asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the discussions about linking pay and conditions of service of the teaching profession.

At the last meeting of the Burnham salary structure working party on 5 December the teachers' panel rejected the employers' proposals and withdrew from further discussion.

Has there been any change in that rather depressing picture since my right hon. Friend's meeting with the NUT, and can he hold out any prospects for progress in this important sphere?

There was a meeting with the NUT yesterday, which turned out to be encouragingly constructive on the issue of teacher assessment. It appeared from yesterday's meeting that there was a great deal of common ground. It was common ground that assessment goes on in an informal manner at present in connection. for instance, with promotion; it was common ground that some aspects of assessment have implications for pay; and it was common ground, cordially agreed on my side, that a system of assessment could be useful in enhancing the career development of teachers, for instance, with in-service training, and could help the employers to deploy their forces effectively. There was a great deal of common ground. I still have the thought, particularly when promotion prospects have been reduced by falling rolls, that a system of merit-effectiveness-related pay, or even, if it comes to it, of regulations, may have a place. Yesterday there was a constructive outcome.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, like most people, teachers are always willing to discuss their profession and the way in which outstanding problems can be solved? Is it not a fact, however, that the nature of the restructuring is causing the teachers to be even more determined to struggle against what is being proposed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that teachers should be given an honourable payment, instead of having their wages tied to the question of restructuring, so that, following an honourable payment being given, any educational problems still outstanding can be discussed? Is the Secretary of State further aware that the present situation is bound to cause a prolonged struggle on the part of the teachers — [Interruption.] — Have Conservative Members forgotten the meaning of the word "negotiations"?

The hon. Gentleman has not taken into account what happened yesterday. As a result of yesterday's meeting, the Department, on my instruction, and with the agreement of the NUT, is embarking on talks with the education employers and the other teacher unions. I hope that the negotiations that still lie ahead on Burnham go well.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that any assessment of teachers should be undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectors, but should include an element of assessment by teachers of equal status or of slightly above or slightly below such status?

I am sure that that would be part of one of the options. We are only too anxious to embark on the evaluation of options, which we intended to do through education support grants. I hope that the teachers' associations will in due course make that possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that yesterday's constructive talks with the NUT show that teachers are prepared to respond positively, provided that, for his part, he is prepared to listen and to discuss such issues with an open mind?

There is every indication that I am willing to listen. I suspect that it is common ground, though the teachers' unions might not be willing to agree openly, that the very small minority of really bad teachers, after every effort has been made by in-service training to make them effective, should be eased out.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to change the composition of school governing bodies.

Proposals for a new framework for school government in England and Wales were published last year in the Green Paper "Parental Influence at School". The Government are now carefully considering the way ahead in the light of the responses that were received, and will make an announcement in due course.

Does the Secretary of State agree that any changes in the composition of governing bodies are rendered largely ineffective unless there is a proper relationship between head teachers and governing bodies, and unless head teachers command the overwhelming confidence of the majority of parents? What help does the right hon. Gentleman plan for governing bodies in cases where head teachers patently do not command the overwhelming confidence of the majority of parents?

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are largely in agreement on that proposition. The Government in their consultation paper proposed some alteration in the powers to clarify the relationship between head teachers, governing bodies and local education authorities. Those proposals received general — though not entire— approbation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take into account what the Government proposed in that publication.

In considering responses to the Green Paper on governing bodies, published last year, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of parents with children at school are not represented among any of the corporate bodies that responded to the Green Paper? Many of us feel that the proposals in the Green Paper reflected parents' views more adequately than the responses that were received. Will my right hon. Friend take that into account in considering policy resulting from the Green Paper?

I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend says. I had formed the impression that the reaction to the proposals to give parents a majority on governing bodies had been almost universally hostile. We are considering all the responses, and I shall take into account what my hon. Friend says.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the consultation document he talked a great deal about giving governors a much greater say in discussions about discipline in schools? Therefore, is it not unfortunate that the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill says nothing about the role of governors or the whole question of discipline in schools?

Corporal punishment is not the only form of discipline in schools, as the hon. Gentleman would soon tell me if I said otherwise. That whole issue is to be discussed later today.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning methods of teaching mathematics; and if he will make a statement.

