asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received about his Department's grant to the Open University.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from west Cumbria on the funding of the Open University.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the proposed cut in grant for the Open University.

We have received over 700 such representations. No record has been kept of their geographical distribution.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the existence of the Open University is a tangible demonstration of our commitment to equality of opportunity? Is he aware that there is widespread dismay about the possible reduction in student places that may result from the proposed cut in real terms in the Department's grant?

The Government have a high regard for the work and functions of the Open University. However, we do not accept that the constraint on finance will necessarily lead to any diminution in its activities.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the sense of outrage among many of my constituents in west Cumberland, who have historically supported that institution since its inception under a Labour Government? Does he realise that if he strangles this institution, as he has strangled so many other public services, he will be denying many people in my area, who have lost their jobs under this Government, the right to retrain and to be educated in the new skills that they will need if they are to secure employment in future? Will he see sense and rescind his stupid decision?

The hon. Gentleman would he more effective if he were not so strident and did not exaggerate. There is a difference of calculation between the Government and the Open University. We are asking the university to make savings of about £4·5 million in the second of two years. The university claims that it is being asked to make savings of £13·5 million in the second of two years. We do not understand that, and we have asked the university to send us the basis of its calculations.

Why have the Government singled out this institution—one of the finest in the country — for such savage cuts in expenditure? If the Secretary of State does not recognise the unique importance of allowing those who left school early to acquire a university education from this unique educational institution, does he at least recognise this it is the most cost-effective way to provide higher education?

The Government have not picked out this institution for special treatment. We are proposing levels of financial constraints of the same order of magnitude as those for other institutions of higher education.

I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend said about the necessity to get the best value for money from the large sums made available to the Open University. However, will he consider appointing an independent third party to examine the discrepency between the two figures, otherwise it may not be possible to reconcile them?

We intend to study carefully the figures for which we have asked, when we receive them. The Open University is setting up an efficiency study in the near future and the Government have invited the visiting committee to discuss the proposed finances with the Open University, after which the visiting committee will report to me.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in rural areas, such as the one that I represent, the Open University represents one of the few opportunities that people have for further education and retraining? Does he appreciate that great fear is being expressed in those areas that if the cuts go through there will be a serious diminution in that service, particularly in terms of the loss of part-time tutors? Will he bear that in mind and have a rethink about his proposals?

I accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

If the Open University raises money externally, will my right hon. Friend's Department reduce its grant proportionately, or will the university be allowed to keep the money that it raises in that way?

We have told the universities that we shall not deduct from their grants money that they raise from the private sector, and that applies to the Open University.

Is it not a fact that this morning the Select Committee thought this question so important that it devoted over a quarter of the two hours it spent with the Secretary of State to this subject? Is it not also a fact that the Open University, at a time of unemployment, has increased by 10 per cent. its intake of students and received a cut of 4 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Open University has conveyed the impression that, if the proposed cuts take place, the whole character of the university will change? What is he doing to ensure that its character does not change?

I am not the least convinced that its character need change. I do not believe that the Open University is the only institution in this country which cannot find economies while still maintaining its activities. The hon. Gentleman failed to add that the Government have provided a significant extra sum to the Open University to enable it to give additional subsidies to students, such as the unemployed or disabled, as it thinks fit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Open University represents a ladder of opportunity for people who did not go to university as teenagers and therefore deserve to be encouraged? Will he publish the report of the visiting committee, which has been asked to look at the future options for the operations of the Open University, so that the House may judge for itself whether the grant allocations for 1985 and 1986 represent any impairment in the operations of the Open University?

I regard the Open University as a ladder of opportunity, as were the grammar and direct grant schools before the Labour Government abolished them. I shall consult the chairman of the visiting committee about the publication of the report that I expect from him.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, while some public money may be saved by reducing the allocation to the Open University, it may need other sums for retraining purposes?

