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 further statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

I very much regret the continued damage and disruption to pupils' education being caused by the teachers' strikes. As the House will know, at the request of the management panel, a meeting of the Burnham primary and secondary committee is to be held on Friday to seek agreement on terms under which the school teachers' pay dispute might be referred to arbitration. Throughout this pay round the Government's position has been that there can be no question of additional resources being made available to local authorities. No reference to arbitration or an arbitrator's award will change that position.

Does my right hon. Friend share my three regrets: that the teachers, unlike their Scottish colleagues, did not accept the 4·5 per cent.; that any additional money which they succeed in extracting can only be at the cost of jobs and services; and that those who have taken this so-called industrial action have shown just how far they are from being a profession?

I agree with all my hon. Friend's regrets. I do not see what justification there was for the original action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are, as I detect, two distinct problems in this pay dispute: the general level of teachers' salaries, and the pay structure of grades? Do I take it that the arbitrators will be able to offer advice on the latter as well as on the general level of pay settlement?

That is not to be taken for granted. The terms of reference for an arbitrator remain to be agreed between the two sides of the Burnham committee.

Is it not a fact that, although the Government in theory support strike actions as a sign of democracy, the only one they ever supported was in Poland? Have not the teachers had their Houghton pay award of 30 per cent., approved by the Labour Government in 1974, totally eroded? Although they are a group of the best behaved people in the country in terms of action—and I personally think that they should have taken it long ago—they have been driven to take it by this remorseless Government who are now causing more strikes throughout the country by their intransigence. Is it not about time that the Government paid the teachers their due and allowed the matter to go to arbitration?

It is one thing to recognise, as the Government do, that people in a free society cannot be forced to work against their will, and thus to recognise that strikes will occur from time to time within the law, but it is quite another to support individual strikes, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. As for the idea that each group should return to its best year, as the hon. Gentleman suggests is right for teachers, it would be a recipe for endless leap-frogging, for an inflationary spiral and for more unemployment.

Did not Her Majesty's inspectors' recent report on local authority expenditure point out that better management of resources and a more coherent curriculum would improve teachers' pay and status? Should not teachers work towards that and abandon industrial action?

I agree that there was evidence in the HMI annual report that the management of resources by local education authorities and the quality of teaching itself could substantially improve the effectiveness of education and the use of the vast sums of public money devoted to it.

Why was it right for the Government to urge arbitration on railway men and water workers, when it is not apparently right for teachers?

In the teachers' world there is a limit to the amount of money available without eroding other parts of the education service, other parts of local authority services or placing an additional burden upon the ratepayers. That is why the Government have steadfastly maintained throughout the dispute that arbitration is not the answer.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 teachers' salaries have been ahead of inflation? They have risen by 71 per cent. as against a rise in the retail price index of 69 per cent. Can he further confirm that the average teacher's salary has doubled since 1978?

Without accepting the precise figures given by my hon. Friend, I agree that his general thesis that teachers' pay has improved slightly in real terms since 1979 is valid.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his refusal to pay for any possible arbitration award has two consequences: first, to discredit the arbitration system; and, secondly, to damage the teaching profession by driving out able people and discouraging other able people from entering the profession?

I do not accept either thesis. Arbritrators will need to take account of the fact that there is no more money available from the Government or local authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strikes are causing great damage to children and their education, whether or not they are in examination classes? Does he agree that it is desirable—indeed, essential—for teachers to move towards a no-strike agreement?

I certainly agree that the teachers' deliberate action to disrupt schooling is immensely damaging to the children. I am not prepared to agree with my hon. Friend's second point. That would be a matter for negotiation between the two sides, if it were to be on the agenda.

Does the Secretary of State realise that in the city which both he and I represent 30,000 children yesterday had their education disrupted because of the industrial dispute? Given that the right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying no to arbitration, how does he intend to resolve the dispute and ensure that the children of Leeds obtain the education that they deserve?