It is now exactly three years since the publication of the Cockcroft report on the teaching of mathematics. We have received many expressions of support for the recommendations of that report, and are continuing to encourage improvements in mathematics education in line with them.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that, as a result of the proposals by the Inner London education authority to introduce into schools from next September the teaching of what it calls anti-racist mathematics, pupils are not diverted from the proper study of mathematical concepts to the study of tendentious political concepts?

The job of any mathematics teacher anywhere is to teach mathematics as effectively as possible to all his pupils, taking account of their background and experience. It is for individual schools and teachers to decide how best to teach, but their work should never be impeded by the intrusion of a political viewpoint. Mathematics is mathematics whatever the ethnic origin of the child to whom it is taught, and it should be the same for all.

Are not mathematics teachers still among the scarcest commodities in education?

The shortage of qualified mathematics teachers is a long-standing problem, but the position has improved. In recent years the supply of new teachers has been healthier, and there are now many fewer unfilled vacancies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the need for improved standards in mathematics teaching, and the need for improved recruitment of mathematics and physics teachers, makes it all the more urgent that the talks on the restructuring of teachers' pay should be successful? Does he further agree that we must be flexible and imaginative in our pursuit of this worthwhile aim?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard what my hon. Friend said. All children need to learn the basic number facts, as the Cockcroft report says. I condemn political interference. It must be condemned, as it cannot in any way be helpful to the children whom it is supposed to serve.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made in special education following the issue of the Warnock report and the subsequent Education Act.

Local education authorities have established new procedures for assessing children with special educational needs, and most authorities are reviewing the provision made for them. There have been a number of initiatives in teacher training, both by my right hon. Friend and by local authorities. My right hon. Friend has approved 85 independent schools for the purpose of the 1981 Act, and a number of others are under consideration. He has commissioned four new research projects, and has included the provision of microelectronic aids for handicapped children in the educational support grant programme for 1985–86.

In spite of what the Minister has said, is he aware that there is considerable anxiety among educationists about the slow progress being made in implementing the Act? Does he realise that a massive injection of resources is necessary if the objectives of the report and the Act are to be met? Is he further aware that perhaps even more important is the need for a genuine desire on the part of the Government to do something about this important development in special education, but that there is very little sign of it so far?

We always made it clear during the passage of the Bill that integration and development would take place as resources permitted. According to returns from schools, the number of children ascertained as handicapped in ordinary schools rose from 29,976 in January 1982 to 37,970 in January 1983. There has been real progress.

Will my hon. Friend examine the role of hospital special schools? Most parents and teachers seem to be unaware that there is a national network of hospital special schools which can provide vital continuity for children who are hospitalised.

I undertake to inquire into my hon. Friend's question.

Does the Minister accept that 84 per cent. of children who are assessed as having a special educational need are still in unintegrated schools? Will he try to do better and, above all, examine local education authorities which are out-performing others to see whether he can learn something from them?

As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a problem in that regard, but there will always be some people in those circumstances. Under the 1981 Act, parents have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision by a local education authority not to make a statement of special educational needs. That is of real value for parents.

Has my hon. Friend seen the Advisory Centre on Education report, which shows that 54 per cent. of local education authorities which were interviewed still, last year, had not developed any policies for the implementation of the 1981 Act? Will he consider carefully the working party's recommendation for a national advisory committee to give advice and information and to monitor local education authorities?

I can give no such undertaking in regard to my hon. Friend's latter point. However, I undertake to inquire into the other points that he has made.

Does the Minister agree that, to date, very few teachers have been sent on in-service training courses to implement the Warnock committee's recommendations and to meet the requirements of the Education Act 1981? What does he intend to do about that?

I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. A wide range of in-service training is available for teachers who are responsible for the education of children with special educational needs. The arrangements are set out in circular 4/84, which allows local education authorities to claim about £2 million for that purpose in the academic year 1984–85.

In spite of the heartening trend to which my hon. Friend has referred, does he accept that in still too many schools in various parts of the country youngsters whose physical handicaps are of an almost extreme nature—particularly diabetes or arthritis—but which do not prevent their brains from working to the same standard as children in ordinary schools are being disadvantaged? Will he continue to keep up the pressure?

I undertake to do just that. I remind the House that we have always said that full implementation of the Act will be a gradual process. The Warnock committee saw the perspective as extending to the end of this century.