There is generally a case for more money for almost everything, but the Government want to reduce the conditions which have helped to create the high unemployment that we have, and constraint on public spending is one of the imperatives.

While rejecting completely the wilder allegations that have been made by Opposition Members about the cuts in allocation to the Open University, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether his mind is completely closed on the matter? If it is shown that the Government's figures are, to a degree, wrong, may we be assured that he will consider the matter again?

I would find it hard to say that the Government would in no circumstances think again in a case such as this. However, I have decided, and told the Open University, what its allocation from the taxpayer will be over the next two years, and it is most unlikely that that will be changed.

But is not the Secretary of State planning to give the Open University a smaller recurrent grant in 1986 than it gets now, not taking into account inflation and the cuts that have been made in the past? It is these problems which should be concerning him — he described the Open University this morning as "very remarkable" — not what is taught on a particlar Open University course. Does he recognise that, in a democracy, it is the business of Ministers and civil servants to discuss resources and to listen to what is said to them, not to meddle in what is taught at universities and polytechnics?

The figures that I have announced take account of inflation——

That is not true.

Once again the hon. Gentleman is misinforming himself. The Department has received a significant though relatively small number of complaints——

How many?

About seven. These have been received during a time when we have received no complaints about other university courses. When we asked the Open University to consider the complaints, it replied that its rules prevented it from considering complaints without evidence. It implied that it would consider the complaints with evidence. The Department asked for a professional judgment of the course concerned and forwarded it to the university. The Department made no judgment itself. It simply passed on the judgment of others, and that judgment is in the Library for hon. Members to study.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, following his announcement of the new system of examinations at 16 years of age, he has received any representations from local education authorities as to the staffing implications of the new system; and if he will make a statement.

I have received no such representations. Implementation of the national criteria will require some in-service training of teachers; but I do not foresee any increase in the total requirement for classroom teachers.

As the new system of examinations will result in more emphasis on the practical side of school work, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will provide new opportunities for those seeking jobs in the teaching profession? Does he accept that this will provide an additional incentive to restructure teachers' salaries to attract more people of quality into the profession?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is yes. There are severe shortages already emerging in the craft, design and technology areas. The Government hope that the present negotiations on the restructuring of teachers' salaries will be successful.

Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that the shortages to which he has referred underline what the Open University and other universities could do to meet the shortage of scientists? Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to a problem that is worrying many experts, namely, that his demand for more practical tests will not be met for the 16-plus examinations because one fifth of our secondary schools are under-resourced for science and do not have the laboratories to carry out the necessary tests? That is what has happened under this Administration.

The shortage of laboratories goes back a long time, but it does not affect anything like one fifth of the schools. There is scope for a practical element in tests in almost every subject. For instance, the new examinations will give more marks for oral, as opposed to literary, mastery of foreign languages. Opposition Members should not think that "practical" applies only to engineering and science subjects.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to monitor truancy levels.

Monitoring the incidence of absences from school is essentially a local responsibility. At national level there is evidence enough that truancy is a cause for concern; and we propose to issue a circular on the part that education welfare services can play in reducing it.

I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement. Does he agree that there is a direct relationship between hard-core truancy and teenage crime, especially in the inner cities, and that that is a serious matter? Will he engage in discussions with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to ascertain what can be done to make parents stand by their obligations and duties to ensure that their children attend school?

I believe that there is a link between truancy and juvenile crime, but the connections are not firmly established. Whatever the interaction, both problems must be tackled vigorously. Parents have an important role to play. Where parents display an interest in their children's education and show that they regard it as important, truancy is less likely to occur. Unfortunately, not all parents regard their children's schooling as important. Some parents condone or even cause absence by keeping a child at home to look after a sick relative.

To what extent is there a link between high levels of truancy and unemployment among young people? Is not the reality that many young people who attend school live in a no-prospect society led by a no-hope Government, and for them truancy is one alternative?