I do not accept that any blame for the disruption of children's education, be it in Leeds or elsewhere, falls on the Government. It is entirely the responsibility of the teachers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many teachers have entered into industrial action reluctantly and with some misgiving? Will he take this opportunity once again unequivocably to assert that there will be future opportunities for those responsibly concerned with education to express their views in a wider education debate?

If my hon. Friend means a debate in the House, that will be for the usual channels; but there is no lack of opportunity for responsible teachers, of whom there are very many, to express their views.

Does the Secretary of State understand that had he supported the decision to go to arbitration at the beginning of April the disruption of the past eight weeks would have been avoided? The truth is that his handling of the teachers' dispute has been insensitive, bumbling and highly damaging to the education of our children.

The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, which I hope he does not really believe, cannot hide the fact that the teachers have chosen deliberately to damage the education—the schooling—of children. I see no justification for the original action; I see absolutely no justification for its continuation now that the Burnham negotiating machinery is in play; and I see no justification whatsoever for any intensification of the action.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the collective act of worship in schools; and what changes are contemplated.

My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations suggesting that changes should be made in the statutory provisions on the collective act of worship in schools. The Government have no plans to propose any changes in those provisions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that all the propaganda against school worship has come not from the non-Christian denominations but from unbelievers? While respecting all faiths, will the Government resist the adulteration of Christianity and uphold the law, which is being broken in many cases?

My hon. Friend does the House a service by bringing this problem to our attention. We will uphold the provisions of the Education Act 1944, which require a daily act of worship and religious instruction to take place in our schools. I condemn the efforts of those who seek to take religion out of schools.

When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the education profession, does he take the opportunity to stress the fact that they have legal duties which are not enforced at present?

On the many occasions when I meet those who represent education, I clearly point out their duty, both legal and moral, to see that religion plays a part in the life of the school. That is my view now, and it will continue to be my view for as long as I am a member of this place.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the implementation of the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that some students have been placed in an invidious position because they have been told that they may be suspended from their studies? For others, there is the possibility that degrees or certificates will be withheld unless fees are paid. Is that an attitude with which the Government agree?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the institutions concerned have discretion in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the White Paper, "Training for Jobs."

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local authorities on the subject of his White Paper, "Training for Jobs."

The Government are committed to introduce the new funding arrangements for non-advanced further education which were announced in the White Paper, "Training for Jobs". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions with representatives of the local authority associations.

Is it not a fact that the Government intend to take away several hundred million pounds from colleges of education? Is it fair to expect the Manpower Services Commission to negotiate with the local authorities when Tory as well as Labour-controlled authorities completely reject the White Paper? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the whole situation and withdraw his White Paper?

No. It is true that the local authority associations are still reluctant to accept the Government's decision, but the hon. Gentleman presents the facts wrongly. We are proposing not to take away hundreds of millions of pounds from non-advanced further education, but, in the first instance, to move the spending of £65 million from the decision of local authorities to the decision—preferably after consultation—of the MSC.

Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has said, is this not yet another case of the Government treating local government with undeserved contempt?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his use of the word "contempt". The Government formed a view, which has recently been reinforced by an HMI report, that not all non-advanced further education provision is as it should be. Much of it is excellent, but not all of it is. For that the employers take some responsibility. In a desire to improve its condition, the Government announced a decision by which they stand.

Is not the plus point about the White Paper the fact that it is trying more exactly to measure preparation for work with available jobs? Ought we not to keep an open mind about the method by which we can best combine education and training to that purpose?

Yes; my hon. Friend is right. The Government are trying to identify the latent demands for skills without falling into the trap of manpower planning.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his White Paper continues to provoke conflict and confrontation between the Government, trade unions, local authorities and the Manpower Services Commission? Given the right hon. Gentleman's known interest in standards, would it not be in the interests of non-advanced further education for him to reconsider and rally to the standard raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) this weekend and move in the direction of what are described as the traditional Tory values of compromise and conciliation?

There is an immense amount of common ground between local authorities, college authorities, the MSC and the trade unions. We all want more effective non-advanced further education. The question is whether the Government's proposed method, in alliance with local authorities, will make improvements relatively quickly. We think that it can and will.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what meetings he has had with the teaching unions concerning the teachers' pay dispute.