Will the Minister confirm that, in the White Paper, the Government envisage spending less on specialist schools, and that the whole concept of the Warnock report is being discredited because resources are not being made available in ordinary schools to cope with the increasing number of children who are being integrated?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Government's expenditure plans do not envisage reductions in expenditure on special education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the present arrangements for compulsory membership of student unions.

The arrangements are governed by the provisions of charters and statutes, or articles of government, under which membership of student unions is automatic. The provisions can be amended only at the initiative of the governing bodies of the institutions concerned, or by legislation. My right hon. Friend does not at present intend to introduce such legislation, but the matter is under active review.

Apart from the strong ethical arguments in favour of voluntary membership of student unions, would there not be a considerable saving of public money from the change of student union membership to a voluntary nature, in that they would be founded on voluntary subscriptions by membership rather than by compulsory subscriptions by the taxpayer?

I rest on my original answer about the integral part of a student union in its institution. The point about savings comes back to welfare, sports and social services provisions, and whether that should be a proper part of university and polytechnic activity.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider that answer?

I am clear that this is a matter of concern to my hon. Friends, and any matter of such concern is automatically a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend and myself.

Is it not interesting that there is yet another attack on young people in this International Year of Youth? I am sure the Minister is aware that membership of the National Union of Students is not compulsory, so will he please tell his Back Benchers that? The National Union of Students of each separate college votes on whether or not it will affiliate to the NUS. Is the Minister aware that there have been ballots of all NUS members in Newcastle, Hatfield, Aston and Reading this year, and overwhelmingly the members said that they wanted to belong to the NUS?

I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, but the question that I have answered is not about the NUS.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the manner in which the provisions of the Education Act 1944, as they relate to morning assembly and religious education in schools, are being carried out by schools and by local education authorities.

We have made it clear that we look to local education authorities and to the schools to ensure that the legal requirements are met. My right hon. Friend is concerned that there may be schools where those requirements are being breached, and is always prepared to look into complaints from parents or others on this matter.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that far too many schools are abusing the system and not teaching the true religious denomination, language and history of Christ? Therefore, will he confirm that it is the Government's policy to maintain a strong commitment to the Education Act 1944 as relates to the provision of religious education throughout all schools?

The religious education provisions of the 1944 Act are part of the settlement between the churches and the state which underpins that Act. At present, we have no intention of proposing any changes to those provisions.

Is the Minister aware that in many schools, and certainly in schools in my area, there are children from all the great religions—Sikh, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Jehovah's Witness and Pentecostal—and that the schools are attempting to get the children to respect each other's religions, which is a fine move? Is he further aware that any attempt to prevent such an assembly would be a reactionary move?

Religious education in county schools has to be provided in accordance with an agreed syllabus which has been drawn up locally. A number of local education authorities have recently revised their agreed syllabuses. I hope that more will do so. They can take an opportunity then to draw upon the full range of religious faiths in their communities. However, I expect such a syllabus to contain an introduction to the Christian tradition, and that should be a central part of religious education in this country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the law is as written in the Education Act 1944, it is a sad fact that a number of schools do not have morning assembly? Notwithstanding the points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made, it is possible to start the day with an assembly encompassing many different religions. Is it not a shame, therefore, that we do not ask schools to do so?

My right hon. Friend and I would deplore any attempt by any school to abolish daily worship.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to publish his Green Paper on higher education.

Later this year.

Will the Secretary of State consider the latest report of the central services unit, which shows that there are 3,000 fewer university graduates this year and, most damagingly, 600 fewer university graduates in science and technology? Is that not a direct result of the Government's cut in 1981 of money to universities strong in applied sciences, (such as Salford and Aston? Will not further harm be done by his decision last year to cut money for scientific research? What will he do about it?

I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman if he had stated the full facts. There has been an increase of 60,000 places in higher education, with an enormous increase since 1979, and the increase in polytechnic places far outnumbers the small fall in university places. I would also be more impressed if the hon. Gentleman, in referring to science expenditure, had explained that the reduction was simply a reduction in the increase that the Government had made available for science research. There is to be more science research next year than there was before.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Green Paper will be very important for him if he is not to lose the battle of ideas in higher education? Is he further aware that, despite the many valuable improvements that he has initiated, a distinctly hostile atmosphere is building up in universities and polytechnics, to the point at which apparently only one in five is now sympathetic to the Conservative party?

