reducing the number of teachers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his education cuts have increased demands on teachers so that many of them are having to buy paper, pens, pencils and books in order to teach the children? Is he further aware that class sizes of over 30, which many teachers have to teach, mean that teachers are engaged not so much in teaching as in crowd control? If he is so concerned about educational standards, why does he not concede the pay award for the teachers? After all, the police got 8·4 per cent. Are not teachers of equal value to the community?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to send me details of any authority of which that is true. Class sizes of over 30 have been dwindling year by year. The pupil-teacher ratio is at a record low level. If teachers are being imposed upon, as the hon. Gentleman says, that must reflect upon the local authority's management of its affairs.

In view of the last question, will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only is the pupil-teacher ratio at secondary and primary levels at its lowest level, but that it is considerably lower than the levels that the Government inherited in 1979?

My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The pupil-teacher ratio is substantially better than it was when this Government first came into office.

The Secretary of State has said that he is going to stand aloof from this dispute. However, does he accept that, far from standing aloof, his representatives on the Burnham committee have made a peaceful settlement far more difficult, most recently, on his instructions, by voting against arbitration, which is, of course, the accepted and constitutional way out of teachers' disputes? Why is the right hon. Gentleman now putting forward such weak arguments against arbitration, when only last year the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for the Environment were urging another public sector group, the water workers, to go to arbitration? What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.

It is tragic for the country that Her Majesty's Opposition seem to live in a Utopia in which money is available without limit and without regard to the consequences.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had concerning those students whose parents do not pay their full share of the parental contribution.

We have had very few representations recently about students who do not receive the full assessed parental contribution towards their award. Evidence from the recent National Union of Students survey of undergraduate income and spending suggests that the problem is significantly less widespread than it was a decade ago.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, with the implementation of a halving in the minimum grant in October, a number of students in this category will be, if not denied further education, put to severe hardship, compounded by the cuts in travel grants, which could be very serious for students travelling long distances to university—for example, from the south of England to a Scottish university—and that these two factors together will be very serious for people in this category? Does he not recognise that the survey indicated that 47 per cent. of parents do not pay the full topping-up contribution?

Yes, I acknowledge that the figure is 47 per cent., but it was 73 per cent. 10 years ago, so this improvement has occurred.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in respect of the financial arrangements for students, a flat rate scheme for reimbursing travel grants is inequitable? Therefore, should it not be examined critically, with a view to giving a fair deal to students who have long distances to travel?

I do not think that the issue of travel grants arises on this question, but I have never concealed the fact that there is an element of rough justice in the new policy that we have introduced. However, I am confident that it will be possible on a local basis to find enterprising solutions to the problem that my hon. Friend has described.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the vice-chancellor of the Open University to discuss its resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the vice-chancellor of the Open University to discuss its resources.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the vice-chancellor in the near future.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the grant to the Open University has been reduced in real terms since 1980 by over £2 million and that during the same period the number of students has increased by 6,000? The amount spent per student has been cut from £924 in 1980 to £824 in 1984. In the light of the proposed cuts over the next two years, will the hon. Gentleman meet the vice-chancellor to explain why the Government are financially strangling this worthwhile institution?

The cuts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are in line with cuts which have occurred in other parts of the higher education system. I am hoping to see the vice-chancellor shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the new courses of a specialist nature that are being developed by the Open University? Does he agree that wider knowledge of their availability might assist to boost the resources of the Open University?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There are enterprising opportunities for the Open University to follow, and I salute the enterprise that it has already shown.

Is the Minister aware that the Government will stand accused of undermining the best adult education experiment in the post-war world if they starve the Open University of the necessary financial resources? Is he further aware that Members' postbags reveal the overwhelming support of the British people for the Open University?

One would not think from these supplementary questions that the Government are effectively providing £60 million of public money to support the Open University. My right hon. Friend has asked the Open University visiting committee to play a part in identifying and appraising the options available to the university through discussion with the university and the Department, and to advise him on its plan of action. I hope to contribute to the discussion.