There is a closer link between truancy and the curriculum. Teaching needs to be lively and absorbing, and the curriculum needs to be seen by pupils and parents as relevant to the demands of adult life.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the National Union of Students in relation to its survey of undergraduate income and expenditure.

I received a copy of the full report of the NUS survey of undergraduate income and expenditure from the president of the NUS on 6 July. I have received no other representations on the contents of the full survey report.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend will need appropriate time to consider the report. In the meantime, does he accept that the report is a competent and important contribution to our knowledge? Should it reveal certain weaknesses in any particular aspect of student grant, will he give appropriate and careful attention to its message?

The survey is a weighty document. It will require careful consideration and we shall, of course, examine it as a matter of urgency. I have written to the president of the NUS suggesting that we have an early meeting.

Will the Under-Secretary of State look at a parliamentary reply that he recently gave to me showing that since 1979 there has been a progressive reduction in student grant, now amounting to 7 per cent. in real terms? Would not the simplest course, regardless of the documents sent to him by the NUS, be to increase the grant to a level comparable with the level when the Conservative Government came to power?

Some reduction in central Government expenditure on education was necessary if total expenditure was to be kept within bounds. It was judged preferable to make the necessary savings by a modest drop in the value of the full award rather than, for example, by reductions in the provision available for science in the universities.

Will my hon. Friend take up with the European Court of Human Rights — that institution which seems to make so many of the laws of England—the fact that many students who have reached the age of majority have their grants reduced according to the circumstances of their parents?

That is probably more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State than for me.

When the Under-Secretary of State meets the president of the NUS, will he assure him that the Government are not trying to introduce back-door loans? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the survey shows the increasing hardship caused to students, even before the situation has deteriorated for many of them because of the new regulations on student travel? When will the hon. Gentleman lay the regulations before the House so that we can debate them? Last year the hon. Gentleman promised that he would lay them down earlier. He has about six days left in which to lay the regulations so that that is done earlier than last year.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the survey shows that at the time of interview only 10 per cent. of students had overdrafts. I hope it can be said that students are generally able to live within their means. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about laying the regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers that the specialist qualification to teach hearing-impaired children should be withdrawn.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are considering the proposals in the committee's report. We intend to consult interested organisations before reaching decisions on the recommendations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that all professional organisations concerned with deaf people are united against the recommendation to withdraw the specialist qualification and regard it as a cynical attack on a group of people with a unique disability? Is it not shameful that any Government should consider accepting such a recommendation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the legal requirement for additional qualifications for those teaching the deaf is abandoned, the standard of teaching for those pupils is bound to fall?

The Government will consider the views of all interested parties and will take into account the reasons set out by ACSET in support of its recommendations. There are generally two sides even to a question of this kind. The Government will certainly consider the arguments of interested parties very carefully.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that the views of all interested parties will be considered, but will he confirm that not one member of ACSET has first-hand experience of teaching the deaf or children with impaired hearing?

That is probably true, but I am sure that its members took advice and considered all the arguments.

The Secretary of State says that there are two sides to every question. Does he appreciate that on this occasion the side recommending dropping the specialist qualification is grossly misinformed? Is he aware that it is vital that teachers of deaf children should have special skills—for example, in audiology, lip-reading and sign language — and the ability to assess the extent of disability? Therefore, will he give full weight to the teachers' views, because if the recommendation is accepted those skills will be lost for ever?

I accept much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. On the other hand, ACSET was looking to a time when more children with handicaps would attend ordinary schools and recommending a series of qualifications for teachers in ordinary schools to enable them to help handicapped children. There are indeed arguments to be considered on both sides, and we shall consider them all very carefully.

Does my right hon. Friend accept from a member of his own party that many of us do not agree that there are two sides to this argument, because we believe that special expertise is required by those who teach pupils who are deaf or whose sight or hearing is impaired? Is he aware that we could not support any decision by the Government to remove the qualification required for those teaching the deaf, and that we speak from experience in local government and as members of the Select Committee on Social Services? Does he accept that the problems faced by handicapped people in the community are already severe enough?