Following my announcement in the House on 15 May that I stood ready to meet the teachers unions, only the National Association of Head Teachers asked to see me, and I met it on 7 June.

Is not the unanimity of the sometimes divided teacher unions a clear demonstration that throughout the teaching profession there is deep dissatisfaction at how the dispute has been handled and a clear willingness for what in almost every other context is regarded as proper—arbitration?

The House will have to decide whether it regards any member of the so-called alliance as an expert on unanimity. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman advances the argument by his question.

Has my right hon. Friend had further thoughts about the possibility of unifying the two bodies that deal with the teaching profession in regard to pay and conditions of work? He will be aware that they are separated at the moment. Does he think that it would be better if they were united?

I am still ready to be convinced that that would lead to improvement, but I remain sceptical about changing the machinery, which would still require the good will of both sides to enhance the prospect of progress.

Why should a teacher settle for anything less than a policeman? Is his contribution to society any less or any more?

Or, for that matter, anyone else. The idea that pay can be settled in a free society by equality for all, or some vision of social justice, is a recipe for endless leap-frogging — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked a question and he should allow me to answer it. It is a recipe for endless leap-frogging, an inflationary spiral and—which the whole House would regret—increase after increase in unemployment.

If my right hon. Friend meets the teachers' unions, will he consider discussing with them the possibility of their departing from their age-old preoccupation with every teacher on the same grade getting the same pay and seriously examine paying teachers according to merit?

Silly boy.

Far from my hon. Friend being a silly boy, he is entirely right, and I am delighted to tell him that the teachers' unions seem to think the same because, despite the dispute, they have honourably continued to negotiate for just such a possibility of structural change in teachers' pay as my hon. Friend wishes to bring about.

Will the Government, at Friday's meeting, support the employers' decision of last Monday to go to arbitration? The Secretary of State says that there is no money. What about the unallocated local government money and the Contingencies Fund?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reveal the Government's instructions to their representatives on Burnham. As for his rhetorical questions, there are many claims on the Contingencies Reserve. The unallocated margin is to meet the gap between the proper level of expenditure by local authorities, as seen by the Government, and their efforts to bring down the present rate of spending to that level.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how long after 1 October 1984 he anticipates introducing legislation to implement proposals in his Green Paper, "Parental Influence at School".

When the Government have considered responses to the proposals, they intend to proceed to legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that informative reply. Does he appreciate that there is a big head of steam of support behind and around him for increasingly harnessing the interest and concern of parents to help him in his outstanding drive to raise standards, an aim which is very dear to the vast majority of parents?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I thought that a "but" was coming at the end. I was glad to hear his words.

If the Secretary of State is committed to the idea of parental influence, why has he ignored the approaches made by the Liverpool area school parents' association on the question of secondary reorganisation and the fact that the policy of the Labour party has been confirmed by parents at the last two elections.

I do not think that that has anything to do with the main question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about seven years since a working party group on policy decided that there was far too much abuse of politically appointed governors and recommended that the majority of school governors should be chosen from among parents? Is it not a matter of urgency that we should proceed with that recommendation?

I am grateful for the reminder by my hon. Friend that I am on the party line in this case. We are going through a serious, necessarily slightly longer than usual, process of consultation so that we may be sure of understanding all the implications of what we intend to do.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no paving legislation by which, in the interim, democratically elected parent governors will be appointed until they can be re-elected?

The hon. Gentleman puts ideas into my head.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most parents are against all the changes that are being suggested in the education curriculum, and are more concerned that their children should be taught to read, write and add up, instead of schools going in for some other cock-eyed system that would again mess up the whole education curriculum? Can we concentrate on that kind of parental influence instead of experimenting?

Without universally condemning every single change that might be accepted, I agree that the influence of parents will probably be used for a wise conservatism.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to take any new initiatives to increase opportunities for adult education with particular reference to the Open University and the Workers' Educational Association.