My hon. Friend may be a little romantic about the number who supported us before. I very much hope that the intelligent population in higher education will take account of the relatively poor economic performance that the country has achieved in recent decades. It is improving now, but it is still relatively disappointing. Therefore, they must look other than to the taxpayer for increasing even those small proportions of their funding.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite what he says, lack of funding is rapidly eroding basic science? Is he further aware that that is the advice of his own senior scientific advisers? What plans or proposals has he to make good the life support which he regarded as essential for the maintenance of basic science for just one year, which he then halved because of the student grant disaster?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on several counts. The Government reduced, but did not halve, the increased allocation. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the Government have given a special increase for science research in the increase that was recently announced, including a necessary improvement in the unfortunately obsolescent provision of equipment in a number of universities. It is necessary that more should be provided for basic science and science research, and that process was begun this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what percentage the real value of a student grant is different from the level which would be paid had its value been increased since 1965 by (a) the rise in retail prices and (b) the rise in average industrial earnings.

In 1984–85 the real value of the student grant was equal to 87 per cent. and 61 per cent. of its 1965 level when compared with increases in retail prices and average earnings respectively.

Does the Minister agree that the cuts in the real value of grants in the past five to six years by the Government of whom he is a member have had an adverse effect on the right of working-class students to enter higher and further education, especially mature students? [Interruption.] Does he also agree that that right has been restricted by the value of the grant, which the Government have cut repeatedly? Does he accept that provision for the education and maintenance of students should be more firmly back in the hands of the state, where it belongs, and not increasingly put on the backs of parents?

The statistics depend always on the base year. If the hon. Gentleman were to take 1970 as his base year, when the previous Conservative Government took office, he would find that the reduction has been only to 97 per cent.—it had almost held its ground. The hon. Gentleman spoke about working-class families. He will be aware that 30 per cent. of the mandatory awards that are subject to means-testing are full grants, which go to families with two children which are on two thirds of average national earnings.

Will my hon. Friend advise the House by how much spending on student grants has increased since 1979?

My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that 60,000 additional students have greatly increased the amount that is spent on student support.

Does the Minister accept that by quoting the lowest standard of 1970 as an example he has not done his case any good? Whichever angle is taken, the statistics show that the grant is basically inadequate and should be increased in the coming year.

I acknowledge that the grant is at a lower level than it has been historically. However, taxpayers' interests have to be taken into account as well as those of students. The fact remains that a larger proportion of the relevant age group are choosing to go into higher education than ever before.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the arguments about student grants could be eliminated if we adopted a system of student loans, whereby adults of 18 years or over could obtain a loan from society which they could repay in compensation for the benefits that they received from higher and further education?

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 5 December that the Government would be conducting a review of student awards, and loans will be on the agenda of that review.

When will the Secretary of State implement the proposals, which have been in and out of his Department for the past 10 years under successive Governments, on the introduction of a mandatory grant for all prospective students between the ages of 16 and 19 years? If the proposals cannot be implemented in the immediate future, what action will be taken within the coming months to enlarge and increase the scope of discretionary grants, which require more resources being given to local education authorities?

The sum involved in meeting the right hon. Gentleman's request would be about £600 million. That is not within the Government's present gift or disposition. Secondly, if the Government were to make more money available to local education authorities for the funding of discretionary grants, they would not be able to control how the money would be spent, because discretionary grants are, by their very title, discretionary.

Despite the laughter of Conservative Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) spoke about the access of working-class students to universities and higher education, is it not a fact that Britain does badly in giving access to children from that background to our universities and other higher education establishments? Is it not a fact also that the level of student grant has declined in real terms, which means that there is a stronger disincentive for students from a working-class background to enter higher education, thereby denying the opportunities that are given to the children of Conservative Members?

I can only repeat the 30 per cent. statistic which I quoted previously, which I agree was calculated on an income basis. The fact remains—and here we do have a problem—that the classification and numbers in the various categories vary as social movement takes place.

