asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information his Department has received on the level of local authority spending on education in 1984–85 as compared with the level implied in the calculations used to determine aggregate rate support grant.

Local authorities' budget estimates for expenditure on education, including meals and milk in 1984–85, imply a level of spending something over 7 per cent. above the 1984–85 RSG settlement figure.

Is the Minister aware that many local authorities, including Conservative-controlled ones are concerned that they cannot provide adequate levels of education services because of the Government's disastrous, disgraceful and diabolical squeeze on education finances? [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] It is all very well for the public school lads on the Conservative Benches to laugh about this Even more important is that the Secretary of State's advisers, Her Majesty's inspectors, have expressed considerable concern about the education services.

Expenditure on schools by local education authorities has fallen far less rapidly since 1979 than pupil numbers, which declined by 50 per cent. over the period. Expenditure per pupil in real terms has risen each year and is now at a record level. It is important to spend more efficiently than to spend more money.

Will the Minister make a statement on the report that some Conservative-controlled authorities, which have not been providing reasonable resources for education in their budgets, are to submit a report to him criticising Her Majesty's Inspectorate?

That does not fall within this question. However, the effect of rate support grant settlements on education will depend on the ability of local education authorities to use their resources efficiently. Many authorities could do much more and do it so much better.

Why has the Minister become involved in such an obviously partisan attack on HMI, which is the Secretary of State's advisory body? If the Minister wants to help Conservative local authorities by helping them to avoid the embarrassment of critical HMI reports, why does he not give them more resources?

The hon. Genlleman is referring to a matter which has been aired in the press. I am prepared to meet representatives from any political party on any education matter. Even the Socialist Education Association will receive a hearing from me if it has anything reasonable to say, but it will have to be reasonable.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received to the Green Paper on parental influence in schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on future legislation on the composition of school governing bodies.

Responses to the Green Paper have been received from over 650 individuals and organisations. The Government are now carefully considering the way ahead in the light of those responses and will make a statement in due course.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that, at the end of the day, our schools exist for the benefit of our children and their families, not the unions? Will he also remember that the representations that he has received from the unions are well orchestrated and organised, whereas those from parents are diffuse and not so well organised, and will he take that into account in weighing the representations that he has received?

I agree with my hon. Friend that education is for the children. I shall certainly weigh carefully all the representations that have been made. I shall seek to find as much approval as I can for the general views expressed in the consultation paper on the composition of school governing bodies. The Government are carefully considering the representations that have been made, which, in most cases, were rather hostile.

Does the Secretary of State visualise the majority on the governing body being parents who, for instance, have any or all of the say on the school's curriculum? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that the impact on the curriculum would have definite repercussions in highly vocal areas, as opposed to areas—often in working class districts—where parents are not highly vocal?

I make no apology for the Government's view that it would be sensible to have a majority of parents on governing bodies, because we believe that the great majority of parents are trustworthy people who, if given appropriate powers as school governors—I include parents who come from the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred — will seek to exercise those powers responsibly and for the common good. As I rather lightly said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), the Government have found that the consultation paper has produced a rather hostile set of views against that proposition, and we are now considering those views.

As my right hon. Friend has been asked to do so by the local education authority in the London borough of Sutton, in which my constituency is situated, will he take full account of the cost and administrative implications of some of the changes and ensure that local authorities are not out of pocket as a result?

There might be a certain amount of disagreement about the cost implications of the Government's proposals, but I shall certainly take into account the views expressed by those who have replied.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that quite a lot of the overwhelming opposition to his idea has come from parent groups? Does he understand that many of those parents who serve on governing bodies are sick to death of local authority party political representatives trying to run the bodies with a majority block vote? They do not want parents to be brought into the same act; they would rather that schools were run as a partnership between parents, the local authority and the community.

I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman said. I note that the Liberal party, in its response to the consultation paper, has come out against the Government's proposals, although the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) greeted my announcement of the Government's proposals as "pure high octane Liberal policy".

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that already there are a number of problems with co-opted members — for instance, on the Leicestershire education authority—defeating the elected members of the Conservative group? Will there not be even more problems when parents are given additional representation?

My hon. Friend has illustrated the complexity of the issues that must be sorted out. The Government are urgently considering the replies to the consultation paper.