There is no question of removing qualifications. There is a quesion of possibly ceasing to require qualifications. [Interruption.] Before hon. Members laugh too riotously, they should appreciate that a significant minority of teachers in the special schools do not possess those qualifications. Our object is to ensure that more teachers in main line schools have a qualification to teach handicapped children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with the leader of the Inner London education authority as to future funding of the authority.

None, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that is a deplorable reply? Is he completely unaware that the effects of the rate-capping legislation on ILEA will be fewer teachers, fewer school allowances and a reduction in building work? Is he further aware that the present Tory Government have never received any mandate from the people of London for any reduction in our education service? Why does he not face his responsibilities to the children and adults of London in regard to education?

Any decision about how to spend the money that is available for education in inner London will fall to ILEA. It has not asked to see me about that and I have not sought a meeting with it. It seems to me that there are several areas in which there is scope for economy without inner London's education being damaged in any way. For example, ILEA charges less for school meals than any other authority in the country and its charges for adult education courses are little more than half the average. I could give several other examples, spending on which could be reduced without there being any damage to the quality to education in inner London.

Now that the Government have taken what I believe to be the right decision and are going for a directly elected membership of ILEA, would my right hon. Friend care to emphasise to its potential members that the problem of education in inner London is not one of inadequacy of resources but rather one of the need to motivate pupils in schools?

I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. ILEA has some extremely zealous teachers and has pioneered much in education. However, it seems unable to justify, either in terms of effectiveness or in terms of results, a vast amount of the money that it spends.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the disgraceful statement that he has just made about the school meals service in London and the funding of ILEA will cause a great deal of hardship throughout London? Is he further aware that if school meal prices are raised, children will go hungry and school meals workers will be sacked, just to starve the children? Is he further aware that ILEA is the only education authority that receives no Government funding? Conservative Members could not give a damn——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had three bites already.

There are free school meals.[Interruption.]

rose——

Order. Has the Secretary of State finished?

Yes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.

rose——

Order. I asked the Secretary of State whether he had finished answering the hon. Gentleman's question and he indicated that he had.

As my right hon. Friend has rightly agreed that the new ILEA should be directly elected, and as that authority will be the only education authority that will not have the constraints of other service committees to contend with when it examines its budget, how will constraints be put on the new directly elected authority to contain its budget?

It has yet to be decided and announced to which authorities rate capping will be applied. There could conceivably be a decision to apply it to ILEA, in which case there would be constraints additional to those that are normally applied to all local authorities.

Perhaps the Secretary of State can answer this question. As a democrat, can he not understand that the combination of rate capping, the three-year control of ILEA's budget and manpower by his Department and, from last night, the prospect of an immediate power over contracts worth more than £100,000, amounts to an utterly unacceptable interference by the Government in the running of inner London education?

No, because present spending by ILEA is at the expense, to some extent, of jobs for Londoners——

Prove it.

I can prove that by the general proposition that the money must come from somewhere. It comes largely from business, which is driven out of London, so the number of jobs dwindles. Secondly, high-spending local authorities which, exceptionally these days, refuse to comply with the elected Government's general economic strategy are still subject to the rule of law by Parliament. That is why it is legitimate to apply some constraints.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those education authorities no longer providing school meals for all children who choose to have them.

School meals are available in all local education authorities, but in Merton they are provided through a contractor; in some schools in Hereford and Worcester through self-help groups based on the schools; and in primary schools in Dorset and Lincolnshire only packed meals are provided and only to those entitled to free meals.

Will the Minister confirm that since 1979 the percentage of children taking school meals has declined from more than two thirds to under a half? Will he also confirm that this is damaging the diet and health of many of the worst-off children?

I confirm the first figure given by the hon. Gentleman, but not the second.