Does not this deterioration fit into the pattern of the Government's intention and policy to depress the standards of living of young people wherever they are found, whether they are students, whether they are on YTS, whether they are in work or whether they are on supplementary benefit? Does not the decision that has obviously been taken to withdraw supplementary benefit from young people up to the age of 18 fit into this conspiracy against young people? The Minister can protest, but he and his hon. Friends came from privileged backgrounds. Is it not about time that some of the fat cats opposite stood up for the young people of the country?

I have a sense that the hon. Gentleman, in that question, was trying to ask the question that he sought to ask me on a previous occasion, but I deny absolutely the charge that he makes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I will take points of order after Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many qualified nursery nurses are employed in nursery schools in England and Wales.

In January 1984, in England, there were 10,639 qualified nursery nurses employed in all forms of education provision for the under-fives. Of that number, 1,836 were employed in nursery schools. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Does the Minister agree that nursery education is very valuable for both the child and the parent and that it has been shown to be cost-effective in the long term? Should not the Government be expanding nursery education rapidly in view of the empty classrooms and the large number of unemployed nursery nurses?

I have to tell the hon. Lady that many local education authorities are using surplus classrooms to that very end. I must remind the House that it is for local education authorities to decide what education facilities to provide for the under-fives in the light of local needs and resources and their own local priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the standards of primary and secondary education in Essex.

The objective of Government policy is to bring about higher standards in all schools. I welcome Essex's efforts—as I do those of other authorities—in this regard.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Essex spends less per pupil, particularly in the primary section of schooling, than the average non-metropolitan county? Is he also aware that Essex spends less on books and equipment — and that this spending is at a particularly low level — than the average non-metropolitan county? Before the Secretary of State tells me that spending has nothing to do with achievement, will he note from the statistics available that the O and A-level passes in Essex are below those that might be expected, given the social structure in Essex? If he is that concerned about the standards of education in Essex, will he encourage it to spend more on each child and on books and equipment?

If the local authorities controlled by some of the hon. Lady's friends did not overspend so much, the Government would have been able to be slightly less stringent with some of those authorities, such as Essex, which have been prudent in their management.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there may be grounds for concern about whether effective use is being made of computers in rural primary schools and that this problem may also have arisen elsewhere?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. That is why the Government are providing some money through education support grants for the reinforcement of education in rural primary schools.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many parents in Essex, as in other local authority areas, are now paying for essential items such as books, materials and equipment? Does he agree that that is entirely contrary to the spirit of the 1944 Act? Will he also rebut reports that in Chester he suggested that when parents were making such payments the local authority should reduce the capitation allowance accordingly?

I should be very concerned if any such parental contributions were other than strictly voluntary.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the current level of and trend in the provision of adult education classes?

Figures of enrolments at local authority adult education centres in England for November 1983 show a rise of some 7 per cent. since November 1981. Enrolments for courses provided by the responsible bodies have similarly risen in recent years.

Does the Minister accept that the imposition of VAT on some evening classes undermines his party's commitment to adult education? In view of the negligible income involved and its substantial deterrent effect, will he have a word with the Chancellor with a view to eliminating the VAT charge?

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, this is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I think that it is generally accepted throughout the adult education service that the effect of the Customs move on VAT has been far less severe than was feared a year ago, before the guidelines were issued and implementation began.

In view of the prevailing interest in removing rigidities in the labour market, will my hon. Friend consider carefully the opportunities presented by adult education to improve the educational attainment for many people now unemployed and thus improve their job opportunities by improving the match between supply and demand in the labour market?

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, it was with that purpose in mind that the Department launched the "Replan" initiative for the adult unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the working papers from his Department's inquiry into student loans carried out during the last three years?

No. These are internal Government papers, which are not for publication.

Why are the Government afraid to put that information before the public? Is it because it shows that loans would not work and would have considerable implications in terms of increased public expenditure?

I have every confidence that the same kind of considerations that were taken into account before 1983 will be considered again in the review during the coming year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the local education authorities and the teachers' trade unions in relation to the proposed new salary structure for teachers; and if he will make a statement.

The proposals for salary structure reform were made by the local authority employers. A number of organisations and individuals have sent me their views on various aspects of the proposals.

Is it now accepted by the local authorities and the teachers' unions that assessment of the performance of a teacher depends very much on the needs and circumstances of the school at which he teaches and that the Government expect that to be incorporated in any new salary structure?