Would it not be better if the Government came clean, abandoned their proposals to change the 1980 Act and the tripartite approach to governors and got on with the much more serious task of ensuring that all local authorities quickly implement the 1980 Act? Would it not be better to look at ways in which parents on governing bodies can be much more responsive to other parents in the community and be elected in some genuine democratic way? Too often, a person on a governing body is simply a friend or a person persuaded to serve on the governing body by the head of a particular school.

I would have more respect for what the Labour party now suggests if it had acted more quickly on its own Taylor committee report and managed to get any legislation through before it was thrown out of office.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now review the membership of those teacher unions in further education, including tertiary colleges, with a view to revising the membership of the Burnham Further Education Committee.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to review the membership of the Burnham Further Education Committee at the present time.

I am rather disappointed with that answer. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reconsider the position and re-examine the structure of all Burnham committees to ensure that all teachers are properly and fairly represented on the primary and secondary and further and higher Burnham committees?

I am sorry that I should disappoint my hon. Friend. The last review of the Burnham Further Education Committee was completed in December 1981 — a relatively recent date — and no strong representations have been made since then about a further review. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend's views have been noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans he has for controlling resources in his Department following the "Report on Financial Management in Government Departments".

Further work in hand to improve the effective use of resources in the Department includes the application of new office technologies, efficiency studies of common service operations and the development of a financial management information system for the Department's running costs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is scope for the privatisation of services controlled by his Department?

The Department has already contracted out its cleaning services. Perhaps I can amend my hon. Friend's suggestion and say that there is plenty of scope for further privatisation in the local authorities' education services.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now agree to make additional funds available to local authorities to meet the costs of any pay increase recommended for teachers by the arbitration panel.

No, Sir.

I thank the Secretary of State for that explicit reply. Is he aware that there is widespread despondency and extremely low morale among the teaching profession, which it is affecting the standard of education in schools? Does he accept that he should make the teachers an improved pay offer if he is to improve that morale and, consequently, the standard of education?

The hon. Gentleman was one of many who urged the Government to accept arbitration over the last teachers' pay claim. In reply, I constantly said that, arbitration or not, there would be no extra money available. He now urges me to find extra money and seems not to have learnt the lesson of what I said last time. To the extent that there is low morale, it must stem largely from the false expectations raised amoung teachers by the totally unrealistic pay claim put forward by their trade union leaders.

Was it not made perfectly clear throughout to the teachers that the resources available were necessarily limited and that each extra percentage point for which they pushed would cause a reduction in resources elsewhere? Are we not now seeing the inevitable result?

I wish that I could put it as effectively and vividly as my hon. Friend.

Does not acceptance of the legitimacy and independence of the arbitration procedure entail acceptance of the need to provide the cash to meet it? Is it not cloud-cuckoo-land to assume that an increase in the largest part of the largest item of a local authority's budget will not otherwise inevitably result in fewer teachers? Is that the right hon. Gentleman's intention?

That just cannot be true where there are cash limits, as there are in this service. It is not possible to respect the interests of the whole country with regard to employment and low inflation if the Government lose control of such essential heavy items of public spending as local authority expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards the establishment of grade-related criteria for examinations.

The Secondary Examinations Council started work last month on developing grade-related criteria for a first batch of 10 subjects at GCSE. The council hopes to publish draft criteria for these subjects in the summer next year and to invite comments on them. The council plans to tackle further subjects next year.

Despite the misgivings expressed by some members of the teaching profession, does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of grade-related criteria examinations will be widely welcomed by parents, who are concerned about the introduction of absolute standards in school testing, and by employers, who need to know the value of the qualifications being offered?

I agree that grade-related criteria should motivate teachers, pupils and parents, and give more information to employers. I am very glad that the Secondary Examinations Council and the examination boards are finding it possible to embark so quickly on the task.

It is important that examinations should be able properly to measure competence, but is it not also important to understand that in our schools and education establishments we must have the resources to bring people up to the competence that is then examined? Is that not the real fault in the education system under the Secretary of State's government?

Resources are certainly an essential ingredient, but it is wrong to hammer away, as the Opposition do, at the assumption that resources alone control results. That is the constant chorus of Opposition Members. Resources matter, but the effectiveness of the teachers and the motivation of the children matter even more.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the talks aimed at restructuring the pay and conditions of service of the teaching profession.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on proposals for restructuring of teachers' salaries and terms and conditions of employment.

Discussions in the Burnham joint working party on salary structure were adjourned on 13 July to enable the management panel to consider a number of points made by the teachers' panel. A further meeting has been arranged for 15 November.