We have taken a number of recent initiatives to improve opportunities for adult education, including the expansion of the PICKUP programme for developing vocational updating, launching a programme to develop educational opportunities for the adult unemployed, the increase in grant to the adult literacy and basic skills unit, and financing an adult continuing education development unit within the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. In addition, we have agreed in principle to fund the Workers' Educational Association's proposals for tutor training. We are continuing to support the Open University's undergraduate programme, and are encouraging the university to expand its continuing education programme.

How does the hon. Gentleman square that answer with the fact that in the past four years the Open University's fees have doubled and that it is proposed to reduce public expenditure on adult education from £91 million to £80 million in the next three years? The Government repeatedly say that there is no more public money available to spend, so how have they managed to find more than £2,000 million to spend on a few hundred people in the Falkland Islands during the next three years?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions. I can square my answer with the hon. Gentleman's assertions, because I answered the question that he asked me to answer. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the rise in the Open University's fees. In the current year they constitute 13 per cent. of the income derived from fees and Government grant combined. There is an element of comparing apples with pears when looking at the fall from £91 million to £80 million, since there is an unallocated margin for the local authorities of £660 million in the current year, some of which I expect to be spent on adult education.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the Open University represents one of the most remarkable developments in recent years? Will he pay particular attention to its concerns and its future?

I am happy to respond to that question. I had the pleasure of seeing the vice-chancellor only last week, and I am delighted to be in frequent contact with him.

Although I am gratified by the Minister's last answer, will he bear in mind that there is real concern in Scotland about the restriction of the Open University's role? That university offers a remarkable opportunity for adult education, and I think that both sides of the House would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would reconsider how it could be expanded and developed for the benefit of our population.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Open University visiting committee to play a part in identifying and appraising the various options open to the university. They will be discussed in the coming months.

Why has the adult education movement not been harnessed to assist the youth training scheme?

That is an interesting question for which, I must confess, I am not fully prepared. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is serious concern on Teesside about the future of a day release course for steel workers and another course on child development? Does he realise that that concern stems from the Government's cut over three years of 14·3 per cent. in adult education? What assurances can he give that adult education choice on Teesside will not be severely limited?

I do not immediately recognise the figure of 14·3 per cent., but I suspect that it is a reference to the extra-mural departments, which are not the subject of this question.

Why cannot the Department come up with a slightly more felicitous phrase than "PICKUP scheme", and what does it mean, anyway?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. Like so many such words, PICKUP is an acronym and stands for "professional, industrial and commercial updating".

Has the hon. Gentleman persuaded the Secretary of State to visit the Open University? Is he now prepared to pay tribute to its work, particularly in science and technology training? Have there been any discussions with the Workers' Educational Association about payments to those with an organising role as opposed to merely the provision of teaching?

I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the pleasure that I have derived from visiting the Open University. I have received another invitation to visit a summer school during the coming year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Open University's invitation is still open. There are certain things involving the visiting committee that lie ahead of us.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of pupils taking up the assisted places scheme.

In the current academic year, the third year of the scheme, there are more than 13,000 places in England.

I welcome the purpose of the scheme, which is to widen opportunities for at least some children from less well-off families. What is the average cost per pupil working out at? Does that not have to be compared with the average cost of educating somebody in the state secondary system?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the cost to the Department per assisted pupil is not very much different from the average unit cost in maintained secondary schools.

Is it not a fact that large numbers of private schools are dependent on this public money? Whereas most people think that there are only one or two assisted students in private schools using public money, there are, in fact, many of them. Is not this money being taken away from the state system of education, which needs it urgently?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the uptake of places. On his general thesis, he is wrong now, as he has been wrong in the past, and I dare say he will be wrong again in the future.

Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the words spoken to him by working-class parents who met him a few months ago, whose children are now benefiting from the assisted places scheme? Will he continue to strive for more money for this excellent scheme?

I can give no undertaking on the latter point, but in the 1983–84 school year, 40 per cent. of the assisted places attracted the full fee remission and nearly 75 per cent. of the places went to pupils from families with below average incomes. That is a fact of which the House should be proud.

Will the Minister consider giving a new name to those schools in the private sector that will have more than 50 per cent. of their pupils paid for out of public funds?