Will my hon. Friend encourage the Home Department to ascertain what more it can do to fund prison education through the Open University? Will he also encourage co-operation between industry and the Open University, to ascertain what initiatives could be taken to improve the training and education that many employees will need?

I have always found the Open University enterprising in seeking new opportunities. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Is the Minister aware that the cuts in finance for the Open University have had an adverse effect on the education of the disabled, who depend substantially on the Open University for their degrees? Will he give some thought to providing additional funds for the scheme set up by MENCAP and the Open University to provide training courses for the mentally handicapped?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Open University has provision to assist the unemployed. If he wishes to make submissions on behalf of the disabled, I hope that he will write to me.

I recognise that it is unrealistic to expect the Open University to be exempt from public expenditure cuts and control, but does my hon. Friend accept that the target for 1986 is too tight, and will he give sympathetic consideration to that aspect?

It would be premature for me to respond to my hon. Friend's question until the Open University visiting committee has had the discussion to which I referred earlier.

Will the Minister confirm that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has never visited the Open University? Will he encourage him to do so and to examine an institution which many believe could produce more courses, take on more students, do more to increase Britain's competitiveness and provide training courses for those who are between jobs or out of work? Is he aware that 51 per cent. of Open University students are taking courses in technological and science subjects and that they will be able to make a tremendous contribution to Britain's future? Will he start to regard higher education as an investment in people and the future, not as an area for cuts?

My right hon. Friend does not see a clear opportunity to visit the Open University. He has told the vice-chancellor of the Open University that he will bear the invitation in mind. As to the cuts, let me pay tribute again to the contribution that the Open University is already making in continuing education in both its broad and narrow meaning.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to announce decisions on his proposed probationary period for head teachers.

A consultation document was issued on 4 April by the Department to local education authorities, voluntary providing bodies and teacher associations. Comments were sought by 1 June. One of the major associations has asked for an extension until late June; that has been agreed. I hope to be able to reach a decision quite soon after I have considered the views expressed.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that in evaluating a school and its standards it would be hard to overestimate the importance of the man or the woman who at any time is its head? Will he understand, therefore, that in carrying out the proposal in the question, or any other designed to improve the quality of the head, he will have the warm support of all concerned with educational standards?

I agree enthusiastically with the judgment of my hon. Friend and I am grateful that we agree so strongly.

Being a member of a Government who claim to be keen on ballots, has the Minister considered, as a way of solving the problem of inadequate headmasters, having them elected by the staffs of the schools or, better still, by the parent-teacher associations for a two or a four-year period? Conservative Members may laugh at the suggestion, but they cannot say that it is not practical, because Oxford and Cambridge have been doing this for a few hundred years and at least they have maintained good public relations.

I think I can assume that the hon. Gentleman and I share the same objective: to get the best person to be head of a school. I must say, however, that I had not thought of his approach.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what help his Department is giving to promote the technical and vocational education initiative programme.

The Department is working closely with the Manpower Services Commission on all aspects of the initiative.

Besides TVEI, my right hon. Friend's Department also provides CELP, MEP and PICKUP. Is he certain that everyone knows what those programmes are? Will he carefully consider whether there is not a danger of overlap and wasteful duplication in the provision of technical and vocational training and education? In particular, surely PICKUP is trying to do what is already being done by the Open Tech.

My hon. Friend should not be too discouraged by the proliferation of acronyms. Each tackles, I hope with rising success, different elements in the task of preparing people at school and after school for the world of work. I believe that all are justified.

Will the Secretary of State give consideration to the limited places and limited locations for survival courses for the offshore and onshore oil and gas industries? Is he aware that the lack of courses affects employment opportunities?

Briefly.

Will he consider the responsibility of his Department to investigate where these courses can be placed, particularly bearing in mind areas of high unemployment and the possibility of training for the offshore and onshore oil and gas industries?