Is it not preposterously stupid that the Burnham committee has been able to discuss teachers' pay but not conditions of service for the past 20 years, due to an enactment of a previous Labour Government? Is it not now important for the structure talks to get going again, with a view to making clear to teachers their promotion prospects and the penalties for not doing their job?

I agree with my hon. Friend's conclusion, but the very fact that the joint working party on salary structure has been convened, has been sitting, and is continuing to sit, shows that the Burnham committee is not a barrier if there is a will to discuss pay and conditions of service factors at the same time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the teachers' pay claim for 1985 is totally unrealistic? Would they not be better off negotiating a revised pay structure linked to performance?

I entirely agree with both limbs of my hon. Friend's proposition. I find it worrying that the leaders of the teachers' unions seem ready to enter into negotiations with a claim which they must know is unrealistic. I am appalled by their suggestion that it may prove necessary to prosecute the claim by further disruptions of the education provided in the schools.

Is it not a fact that, since the fulfilment of the Houghton report after the Labour Government came into office in 1974, teachers' pay has dropped behind, to the point where all the earlier gains have been lost? Is it not true that the vast majority of teachers linger on scales 1 and 2, which are pitiful, and even less than a three-month trained policeman gets at the start? That is the reality. What does the Secretary of State propose to do about that betrayal of the teachers and the demoralisation of the teachers consequent upon that betrayal?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in totally condemning any disruption of children's education, whatever the teachers' views.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce changes in the membership of the National Advisory Body for Higher Education.

My right hon. Friend will be announcing the full membership of the board of the National Advisory Body nearer the time of its formal reconstitution on 1 February 1985.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the work of the board has greatly justified itself, because there has been a new and useful influence in the area in which it works? Will he assure me that he will be giving very close consideration to the representation of industrial and commercial employers and of the professions when the reconstituted board membership is announced?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the work of the NAB. My right hon. Friend has it in mind to appoint two additional representatives of industry, commerce and the professions, and will welcome advice from interested parties, including the Confederation of British Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what contact his Department has had with the committee reviewing welfare provision for children and young people, given its stated intention to review the present relationship between the level of benefits provided for young people and provision for those undergoing full-time education and training.

The Department has provided information to the review secretariat on financial support for students, which, as the hon. Member has noted, is one of the topics being considered by the review.

Is it not absolutely crazy that so many youngsters, especially in my constituency, should be compelled through economic necessity to leave school early, even though they have clear ability and potential, and join the dole queue or youth training schemes? Would it not make more sense to support them in full-time education by providing educational maintenance grants? Will the Secretary of State ensure that those representations are made forcefully in the review?

I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman says; nor am I convinced that priority should be given to the very large cost involved, with its very big dead weight. I am not aware of firm evidence that large numbers of youngsters decide whether to remain in or leave education according to the benefits available to them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during a recent visit to France, the Select Committee was surprised to find that parents have their family allowance withdrawn if children behave badly and consistently abscond from school?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend's information is wholly up to date, nor how such a system works in practice. I shall be interested to read the Select Committee's report.

What has happened to the 21-hour rule, which was supposed to permit youngsters on supplementary benefit to study rather than be forced to do nothing? I find it depressing that the Department has made no progress on that matter. Are not many youngsters who want to study being forced not to do that so that they can claim benefit?

I am surprised at the hon. Lady's conclusion. I thought that there had been modest progress on that front. If the hon. Lady will send me any evidence she might have, I shall be glad to study it.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the problem faced by many 16-year-olds who would like to undertake further education but are stuck with claiming supplementary benefit, joining a youth training scheme or, if they are lucky, receiving very small maintenance grants from local authorities? If education is to benefit that age group, is there not real scope for studying that problem?

Certainly the Government are continuously studying that problem. However, there is no strong evidence to suggest that large numbers of young people make their decisions on that ground alone. Many youngsters find it in the interests of their future prospects to continue at school and gain qualifications.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with his colleagues in the Cabinet the possibility of the same amount of cash being made available whether people are in education training, on MSC schemes or—if all else fails—unemployed? Would that not be more beneficial than compartmentalising them?

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but not clear what he means by the same amount of cash. If he cares to write to me and develop his idea, I shall consider it.