No, Sir.

Is it not a fact that the assisted places scheme provides a ladder of opportunity for children from disadvantaged homes whose parents cannot afford a college of excellence, and that these are the very children whom the Opposition pretend to support?

My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation. A great deal of humbug is talked by Opposition Members when they wish to exercise their right to choose schools for their children, but deny the same right to other people.

Over the next few months, will my hon. Friend consider extending the assisted places scheme to children of average and below average ability, who will probably benefit as much from having a choice of the independent schools as those of above average ability?

I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the Department has no plans to take such points of view into account at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is now in a position to announce his conclusions on the recommendations in the Thompson report on the youth service about providing for a statutory basis for the youth service and the establishment of a National Youth Advisory Council.

My right hon. Friend expects consideration of the outstanding recommendations in the report of the review group on the youth service, including those on legislation and on an advisory council, to be completed in time for a Government response very shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he appreciate the uncertainty caused by the Government's long delay in issuing a response both to the outstanding recommendations of the Thompson report and the Cockerill report? Is he aware that this uncertainty is felt by those involved in the youth service and is having an effect on planning in the National Youth Bureau, where there is a certain amount of demoralisation among the staff? Therefore, will my hon. Friend hasten the Government's response?

I take my hon. Friend's comment about uncertainty, but if a week is a long time in politics, a month is a hiccup in history. I hope that the time that we are taking on investigation will lead to the right answers coming through. As to the National Youth Bureau, the framing of a comprehensive response to the report will need to take account of the Government's response to the youth service report. Consideration is being given to the report on the bureau.

Is the Minister aware that during the period of almost two years when his Department has been sitting on the report, all its recommendations have been a lowest common denominator for the youth service? Is he aware that at this time, when 1·25 million young people under 25 are unemployed, the needs and demands for a youth service are greater than ever? Further, is he aware that next year is the international year of youth? Perhaps his Government will not be very interested in that, because the themes of that year are peace, participation and democracy.

It is not wholly correct to say that the Government have been sitting on the report for two years, as there was a substantial consultation period, and this Government believe in consultation. As to the hon. Member's question about the international youth year, I hestitate to correct him, but the third objective is development and not democracy.

Can my hon. Friend say how many young people have grown old since the proposals that Thompson reiterates first saw the light of day and were ignored by previous Governments? Can he resolve to be the first Minister in history to come to the House with positive proposals in this respect?

I know the part that my hon. Friend has played in this process in the past. He looks so youthful himself that he is a tribute to his own stamina in this regard.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from parents on the subject of teachers' pay.

Since the beginning of the current dispute I have received about 50 letters from parents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the schoolchildren themselves, the groups that are most severely affected by the teachers' strike are single parents and working mothers? Does he agree also that in this instance, as in so many others, the effects of a strike and, indirectly, of trade union action, are to hit at the most disadvantaged groups in society?

Yes, Sir. I say again that I do not see any justification for what the teachers have done and are doing in this dispute.

Can my right hon. Friend say what he has heard from parents, not only on teachers' pay, but on the performance of teachers in being able to teach their children the basic reading, writing and arithmetic necessary to enable them to earn a living later, as opposed to the current system under which children have peace studies and other nonsense put into their heads?

That is a different question and I do not have the answer available. There is a great deal of satisfaction among parents with many schools and there is also a lot of dissatisfaction, not all of which results in letters.

If a majority of teachers were to vote in a ballot for the pay award to go to arbitration, what influence would that exert on the Secretary of State?

We have had a lot of questions on that, but that does not arise on this question.

Is my right hon. Friend also aware that parents are very worried about the disruption to examinations caused by the teachers' dispute, especially in my constituency, where Hampshire schoolchildren are having it taken out on them by teachers simply because the chairman of the employers' side of Burnham happens to be the chairman of the local education authority? What guidelines will my right hon. Friend's Department give to examiners dealing with examinations taken during the period of the dispute?

This is another example of the unjustified nature of the teachers' action. As for young people who feel that they have suffered during an examination process from some external cause, it is open to them to write to the examining body.