Have not school meals contained far too much stodge and involved far too much waste for many years, and does my hon. Friend agree that the most expensive food is not necessarily the best for children? Is it not now time to take a careful look at the nutritional content of food provided to schoolchildren, whether it is provided publicly or by private contract?

The DHSS has undertaken the schoolchildren's dietary survey, and I understand that the results will be available later this year.

Will the Minister issue a directive to all education authorities to follow the good example of those Labour-controlled education authorities which are offering free school meals to all the children of miners on strike, or will the Department of Education and Science follow the bad example of the Prime Minister and the DHSS and use starving children as political pawns in an industrial dispute?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in his proposals for school government, he will lay down clear criteria according to which governing bodies may procure the removal or redeployment of unsatisfactory head teachers.

The Green Paper on school government proposes, inter alia, that an LEA would have a duty to consider a governing body's recommendation for the dismissal of the head teacher or any other member of staff. The final decision on dismissal or redeployment must, however, continue to rest with the authority as employer.

Can the governing body be guaranteed greater leverage with the local education authority where it feels that a head is unsuitable on grounds of competence and general performance, as opposed to the common belief at present that only by committing a gross breach of discipline can a head be moved on?

I think the answer is yes. The views of the governing body must in certain circumstances be considered by the local education authority, but that authority retains the final decision.

Is the Secretary of State not concerned that some managing bodies are now being stacked with people purely because of their political affiliation rather than because of any interest in education? In cities such as Liverpool, all the places have been taken purely on a political basis, which could lead to head teachers and deputy heads being appointed and dismissed purely on the basis of political spite. What does he intend to do about that?

I deplore such political stacking where it occurs. Indeed, the Government's proposals will reduce the number of places in the gift of the local education authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further research he proposes to undertake into the relationship between money spent on education in the maintained sector, and the results achieved, and into the other non-financial factors which may affect the results achieved.

I announced in March that I had asked the Department to undertake further studies into the factors affecting examination results in schools so that I could assess the potential value of further research. These studies will be completed soon and I expect to make a further statement in the autumn.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will take advice on this from those—supported by the recent evidence—who believe that good results in schools flow directly from good staff morale and—as we heard in the previous question—from a high standard of leadership from headmasters, and not from outside interference. Do not our schools already suffer from over-administration and from those who confuse education with indoctrination?

I agree that the curriculum, quality of teaching and the vitality and the skill of the head teachers are crucial.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet the leaders of the Inner London education authority to discuss the future of education in London.

I have no plans to do so; nor have I been approached for such a meeting.

Given the Secretary of State's recent decision, as exemplified in the amendments in the other place to the paving Bill, should he not discuss with the leaders of ILEA, and explain to the House, his reasons for seeking extraordinary powers over such ILEA activities as building work, maintenance and contracts, when these powers are matters of detail and are contradicted by the Government's statement on the Rates Bill that they would not seek to interfere in the minutiae of decisions?

There is no reason to exempt ILEA from the powers that the Government are writing into legislation to ensure that such legislation is effective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for taking the transitory powers is that ILEA leaders cannot be trusted to run ILEA effectively? Is not the fact that ILEA spent 50 per cent. more per pupil on heating and lighting than other authorities just one small example of its financial profligacy, which should be stopped? Should not ILEA wake up to its responsibilities?

Yes, on all counts. If ILEA wishes to do so, economies can be made that would not harm education and would help Londoners.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the Open University.

The Open University has an important part to play in the Government's strategy for higher education, both in its role as a "second chance" institution which offers adults the opportunity to study at degree level, and increasingly as a provider of continuing education and updating courses relevant to our economic needs.

Is it not time that the Secretary of State visited the Open University, planned for expansion of its provisions instead of the cuts about which we have heard, and stopped interfering in the curriculum of this immensely popular institution?

We do not believe that the constraints of finance that were proposed should diminish the activities or the quality of the Open University.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the early-day motion that I have tabled on the Open University, which has been signed by hon. Members of all parties? Will he accept that there are some Conservative Members who feel that the Open University offers a unique opportunity for those young people who were not able to take advantage of higher education when they left their secondary schools? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend treat the Open University as a special case?