Will the Secretary of State admit that if he does not begin to come out of his corner fighting for education and for the educational aspirations of youngsters people will take away the possibilities and potentials? Is it not time that he stood up for education? Otherwise, people in the DHSS, the MSC and the noble Lord Young will take it all away from him.

If the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party recognised that in many parts of the country much better use could be made of the huge sums of money already going to school education, they might do some good.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will increase the level of education resources allocated to areas of high social need.

The varying social circumstances of different local education authorities are taken into account in the way rate support grant is allocated to individual authorities.

As the Minister responsible, does the hon. Gentleman not think it wrong that no proper account is taken of social deprivation in the distribution of the further education pool? Is the Minister not being cynical when he says that local authorities can fill this gap, when they are often hard-pressed and subject to rate-capping because of the Government's policies? When will he accept his responsibilities for east London, where we have the lowest proportion of youngsters going on to higher education, and put up the finance?

The hon. Gentleman shows that it is easy to demand higher expenditure in education. Opposition Members must begin to realise that higher expenditure by local or central Government must be at the expense of other sectors and services.

In last night's Dudley Evening Mail a Black Country employer with job opportunities is quoted as saying that standards of literacy and numeracy among those who apply for jobs are appalling. They included some people who thought that there were seven weeks in a year. Never mind about extra resources; is my hon. Friend satisfied with what he is getting now?

I shall undertake to read the Dudley Evening Mail every night. We are not satisfied with the standards being achieved by many of our schools. The whole thrust of the Secretary of State's Sheffield speech was to highlight the need to improve standards at all levels and at all times.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most grievous results of his financial policies in the socially deprived areas is that there has been a considerable cut in the number of welfare staff employed in schools? Does he realise that in areas of high unemployment that places a considerable burden on the teaching staff and is a considerable disadvantage to single-parent families? Will he reconsider the matter and see that the resouces are made available to those areas of high unemployment, such as mine, where the level is above 16 per cent.?

I note the hon. Lady's sincerity and her robust views on the matter. I can only undertake to study the matter that she has raised and see what I can do.

My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that the children of poor parents in inner city areas suffer not just from a lack of parental encouragement but from the low quality of staff, discipline and buildings. If we are to promote equal opportunities for all children, how will we overcome those inbuilt obstacles?

The deployment of resources between different services is a matter for each local authority. Members of the local education authority have a duty to take account of the difficulties there. I must point out, however, that in inner London the GLC, ILEA and local London boroughs, rates are having the effect of driving out employers — those who seek to create work—at the expense of those who need work.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans his Department has to review its expenditure policies on higher education in the light of the publication of "Report on Education" No. 100.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to review his Department's policies on expenditure on higher education as a result of "Report on Education" No. 100.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of resources lie expects to make available to higher education institutions to meet the level of demand for student places until the end of this decade predicted by his Department's recent "Report on Education" No. 100.

The revised projections of student demand in "Report on Education" No. 100 will be taken into account in the normal course of the Governments annual review of their expenditure plans.

Do not the Minister's figures fail to take into account the growing trend of female students? Is it assumed that there will be no increased participation by female students in the future? Why does the Minister always seem to think that higher education students will come from middle-class families and that there will not be more from working-class families? If the Department's assumption on the figures is found to be wrong, what will the Minister do to put the matter right?

All the comments on the earlier projections were carefully considered and the Department has produced a technical report outlining the changes that have been made as a result. I appreciate that some people may still not be satisfied, but the important thing about those projections is that, because they do not imply any immediate fall in demand, they give us time to plan and consider trends as they emerge before any action is taken. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to monitor events as they develop.

Is the Minister aware that one comprehensive school in my constituency is being asked to cease teaching physics and to curtail classes in computer science from 1985 onwards? Is the Minister not at all worried about that? If he is, will he give the House an assurance that all children will have full opportunities to take advantage of the policies, such as they are, resulting from the Department of Education and Science "Report on Education" No. 100?

I cannot comment on the particular point that the hon. Gentleman made about his constituency, but I hope that he will write to me about it. Of course, I give an assurance that the initiatives which the Government are taking seek to respond to the demands not only in science, engineering and technology, but in the arts.

Is it the Minister's intention further to reduce, in relation to the funds provided for universities, the funds for degree students at polytechnics and similar institutions? If that is his intention, will he bear in mind that if our country is ever to prosper we shall need more technically qualified young people?