I shall inform myself of the background to the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools are now taking part in the assisted places scheme; and how many have approximately 5 per cent., 10 per cent., 30 per cent. and 40 per cent., respectively, of their pupils from this scheme.

Looking at the current position in the 223 English schools participating in the assisted places scheme, 40 schools have fewer than 5 per cent. assisted pupils, 80 have between 5 and 10 per cent., 93 have between 10 and 20 per cent., and the remaining 10 schools have between 20 and 30 per cent.

Is this not a surprising outcome in view of the fact that most people think that there may be one or two pupils in these schools on taxpayers' money? Is this not shoring up private schools and putting at a disadvantage ordinary schools? Is it not absolutely disgraceful that public money, which should be used to provide for ordinary children, is being used in these schools at a time when more and more cuts are being made in the rest of the education system?

The hon. Gentleman's hostility to the scheme is well known. The scheme was designed to give children from disadvantaged and poor homes an education which they would not normally receive. To that extent the scheme has been completely successful.

Will my hon. Friend look for all opportunities to increase the funds available for the assisted places scheme, to ensure that the doors of the schools that were put into the private sector by the Labour party continue to be open so that opportunities are still available to the children of parents who cannot afford to pay the full fees imposed by the Labour party?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's sentiments. Financial constraints appear to rule out any significant enlargement of the scheme, but the matter will be kept under review.

Does the Minister consider that there is any justification for the generalisation that the poorer the quality of the private school the higher the number of assisted places arranged within it?

I do not accept that for a moment. All that I can say to the House in all truth is that in the 1983–84 school year 40 per cent. of assisted places attracted full fee remission. I am proud of that.

In their attacks on the scheme, do not Labour, Liberal and SDP Members put the interests of poor children and education right out of the door? Is it not time that they put the interests of deprived children and their chances in life above all things?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is no difference between Liberal, SDP and Labour Members on educational matters. They are hostile to helping disadvantaged pupils and we must continue to draw attention to that at every opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the level of provision of education facilities for the under fives.

In January 1983 there were some 458,000 under-fives in education—the highest number ever and an increase of about 22,000 over the previous year. It is for local education authorities to decide on the level of provision in the light of local needs and priorities and, of course, in the light of resources available.

Does the Minister agree that the Inner London education authority's record in providing nursery education for the under-fives is second to none? Does he agree that that excellent level of provision is under threat from the Government's proposals, which will surely reduce the opportunity for many deprived and disadvantaged children in our city? What does the Minister propose to do about that?

I agree that ILEA has a record, but savings can be made in plenty of other ways without detriment to education services in London.

Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take work place nursery subsidies out of tax?

I am not sure that that is connected with the original question, but I shall direct my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's comment.

Is the Minister aware that a small number of local authorities discriminate sharply against summer-born children, who receive only six terms of infant school education instead of a full three years? What action will the Government take to end such blatant discrimination against children who apparently have the misfortune to be born in the summer, so that they have a chance of decent infant education?

As a summer-born child, I have sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, but these are matters for local education authorities.

Has my hon. Friend any plans to reconsider the provision of under-fives education by local authorities so that it is a discretionary option?

Nursery education is already a discretionary option for local education authorities.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) is rather complacent? Does he not understand that the proportion of under-fives receiving nursery education is planned to be marginally lower in 1986–87 than it was in 1981–82, although the Government's Green Paper on public spending admits that the demand for nursery education is likely to rise rather than decline?

I am sorry to be at odds with the hon. Gentleman, but the participation rate as a percentage of three and four-year-olds stood at a record level of 40 per cent. in January 1983, and the expenditure plans allow for the figure to increase slightly up to 1986–87.

Will the Minister acknowledge that allowing nursery education to be discretionary is unfair? The Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education and Science, claimed that she wanted nursery education for all. How, therefore, can the Government justify the situation that exists in my constituency where, for example, in the city of Aberdeen nearly 50 per cent. of children who are under school age receive nursery education, but in Gordon district, under the same education authority, only 5 per cent. get it? Is that fair and just? Should not the Government be doing something to redress the balance?