My hon. Friend is swallowing the Open University's assertion that its grant is being cut by 20 per cent. We have not had any calculations to support that. We believe that the proposed cut is very much less.

Does the Secretary of State realise that there is great concern about his dabbling in the courses of the Open University, particularly in the sociology department? Will he stand up for academic principles and either drop those investigations or, for the sake of balance, look into the extremist courses being taught at the school of economics in Liverpool university?

I shall take seriously, and I hope that any vice-chancellor will take seriously, any complaints that reach him or me. In the Library there is a copy of the comments on the particular course, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read. The preoccupation of the Government is only with the quality and balance of the courses about which there are complaints, not about bias.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the bland statement "relevant to our economic needs'?

The Government have publicly announced that we are asking higher education to carry out a switch of 2 per cent. of places from the arts and humanities to science, engineering and technology.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

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.

Does not the Prime Minister now wish that she had consulted the trade unions over GCHQ? Does not her refusal to consult bear the stamp and style of her entire way of government? When will she learn, quite apart from GCHQ, which is the subject of her statement later, that the British people prefer democrats to autocrats?[Interruption.]

Order.

I shall be making a statement on GCHQ later, and I should prefer to deal with the matter in detail then. The hon. Gentleman will be able to hear what I have to say.

If an agreement that is extorted under duress can have no legal or moral force, is it not monstrous that the dockers' leaders should be trying to hold the country to ransom to secure the perpetuation of the dock labour scheme?

With regard to the dock labour scheme, as my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the Government have no plans to change or abolish the scheme. My hon. Friend will also be aware that ACAS is meeting the unions this afternoon and that it met the port employers last evening. It is best to let ACAS complete its task of conciliation. If there is very little to this strike I am sure that ACAS will soon find that out.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

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

If the Prime Minister wishes to give up her current addiction to wearing sackcloth and ashes, will she turn her attention to another decision that requires to be made and issue to the House now a complete undertaking that Locate in Scotland, which has the support of all Scottish Members of Parliament including members of her own party, will not be abolished, with the investment and opportunities taken with it, by the Department of Trade and Industry?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that that matter has been raised more than once in the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be dealing with it.

Has my right hon. Friend had drawn to her attention reports of the disgraceful conduct of those who have roamed the streets of Bolsover to intimidate coal miners who wish to work? Will she condemn this behaviour, in the name of the people of Britain, in contrast to the support given by the Leader of the Opposition to those who condone and encourage it?

The mass picketing that has given rise to violence and intimidation is one of the worst features of this strike. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is reported as having said at the weekend that there is no alternative but to fight—all other roads are shut off. I hope, nevertheless, that he will agree to the NUM negotiations tomorrow.

When will the Prime Minister settle the miners' dispute?

There are negotiations tomorrow where they should be — between the NUM and the NCB. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support those negotiations, which will be held round the table between management and work force.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that the NUM, with £32 million of assets, will not give strike pay to striking miners yet gives pay to flying pickets, which are causing so much violence not only in Bolsover but all over the country?

I am not responsible for the NUM, but it is an astonishing way for it to treat its loyal members.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. MacGregor and the NUM were so near to agreement that they got out Roget's "Thesaurus" to find the appropriate words, but that at the moment when agreement seemed imminent Mr. MacGregor was seen to go to a payphone, and when asked whom he had called, given all the telephones available in the suite, he said "I've been phoning my sister in America''? Is she further aware that Scargill was heard to say to him, "I didn't know your sister's name was Margaret."? Can the Prime Minister confirm that she mucked up those negotiations, just as she has mucked them up throughout the dispute?