That matter is not strictly relevant to this question, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now formally consulted the local authority associations about the size of the advanced further education quantum in 1985–86. Although final decisions have not yet been taken on student number targets for that year, present indications are that the 1984–85 planned unit of resource will be broadly maintained in real terms for 1985–86.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to explain clearly to the House what has actually happened to student numbers since 1979?

In 1983–84 there were 519,000 home students in full-time and sandwich courses in higher education, compared to 455,000 in 1979–80. The numbers of full value award holders have risen in the same proportions.

Does my hon. Friend accept that on the Conservative Benches there will be a warm welcome for the increased emphasis placed by the Government on technology, science and other allied courses, which are vital to the future economic prosperity of this country, and for the drift away from the humanities, social science and liberal studies? Does my hon. Friend also accept that there is a warm welcome from Conservative Members for the assurance that he gave in the debate on Friday that the Government will look again at the funding of the Open University, which provides such useful opportunities for those who could not take advantage of higher education when they left secondary schools?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the Government's initiatives in science, engineering and technology. We are considering whether further measures are necessary in preparing our proposals for the future development of higher education. I repeat the assurance that I gave about the Open University in the debate on Friday.

In view of the figures from the UGC and UCCA showing that at least 12,000 well qualified students are being turned away from the universities every year —it could be 15,000 this year—what is the proof for the Minister's statement on Friday that all those who are qualified now find places in higher education? Given that the "Report on Education" No. 100 shows that the number of students is likely to rise to a record level at the end of this decade, can the Minister tell the House how that justifies the planned further cuts in the universities' current grant of 0·5 per cent. a year until 1986?

I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's second question. The available evidence suggests that qualified candidates continue to be able to find a place somewhere in higher education. If there is evidence of a significant failure in that respect, we shall be prepared to review the position. That is allied to the first question that the hon. Gentleman asked. When I spoke in the House on Friday I said, despite challenges, that no candidates had been brought forward who had been unable to find places, but I acknowledge that some did not take up university places and did not choose to go into the public sector. We are investigating what happened to that group, but those people would have had the opportunity of a place in the public sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has received on higher education from the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body during the last three months.

My right hon. Friend has received advice from the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education on the development of a strategy for higher education into the 1990s. The advice has been published and my right hon. Friend will respond to it as early as possible next year.

Does the Minister recall that he initiated this debate about a year ago by asking the UGC and the NAB to consider the implications for higher education if resources were cut by 1 or 2 per cent. per year for the next 10 years, a cut of about 15 per cent.? Does he accept that almost all the evidence received by those two bodies repudiated that approach, as their report now does, and is it not time that the Government repudiated it, too? When the Green Paper is published, will the Government make it clear that they are looking for increased funding for higher education and not for cuts in funding?

My right hon. Friend corresponded with the UGC. He referred to level funding as well as to the postulated cuts to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Government will consider the advice received, in the normal course of our review of public expenditure. However much one sympathises with particular objectives, our priority must be to control public expenditure and to keep inflation down. My right hon. Friend will hope to make a statement about Government expenditure plans in the normal way later in the year.

Will the Minister make a firm commitment to put more resources into continuing education in view of the rising demand from women and mature students? Will he put that funding into the universities and the Open University as well as other sectors of higher education?

We were most grateful for the advice that we received on continuing education. I have no reservations about its importance or its centrality to the mission of higher education. It is an area, however, in which the prime responsibility for funding must often rest with students and employers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current figure for the number of surplus places in secondary schools; and what further number he expects to be taken out of use in the next five years.

Between January 1981 and December 1983 it is estimated that local education authorities took out of use some 135,000 secondary school places and that this left some 500,000 surplus places in use in January 1984.

As surplus places often lead to closures, is my hon. Friend aware that in rural areas, especially, the schools often play a vital part in the whole life of the community, which cannot be evaluated in purely financial terms?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. When I receive deputations from rural constituencies, I fully acknowledge the role of the village school in other than purely educational terms.

In considering the problem of falling rolls and adjudicating on possible closures, will the hon. Gentleman consider not only rural areas but inner city areas with Caribbean, Asian or other large ethnic minorities, where the closure of a school may be a disaster for community relations?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that when a proposal comes before the Secretary of State for the removal of surplus places or the closure or amalgamation of schools all objectors have a full and real opportunity to make their views known.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take action to encourage local education authorities to sell redundant school property more expeditiously.