Such complaints should be directed to the hon. Gentleman's local education authority. I am prepared to acknowledge, however, that there has been a slight increase in both part-time and full-time attendance levels in the past five years, and that is something for the Government to be proud of.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet leaders of the teachers unions to discuss rates of pay.

I meet the leaders of the teachers' unions from time to time, either at their request or at my suggestion, to discuss various matters of common concern. These discussions do not normally cover pay, which is a matter for the Burnham committee. Nevertheless, if any of the teachers' unions should wish to meet me to discuss pay matters, I should be happy to agree.

As the Secretary of State agrees that pay is a matter for the Burnham committee, will he accept the views of the independent chairman of the committee, Sir John Wordie, who says that negotiations are exhausted and that the matter should go to arbitration? Will the Secretary of State use his best endeavours to persuade his representatives on the committee to send the matter to arbitration, in the interests of the children of this country?

I have already tried, at some length, to explain why arbitration will make no more money available. That is the reason why I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's views.

If one of my working-class constituents, or one of those of my hon. Friends, goes on strike, he loses one fifth of a week's pay for every day of the strike. In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend told me yesterday that teachers work for 190 days a year, if they go on strike for one day will they lose a 190th part of a year's salary? If not, why not? What is my right hon. Friend going to do about it?

Stupid.

I do not think that my hon. Friend's question was at all stupid. The answer, unfortunately, depends on the individual contracts between local education authorities and their teachers, and I cannot promise to be the master of the details of all those contracts.

The Secretary of State has told the House why, despite the support of the Prime Minister for arbitration for the water workers last year, he is against arbitration this year. Even if the right hon. Gentleman is against arbitration, will he now call in representatives of the trade unions and the employers, as a matter of urgency, to discuss the dispute?

No, but I repeat that if any component of either group wishes to see me I shall be glad to see them. However, I cannot produce a magic wand. The dispute will be settled when the teachers decide that the offer, which is still on the table, is fair and realistic.

When the Secretary of State meets the teachers' unions, will he draw their attention to the fact that, for almost as long as one can remember, job security has been an element in the pay scales of teachers? The teachers should be reminded of that fact.

I have already agreed with my hon. Friend that the teachers enjoy one of the highest levels of job security of all the occupations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received in the last three months concerning the level of teachers' pay.

I have received about 40 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, and about 90 from other interested parties and members of the public.

Although I appreciate that the teachers' strike is a difficult and complex issue for us all, does my right hon. Friend agree that strikes such as we have had do not in any way solve the problem of helping children?

They actively make it worse for children and damage many other objectives, including the interests of teachers.

Does the Secretary of State understand that he is skating on thin ice when using the argument of supply and demand in relation to teachers' pay, because if that maxim were applied to Members of Parliament and the police, we would not have had an 11 per cent. pay increase this year, because there are plenty of people who are trying to get into this place on the Tory side of the House and the Opposition side? Is he further aware that if the job of chairman of the Tory party had been advertised they might well have got 200 applicants, any one of whom might have got the £5,000 extra for doing no more work, and the chances are that each of those applicants would have done better than the man who has got the job?

I accept that the hon. Gentleman would probably have tried to come to this place even if the pay were not what it is. I hope he will accept—though I doubt it—that in normal conditions in Britain, supply and demand at the specified quality is a key factor in settling pay.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 May.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with a delegation of unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Council from Hong Kong. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Sir Robert Muldoon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Has my right hon. Friend read today the rejection by the general secretaries of the electricians union and the Civil and Public Services Association of politically motivated and revolutionary campaigns of industrial action? Does she agree that that rejection represents the view of the overwhelming majority of trade unionists? Will she urge miners' leaders, if they will not listen to her, at least to listen to their fellow trade unionists?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Miners have already been offered a larger pay increase than that accepted by power and gas workers. I ask the miners only to look at the matter on merit—the amount of pay that they have been awarded and investment, which is at an all-time record. So far there have been no compulsory redundancies, and redundancy payments are far better than have ever been provided under any previous Government.