I really cannot answer that question. I do not know whether that is widely accepted. The proposals were made by the local authority employers and, while I approve of the general drift and some of the details, I am not associated with the offer itself.

If the Secretary of State forced through his proposals for assessment and appraisal of teachers, would the teachers being appraised have the right to see and to criticise the reports made on them? Would they also have the right to appeal against them and, if so, to whom?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks such relevant questions. It is to discuss all the options, including those mentioned, that the Government wish to encourage evaluations of different forms of appraisal, and stand o ready with public money to finance such experiments.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the visit to Basildon of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 10 December.

As my hon. Friend knows, I went to Basildon at his invitation for what proved to be an interesting meeting with local school teachers and governors about the Green Paper on school government. The hon. Member for Dartford had a most enjoyable time during his stay in Basildon.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the meeting in Basildon to discuss the Green Paper proposals on parental influence in schools clearly shows that we already have many able parents as governors? Will my hon. Friend stand by his proposals to increase the influence of parents in the running of schools?

My first-hand contact with teachers and governors at the meeting led me to form a most favourable impression. Inasmuch as I bless good practice anywhere, I certainly welcomed it in Basildon.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.

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.

If, as the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, Britain is still worth investing in, when will the right hon. Lady put her money where her mouth is and invest more in jobs and people?

Last year there was an all-time record of investment of £55 billion in the United Kingdom, and that seems a very good earnest of faith in Britain and a good return on investment for people who invest here.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm her respect for the increasing flood of working miners who are fighting to save what is left of their industry after the disastrous NUM leadership has tried to ruin it?

Yes, gladly. The working miners have given first-class leadership, demonstrated courage and bravery and done a great deal for their industry. They have kept the rest of industry going in Britain and kept the homes of Britain warm.

The National Union of Mineworkers has decided to expand the negotiating team to embrace the whole executive and has made a new offer to enter into negotiations without preconditions. Mr. Ian MacGregor has said that he wants resumed negotiations. In view of those developments and the £4 billion cost of the dispute so far, why is the Prime Minister's Office giving briefings to the press saying that the Government do not favour a return to talks until more than 50 per cent. of the miners have been driven back to work?

I noticed the offer of talks, allegedly without preconditions. I noticed also what the leader of the NUM said at the same time as that offer was made. He said that his aim was what it was at the start of the dispute, that the industry should not close pits on economic considerations: some lack of preconditions!

No preconditions means no preconditions. Why does the Prime Minister not test the strength of the undertaking by using her power to encourage a return to the negotiating table? Is it because she is afraid that there might be a settlement if that were undertaken? Is it the case, after all these months of strikes and with new opportunities now existing, that her cynicism and vindictiveness have overwhelmed all sense of duty?

If the right hon. Gentleman really wants an end to this strike, as I do, he can achieve that in two ways. First, he can ensure that the NUM withdraws its impossible demand that no uneconomic pits shall close—that is a point on which seven rounds of talks have foundered—and secondly, he can do so by the simple method of accepting the independent ACAS compromise settlement.

Will the Prime Minister now answer the question? Why does she not use the power that we know she has to test the strength of the undertaking that negotiations will be entered into without preconditions by encouraging the National Coal Board to go to those negotiations?

No, because I noted what the leader of the NUM said. He said:

"My aim is what it was at the start of this dispute"—

"that this industry does not close pits down on economic considerations."

Order. These are very serious matters of concern to the whole House. It is only fair that the Prime Minister should have an opportunity to answer the question.

Seven rounds of talks have foundered on the essential point that the leadership of the NUM has boasted that it has not budged an inch. As Mr. Eaton said yesterday, there is no point in going into a further round of talks only to fail.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that during the past year there were no fewer than seven rounds of talks—175 hours—during which what many regarded as over-generous concessions were made by the NCB? Is she aware that in the opinion of the majority—certainly on the Conservative Benches—the only talks necessary now are for Mr. Scargill to talk to the NCB and accept the terms offered, as NACODS did in earlier negotiations?