No, Sir. It is for authorities themselves to consider how best to dispose of their redundant school property, whether by sale or by alternative use. Authorities are aware of the benefits of selling redundant assets. As recently as 26 September my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment publicly called on local authorities to maximise their capital receipts from sales of assets in the current year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer is totally unsatisfactory in view of the appalling waste in this respect, with property in Norfolk standing idle and being a target for vandals?

The disposal of redundant schools or assets is a matter for the local authority, but if my hon. Friend wishes to bring a constituency matter to my attention I shall ensure that it is investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in negotiations towards restructuring teacher salaries to place greater weight on expertise and competence.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to restructure teacher salaries to introduce a greater element reflecting quality and competence.

I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I think that a primary aim of a reformed salary structure must be to relate teachers' pay more directly to their performance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that restructuring teachers' salaries according to expertise and competence is the way forward for education and the teachers' unions?

Yes, Sir. I believe that large numbers of teachers agree with that proposition, even, if some trade union leaders do not.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will the Prime Minister ponder today the role played by the Government in London, which now has the largest single concentration of unemployment in the industrialised world? Does she agree that it is nonsense to withhold £1,500 million of London's rate support grant, which has contributed to doubling business bankruptcies, has led to the closing of factories in London which then reappear in docklands, where the Government grant is just sleight of hand and has threatened the Greater London Enterprise Board, which creates jobs four times more cheaply than the London Docklands Development Corporation? When will she stop her dogmatic games, which affect the job prospects of my constituents in Leyton and of other Londoners?

The high rates charged by the Greater London council during the past three years have contributed to unemployment. It is one of the reasons why the GLC must be abolished. The London docklands authority has done an excellent job, which was never previously achieved by combined local authorties.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider what steps may be taken in the short term to prevent authorities such as the GLC from entering into entirely bogus exercises and spending nearly £500,000 worth of ratepayers' money on trying to avoid their civil defence responsibilities, before their demise in the spring of 1986?

We have gone as far as we can through legislation in curbing some excesses of the GLC. I hope that people will watch these excesses and be glad when we complete the legislation to abolish the GLC.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the lunchtime radio interview with the new chairman of the Trades Union Congress, in which he made it clear that if Mr. Scargill continues to remain obdurate the TUC leaders will, in the interests of trade unionism and the national economy, become more involved in efforts to reach a settlement? Will she authorise the Secretary of State for Energy to talk to the new chairman? Does she recognise that the general public now believe that the sooner Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Scargill cease their useless confrontations, the better?

The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the NACODS' settlement reached at ACAS was excellent. It was reached by two sides after prolonged negotiations. Both sides were interested in a prosperous coal industry for the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join us in putting pressure on the TUC to press the leadership of the NUM to accept the NACODS' settlement and end the coal strike.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

Has the Prime Minister had time to consider last week's report of the European Commission on Human Rights on the use of plastic bullets and the subsequent demand by the Police Federation for the introduction of their use by all police forces in Great Britain? In the light of the clear evidence from the North of Ireland of the deaths and physical mutilation caused by these brutal weapons, will she tell the House—if she is not prepared to forbid the extension of their use to Great Britain — under what circumstances the Government would allow their use, expecially in an industrial dispute?

So far we are discussing only the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland, where they are necessary for the protection of the security forces.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, with sterling at or near historically low levels, it would be a great advantage for us, especially with the outlook for lower interest rates, to join the European monetary system?

We shall reconsider that matter when we believe the time is appropriate. As my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, Britain is the only country in Europe that is subject to variations in the value of its currency because it is an oil country. That introduces an element into our valuation that is different from that of other European countries.

From her unique position, can the Prime Minister tell us precisely what has been going on in the National Coal Board?

The National Coal Board has done its level best to make the best offer to the miners for wages and future investment, and has given them an excellent guarantee of work and excellent terms for voluntary redundancy. The board hopes that tomorrow it will reach a settlement of the coal strike with the National Union of Mineworkers on the basis of the NACODS' agreement, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say clearly whether he supports the NACODS' settlement.

I have been working for rather longer than the right hon. Lady to get a negotiated settlement to the dispute. She is only at the very beginning of understanding, and there is still some distance to go in her mind. Throughout the dispute I have deliberately refrained from making comments about the chairman of the National Coal Board. In the light of recent events in the conduct of the coal dispute, does the chairman of the board still command the full confidence of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet?