Bearing in mind the defence estimates that were published yesterday, how does the Prime Minister justify scrapping the Polaris fleet and replacing it with a nuclear force that is 14 times as powerful, when that will distort our defence budget at a cost double the £5 billion that was originally given to the House? Does she not think that Britain will now be put outside the international arms control discussions?

No, Sir. The Polaris fleet will have to replaced in the early 1990s. We are still to have an independent nuclear deterrent; Trident is the best replacement. It amounts to only 3 per cent. of the defence budget and up to 6 per cent. of the equipment budget and gives far greater deterrence for that expenditure than any substitute could.

Now that Mr. Scargill has admitted that he is manipulating an industrial dispute with the wider objective of overthrowing a democratically elected Government, will my right hon. Friend invite the Leader of the Opposition to No. 10 so that he might declare whether he and his party still believe in—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of doing what I hoped we would not do again—putting into the Prime Minister's mind thoughts about what is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question on a matter for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

Will the Prime Minister, as one of her responsibilities, invite to No. 10 Downing street the Leader of the Opposition and ask him whether his party still believes in democratic government by the ballot box?

I must give my hon. Friend the answer which I really believe he would expect, which is no, Sir. I ask the coal miners to look at the case on merit.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

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

Will the right hon. Lady take some time today to contemplate on the fact that if she establishes pay review boards to look into pay and conditions for groups of workers but shelves the reports when the boards report back, she will bring the whole pay review board system into disrepute?

No, the pay review system has been established for some time. We try to consider the results of the reports together, knowing that we have to look at not only the recommendations but where the money will come from and how it can be raised. I remind the hon. Gentleman that before the 1979 election the Labour Government referred nurses' pay to Clegg. That board took a very long time to report, but the Conservative Government honoured what was recommended.

As Arthur Scargill has declared his intention to bring down the Government of this country by unconstitutional means, and is aided and abetted by the Labour party, what conclusion does my right hon. Friend draw from the deafening silence of the Labour party leadership, which does not condemn such action?

I have frequently said that the Labour party has always been the strikers' friend, as it appears to be in this case. There is a difference of opinion. Some miners are working and earning well so that they can look after their families and give the coal mining industry a good future by their faithfulness in producing coal when there are orders to be met. I suggest that we follow their example.

May I ask the right hon. Lady a question which enables her to behave like a Prime Minister rather than a party spokesman? Will she take a moment to explain why the Government have imposed what amounts to a veto on arbitration in the teachers' pay dispute? Why was she so passionate for arbitration in the water dispute, and why is she so opposed to it now? Can the right hon. Lady tell us why she prefers to continue the conflict rather than end the dispute honourably, practicably and sensibly?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks so little of party spokesmen. We have all been through that period. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I have already heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science answer it to the effect that the offer was the maximum that ratepayers and taxpayers could afford. With respect, the difference between teachers and water workers is obvious. An increase for the water workers could have been met by one of three methods: by price, efficiency or falling numbers. In relation to teachers, increasing the offer could be done only by a reduction in the number of teachers.

Can the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear whether she is opposed to arbitration in this case or whether she is opposed to arbitration in general? Many people would say that she is totally opposed to arbitration because conflict rather than conciliation meets her party's needs.

How can the right hon. Gentleman ask that question when he has just said that I asked people to go to arbitration in a particular case? His question falls to the ground by virtue of the question that he previously asked.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the fires at Rossington colliery in Yorkshire? How many more pits must be destroyed before she feels that it is her responsibility to intervene in the miners' strike and get the parties round the table for responsible and realistic talks? Is she prepared to sit back and hope for a Galtieri-like victory? Does she further realise that she is not fighting a foreign aggressor or an individual inside or outside the NUM, but the hard-working men of the mining industry? Does the right hon. Lady realise that these men's families and children are now suffering great financial hardship? Will she intervene, or does she want to starve them into defeat?