How can the Minister justify refusing the teachers the opportunity to get a decent pay award when only a few days ago this same Government decided to appoint a top civil servant at £75,000 a year? If they can find money for top civil servants at that wage, why can they not pay teachers a decent wage as well?

The hon. Gentleman missed the long session that we have had during this Question Time on teachers' pay. This question is about letters from parents on the subject.

Have the 50 or so parents, in the representations that my right hon. Friend has received, expressed grave concern over the future of their children's examination results? Does he condemn the action of the teachers, which is endangering good examination results throughout the country?

I do not have an analysis of the contents of each of the 50 letters, but I know that there is widespread anxiety among parents.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many parents have every sympathy with the teachers and believe that the trouble with the dispute is that it is clearly the Government's responsibility and that they should have offered more money earlier? Had the Government offered a little more money they could have settled the dispute long ago and saved all the disruption in schools. Is the Secretary of State demanding total surrender from teachers?

If the hon. Gentleman is correct, those parents share with him and, apparently, with all Members of the Opposition, an indifference to the consequences that would follow, which are higher inflation and higher unemployment.

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

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 am holding a dinner at No. 10 to mark the centenary of the NSPCC.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the British people, never mind their political persuasions, are deeply shocked at the ugly scenes of violence on the picket line at Orgreave? Does she agree that that behaviour is representative, not of the true tradition of British trade union lawful picketing, but of the rule of the mob? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise the British police for their courage and dedication and for their discipline in combating a difficult situation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the scenes at Orgreave yesterday had nothing to do with peaceful picketing, either under the law or under the rules laid down several years ago by the TUC. However serious the strike — and it is serious — the consequences of giving in to mob rule would be far graver. Thanks to the courage of the police, yesterday's attempt failed. I agree with my hon. Friend that the law must be, and will continue to be, upheld.

Does the Prime Minister realise that, if she were to make an effective and helpful intervention in the dispute, she would not be giving in to mob rule or anything like that, but would merely be fulfilling her responsibilities as Prime Minister of this country? Her absolutism, as her right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) would put it, has brought us Britain's first billion pound industrial dispute. It has brought violent conflict on a scale that has virtually been unknown in this country, certainly for the past 50 years or more. Will the Prime Minister tell us why she wants this chaos, conflict and cost to go on rising?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could forthrightly and unequivocally condemn the scenes that took place outside Orgreave yesterday. He has made no attempt to do so. He knows full well that what we saw there was not peaceful picketing, but mob violence and intimidation. I am astonished that he should suggest that, because one faction of the National Union of Mineworkers adopts these disgraceful tactics, it should be given what it wants. If we were to do that, we would lose in two ways. First, we would be asking the National Coal Board to adopt a policy which would destroy the prospects of an efficient industry; and, secondly, we would be accepting that violence and intimidation are an acceptable part of industrial relations. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman: will he condemn those scenes of violence outside Orgreave?

That is no challenge at all. I have repeatedly, in spite of the Prime Minister's continual fiction, condemned without reservation the use of violence by any and all parties in industrial disputes. It is about time, and I appeal for the fourth or fifth time in the past 15 weeks to the Prime Minister, to concentrate on the real issues and stop treating the dispute like a political football.

I note that the right hon. Gentleman referred to mob rule as political posturing. I can say to him only that whatever Government are answering from the Dispatch Box, if they gave in to mob rule, that would be the end of liberty and democracy. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at present 43 pits are working normally and 12 partially in a number of National Coal Board areas. In other words, some 50,000 miners are working. I note that the right hon. Gentleman is against the miners who are working. He knows full well that the Government have carried out their task of seeing that the law is upheld, that there is an abundant supply of money for investment in profitable pits, and that those who take voluntary redundancy have an excellent deal.

That was not an answer; it was a recitation of arrogant complacency, an evasion, and a betrayal of the national interest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Favell, Question No. 2.

The right hon. Gentleman, who is shouting and posturing, is more accustomed to it than I am. We have seen violence which he has not —[Interruption.]