That question was rather below the hon. Gentleman's usual standard. I make it absolutely clear that whomsoever Mr. MacGregor was telephoning — if he was telephoning — it was not me. I have not seen or spoken to him since 3 July.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

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

When will the Prime Minister realise that, now that the Falklands jingoism has worn off, her real policies have come to light and are plunging this country into total chaos? [Interruption.] Furthermore, when will she realise that her draconian anti-trade union laws are quite unworkable and that, as I said some time ago when she was in Fontainebleau, the inexorable march to a general strike has begun and that more and more sections of the working people will be on the streets struggling against this appalling Government?

It is strikes that are destroying jobs and businesses faster than anything else, and so much so that I believe that the Labour party has become the party that wants unemployment.

Can my right hon. Friend suggest any reason for a national dock strike apart from Mr. Connolly's wish to join the Leader of the Opposition as one of Mr. Scargill's lackeys?

I can see no reason whatever for a national dock strike. There is a well-established disputes procedure under the national docks labour scheme, and it should be used. If it was used, the strike would soon be at an end, provided that Opposition Members want it to end as much as we do. That strike will do immense damage to the ordinary working people of this country.

In as much as the docks dispute has much to do with the genuine grievances of dockers, does not the Prime Minister think it wiser to state clearly that the Government have no intention of legislating during the lifetime of this Parliament on the National Dock Labour Board, and that if she wished to do so she would include that in her manifesto and win a mandate for it?

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday. It is astonishing that the Opposition should claim that the strike is to try to stop something that the Government have no plans to do. If that is all that it is about, ACAS, which is meeting the unions now, will have a very easy job to do to end the strike.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are serious constitutional aspects about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition appears——

Order. I could not quite hear the hon. Member, but I hope that he was asking a question for which the Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility.

Is my right hon. Friend not extremely worried about the future of the country when a certain person allies himself to the trade union movement? That means the end of Her Majesty's Opposition, because that is what they stand for. Having been Leader of the Opposition, does my right hon. Friend not consider it serious that a person puts himself on that side of the fence and ends his own future with his party and the country?

My hon. Friend is right. Some people wish to circumvent the processes of parliamentary democracy and impose their wishes upon the rest. —[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister has a right to be heard.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I had finished my reply.

With reference to circumventing parliamentary democracy, will the Prime Minister go into the Library today and look at the Adjournment debate of 22 October 1971? Does she remember that she refused point blank to obey the law and carry out the instructions of sections 4 and 5 of the Education Act 1944? Does she also recall that her only reason was that the background had changed? By what democratic or moral right does she expect others to obey the law when she does not do so herself?

I do not think that I was ever taken to task for refusing to obey the law in the Education Act 1944.

Yes the right hon. Lady was — by me.

When the Prime Minister broke the law by not consulting the unions at GCHQ Cheltenham, did she do so by herself or on the advice of the Attorney-General?

Every Prime Minister and every Minister is within the law, must be seen to be within the law and must be subject to the law. I wholly accept that every Minister in taking action does so in the belief that he or she is within the law and acting on the best of advice.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to remind Mr. MacGregor, before the resumption of negotiations tomorrow, that many thousands of jobs depend on competitive energy costs, and that, if the coal industry was allowed to be inefficient while other industries were expected to be efficient, there would be widespread anger?

It is important to have a cheaper supply of coal, because we derive so much electricity from it. France can offer us electricity from nuclear energy at a lower price than we can generate it from coal. It is important for the whole of industry that we produce cheaper coal for electricity. That means getting rid of uneconomic pits.

Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning Fascist Governments who use the police and the military to suppress trade union activities?

I am sorry, but I could not hear precisely what the hon. Gentleman said.

Order. I call Mr. Redmond.

Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning Fascist Governments who use jointly the police and the military to suppress trade union activities?

In this country the police are always there to uphold the law.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.

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

The Prime Minister is to make a statement at 3.30 pm about what action she proposes to take on GCHQ. Can she now make a statement on what she is doing about the Foreign Secretary?

The Foreign Secretary is doing an excellent job and will continue to do so.