With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has or has not said, I distinctly remember him saying from the Dispatch Box as long ago as last April that a ballot was nearer in the NUM. He made no reference to it after that until NACODS had a ballot, and I hope that he will support the NACODS settlement. This chairman of the National Coal Board has given a better deal to the miners than any previous chairman. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the NUM to accept the NACODS' settlement. Will he or will he not?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of all that has happened, tomorrow's offer by the National Coal Board to the National Union of Mineworkers should be the last? Does she realise that if the National Union of Mineworkers refuses that offer, no matter how long it takes or how much it may cost, my right hon. Friend will have the full support of the country in defeating Mr. Scargill and his friends?

The NACODS' settlement, reached after long negotiation, must be the basis of an agreement with the NUM, and that agreement must be substantially unchanged.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

As the estimated cost of the miners' strike is nearly £5 billion, will the Prime Minister state who will pay for it? Will there be further increases in energy prices this winter, or will there be cuts in benefits? Is the Prime Minister aware that this Christmas thousands of striking miners, workers sacked from Cammell Laird, single-parent families and people on lower incomes will not be able to buy their children food or toys or new clothes and will tell their children that Father Christmas is dead? Is she aware that, in addition to having blood on her hands, she will go down in history as the woman who killed Santa Claus?

I believe that the striking miners were manipulated into a strike without a ballot. I believe that if they now had a ballot the majority would wish to go back. The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of the strike. The miners have already lost £500 million in wages, 19 coal faces have already been lost and 79 are causing concern. Much investment has also been lost. We Conservatives wish that many of the striking miners would go back to work, where they will get excellnt pay and where they have a guarantee of jobs in the future or the best voluntary redundancy ever offered. The money is there to be taken. Will not the hon. Gentleman urge them to go back to work, or does the Labour party prefer people to be on strike and to encourage them to be in poverty?

Has my right hon. Friend thought about asking her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to ask the Metropolitan police to initiate an investigation into the sinister links between the NUM and Colonel Gaddafi, to establish the nature of those links?

I believe that the overwhelming majority of the country was shocked at the NUM's attempt to go to Libya to seek funds.

What about your husband's companies?

That does not include the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that the majority of the country was shocked that part of the NUM should go to Colonel Gaddafi, who allowed his embassy to be used for murder on London's streets. That is shocking.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

While applauding the efforts and lead of the Government, the RAF and the charitable organisations in relieving famine in Ethiopia, may I ask whether the Government will seek joint measures and machinery with our European and Commonwealth partners, as well as the United States, for a better disposal of food surpluses?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The fact that we were fairly quick off the mark, got a good deal of aid to Ethiopia announced and were able to approach Garret FitzGerald in his capacity as President of the Community, helped with the speed of relief. However, it would have been slightly faster in relation to the aircraft had we been able to obtain visas for two of our RAF personnel to go to Ethiopia immediately. We might then have beeen able to get aircraft there to help with distribution from a ship which is carrying huge amounts of grain. We shall do all that we can to co-operate so that the maximum amount of aid can be distributed.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to respond to the serious statements made by Dr. Charles Elliott this week that the Government have been slow in releasing funds to the regime in Ethiopia, for ideological reasons?

The Government have not been slow in releasing funds. Over the past two years British aid to Ethiopia has been worth more than £13 million, including our share of European Community support. In addition, this July we cancelled Ethiopia's debts to Britain, which were worth more than £2·5 million. As well as giving ourselves, we have been giving through the European Community, which in the last two years has also given about £22 million.

In view of all the talk about Libyan blood money, and to remove any charge of hypocrisy, will the Prime Minister issue instructions that all those firms which have donated money to the Tory party and have had contracts with Libya should have the money sent back because she does not want the Tory party to be tainted with it? Will she tell the House directly that during the period that she has been Prime Minister none of the companies with which her husband has been associated have had any trading links with Libya whatsoever?

The NUM's leadership went to a Government who had used their embassy for murder on London's streets. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the difference between that and trading arrangements, nothing will teach him. Hon. Members will have seen today's Daily Mirror, in which Mr. Windsor is reported as having said to Colonel Gaddafi:

"We need all the money that you can send us through the Libyan trade unions."

"We shall make sure that the money is sent to you into a foreign bank account."

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has failed completely to say whether she and the Government have confidence in the chairman of the Coal Board, will you consider——

Order. I hope that hon. Members will not raise points of order designed to prolong Prime Minister's Question Time. That is not a point of order.