I understand that the face in that colliery has had to be sealed for technical reasons. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the face is susceptible to heating. Unfortunately, there is about £2 million worth of equipment down there, which has also had to be sealed off. Had the strike not occurred that would have not happened and, presumably, the face would also be working. Some 50,000 miners are working, earning well and looking after their families. I seek only a good prospect and a good future for the coal industry. This Government have put more investment into the future of coal than any previous Government, by providing external financing limits and good objectives for the future. The National Coal Board is getting extra orders. It now remains for the miners to take advantage of those opportunities.

Given that the money for the coal industry runs at about £1·5 million per year per constituency, why should nurses and teachers in my constituency be asked to give greater subsidies to the mining industry when the miners are not willing to work on the earnings which they presently receive?

My hon. Friend has made a very cogent point. Workers in other industries — indeed, taxpayers on the whole—annually have to put quite a considerable amount of subsidy into the coal mining industry. Every taxpayer pays on average between 75p and £1 per week in subsidies to the coal mining industry before he begins to pay for coal or electricity.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister reconsider, in the light of some recent cases, her long-held hostility to any form of parliamentary scrutiny by a Select Committee of the security services? Has she not come to the conclusion that it is easier to keep Ministers in the dark when they are not in turn answerable to Parliament, and that that sometimes extends even to the Prime Minister?

No, Sir.

At her meeting today with representatives of New Zealand, was my right hon. Friend able to tell them that Britain will never forget the sacrifices that New Zealand has always been willing to make for us in the most difficult times of our country? Was she able to give them an assurance that we shall resist further cuts in the very small amount of agricultural produce that New Zealand sends to this country?

When I see the Prime Minister of New Zealand later in the afternoon I shall most certainly give him that message. I have given him such messages frequently. We are always grateful for the sacrifices that New Zealand made for freedom in Europe and the world over. We constantly remind our European partners that it is to countries such as New Zealand that we owe, in part, some of the liberties which we now enjoy. They should respond to that by giving New Zealand a reasonable deal on both butter and sheep in the European Community.

In view of the gross uncertainty that surrounds the nurses' pay award and the implementation of the committee's decision, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the nurses will receive the higher wage award to which they are entitled?

I said that we were considering all the review body's reports together. I hope to be able to make an announcement on all of them not later than just after the Whitsun recess.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the teachers' pay dispute, it is unacceptable that children's examinations and their future should be put at risk by strikes? Would it not be more fitting for that vocational profession to commit itself to a no-strike agreement to protect the weakest members of society—our children?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that there is no interference with examinations at the moment—I hope that that is correct. We expect professional people to give a lead and to put the children first.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to read the latest survey from the Manchester chamber of commerce, which states that the patchy economic recovery, which may have been detectable in 1983, has petered out? Will she stop kidding herself and the country that an economic recovery is on the way and do something serious for my constituents who are, or will be, out of work, and for the economy of the north-west?

Taking the country as a whole, I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman's report. The gross domestic product has increased by about 3 per cent. compared with a year ago, real personal disposable income has increased, inflation has been halved, manufacturing productivity has increased by 14 per cent., and in spite of the fact that interest rates have increased by 0·5 per cent., they remain considerably lower than those in the United States.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Prime Minister leaves the Chamber, may I seek your guidance? My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are ever anxious to help the good government of this country, but I was surprised to receive a communication from the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary—

Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to ask a question of the Prime Minister, not to raise a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I cannot be responsible for letters which the hon. Gentleman receives from the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary.

I am asking your advice, Mr. Speaker, on whether it was in order for me to receive a letter asking me to inform the Prime Minister's PPS what my supplementary question would have been. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Order. It sounds to me like a fair cop.