ACAS was independent. It reached a compromise settlement, which the NCB accepted but which the NUM did not accept. The right hon. Member for Islwyn should urge the NUM to accept that settlement so that there can be an end to the strike.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister prepared publicly to commend the decision of the Soviet Union to enter the arms talks without preconditions? If so, why is she so opposed to the decision of the NUM to enter into talks without preconditions, despite its earlier position on the question of uneconomic pits? Is it not better to jaw-jaw than to war-war?

It is better to accept the independent ACAS settlement. Why does the hon. Gentleman refuse to do so?

To be realistic, is it not inconceivable that any sane trade union leader should expect better terms from the NCB than those offered, and which are the envy of workers in other industries? Would it not be statesmanlike of the Leader of the Opposition if he were to advise his friends in the mining industry to bring this unnecessary dispute to an end so that the miners could accept the excellent terms offered?

Yes. As Mr. Michael Eaton, the Yorkshire area director, said this morning:

"Our offer of no compulsory redundancies, guaranteed jobs, continuing major investment in the future of the industry and pay increases really is the best deal for miners than anything that has been available since nationalisation".

Does the Prime Minister recall that last October, during the committal proceedings of Mr. Clive Ponting, the prosecution reported that no national security had been damaged by his actions? In view of that, why is he now being subjected to an East European style secret trial? Who took the decision to make it in camera—

Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have regard to the sub judice rule.

I am asking about who took the decision that the trial should be held in camera and who took the decision that the jury should be vetted?

The full trial starts on Monday next, 28 January. As far as I am concerned, the matter is sub judice. The courts are independent of Parliament and must remain so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister care to take time to look at the weather map of the United Kingdom? Will she reflect on the fact that the regulations of the Department of Health and Social Security mean that the poor, the old and the sick who are freezing in the east midlands, west Wales, east Anglia and London are now to get help with their heating bills, but that those who are freezing in Scotland and the north, which today are blanketed in snow, are to get no help at all? Will the Prime Minister today give the order that these insane and insensitive regulations should be withdrawn forthwith?

Spending on heating additions — [Interruption.] The Opposition hate to hear this. It shows how bad their record was in practice. It reminds them that they tried to stop heating getting into homes. Now they are asking for extra grants. Spending on heating additions—I shall gladly answer the question—has risen by £140 million in real terms to £400 million this year. The value of heating additions is up by 40 per cent. more than the rise in prices. What the hon. Gentleman is referring to is on top of that excellent record. The particular regulation to which he referred, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security made clear a week ago, is at present under review.

During her busy day, has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report stating that the European Parliament is to consider the tattooing of domestic pets? Will she confirm that this will be a complete waste of time by this body and will she confirm that this country will have nothing whatever to do with it?

I thought it was absolutely ridiculous. I hope that the European Assembly has something better to do with its time than that.

Will the Prime Minister now answer the question put to her by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson): why should additional heating allowances be given to the people of southern Ireland [Laughter.]

Order. We all make mistakes.

—to the people of southern England, deprived though they are? Does she not realise that people in Scotland have greeted with incredulity and resentment the announcement made yesterday by her right hon. Friend that large areas of England are to be given these allowances? Is the Prime Minister's message to the people of Scotland that so far as she is concerned they can shiver and die of cold?

That is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it is nonsense. The ordinary heating additions and, indeed, the extraordinary heating additions, amount to some £400 million this year, of which £200 million are paid to pensioners. Of course, the people of Scotland fully participate in and fully receive those heating benefits. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is additions to the £400 million, which are distributed on the same basis—an extra single payment that is distributed when certain objective tests are reached. The hon. Gentleman does not like those objective tests, but they are laid out for everyone to see and to ensure that that regulation is fairly administered. The hon. Gentleman does not like the objective tests. The whole question of the single payment legislation is being considered and reviewed at the moment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the considerable lightening of the atmosphere of East-West relations following the recent talks in Geneva? When she visits President Reagan in the near future, will she take with her the message that the British people have a strong desire for peace and wish to see a substantial reduction in arms expenditure by East and West and a reduction in the armaments that are currently stockpiled?

Yes, we very much welcome the talks between Secretary Shultz and Foreign Minister Gromyko. We welcome the results. There is a long way to go on settling the agendas and deciding the forums in which those talks will take place. We wish them well. Our policy is one of balanced and verifiable arms reduction and we hope to achieve a reduction in the amount spent on weaponry, provided that we always keep balance and verification.