Order. There is so much noise that the Prime Minister did not hear that I called Question No 2.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there was conflict between the police and miners yesterday, that was precisely what those masterminding the strike had intended from the outset? These people have shown no respect for democracy, either inside or outside their union, and have never ceased to take any opportunity to incite people to show the utmost disregard for the police. As a result, young policemen have had to endure taunts and jibes——

Briefly.

—and bricks and spit.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that these violent tactics have been used to try to impose the will of one faction of the NUM on the rest. Those people have tried, by those tactics, to destroy the steel industry. They have failed. They have tried, by those tactics, to disrupt the power stations. They have failed. They have tried, by those tactics, to destroy those who are still going into work in the many pits around the country. They have failed. In every single way, they have tried to use violence to impose their will. So far they have failed. The lorries got through; the coal is getting through. I hope that that will continue, as I hope that the overwhelming majority of workers in this country will join all people of good will to see that mob violence does not prevail.

Why does the Prime Minister not remind the country that the civil law is there to be used against secondary picketing? Secondly, why does she not give some encouragement to miners who deplore their leader's tactics by persuading the Secretary of State for Energy to call both sides together under his chairmanship to ascertain whether there is a way forward, rather than leaving the issue as though it were a private television battle between Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Scargill?

The facts are well known. The fact that the Government have given a better deal to the mining industry than any other previous Government is well known. The fact that the offer has been taken up by 50,000 miners is also well known. The House knows that 50,000 miners are working and are continuing to work —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen who are interrupting from a sedentary position cannot give any example where any other Government have given a better deal to the miners. It is up to those who could use the civil law—that is those who are aggrieved—to go to the courts to use it if they choose. That is a matter for them and not for the Government.

Is my right hon. Friend concerned at the development of ballistic missile defence systems in space by the United States and the Soviet Union? Such systems weaken the stability of nuclear deterrents. Will she use the London summit declaration on East-West relations to press for a negotiated end to such developments?

That is one very early experiment. It is far too early to deduce anything for future prospects from one experiment with infra-red heat sensors used against one target in the skies. It cannot be assumed that that can rapidly be transferred by technology into a mass capability to stop every missile going into space. For as long as we can foresee it will be necessary to have a strong nuclear deterrent, and Trident will be that deterrent in future.

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

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

Now that one out of five of the electorate has voted—[Interruption.] Now that one out of five of the electorate has voted for the alliance parties, will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister—if there were some quiet the right hon. Lady might be able to hear my supplementary question—justify to the House, to the millions of electors and to the other nine democratic members of the European Community how, in spite of the alliance gaining what amounted to 20 per cent. of the votes cast, there will not be one alliance Member out of the 81 Members of the European Parliament for the next five years? How will she justify that distortion of democracy?

That is quite simply because no alliance candidate won the constituency which he sought to represent.

May I revert to the disorders at Orgreave and elsewhere? As it must be clear that these unlawful assemblies are neither spontaneous nor unco-ordinated, how long is it likely to be before the police have sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against those responsible for controlling and directing these riotous mobs?

As my hon. Friend knows, there have been a number of arrests on all of the violent pickets. I do not know whether the police will have sufficient evidence to bring the sort of charge to which my hon. Friend has referred. As he knows, it is a matter for the police and it would be quite wrong for politicians to interfere in duties for which the police are responsible.

Will the Prime Minister inform the House when she has sufficient blood on her hands to satisfy her hatred of the miners?

As I said, in 43 pits 50,000 miners are working and looking after their families. The hon. Gentleman seems to disregard those completely. They have accepted the offers and look forward to a prosperous future for the coal industry. Those who brought the miners out on strike are responsible for ending the strike. They now have fewer prospects and have damaged the coal industry considerably.

Although the Prime Minister is entitled to feel satisfied about the Conservatives winning 44 of the 78 mainland seats in the European Parliament elections, does she agree that we should be grateful that we do not have proportional representation, which has allowed the far Right National Front to be elected in France?

Yes, Sir. A proportional system of election often allows extremists to be elected.