asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the number and percentage of 16-year-olds who, by most educationally recognised criteria, have not benefited from their schooling experience.

We believe that improvements are possible in the standards achieved by the great majority of pupils of all abilities. Our policies for school education are designed to bring about such improvements.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of children do not substantially benefit from their schooling and that this is a sad reflection on some aspects of the teaching profession? Is that not the best possible vindication of the Government's intention to introduce teacher assessment as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend's interpretation is entirely right. We are improving the training of teachers. We are seeking broad national agreement on the objectives of the curriculum. We are bringing in via pilot schemes records of achievement for all school leavers. The system of appraisal to which my hon. Friend referred is entirely right and proper at this stage.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some teachers seem to be unaware that literacy and numeracy are very important? Will my hon. Friend stress to those teachers that a youngster who cannot write a job application without spelling mistakes—he may have left school able in the studies of dance, drama and comparative religion—will not be able to obtain a job in competition with his colleagues who can?

We have always taken the view that, whatever the trends in standards in the past, we must continue to improve the position. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that a child who cannot read or write—whatever his talents or abilities—will suffer in later life. I am sure that teachers generally and those who provide education share that view.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has had any recent discussions with the National Union of Teachers concerning the pay and conditions of its members.

I met the representatives of the National Union of Teachers on 21 January to explore prospects for further joint consideration of performance appraisal for teachers.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he is dealing with a responsible trade union which is protesting about the fact that during four of the past five years the annual salary increase has fallen behind the inflation rate? Why is the right hon. Gentleman not seeking a solution to this problem, bearing in mind that we are witnessing the second year of destruction in the classroom? Has the right hon. Gentleman received advice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this dispute, like the mining dispute, is another worthwhile investment for the nation?

The meeting was to discuss the performance appraisal for teachers. Although we discovered that the National Union of Teachers and I had a considerable amount of common ground, I must tell the House that I remain in favour of a close link between performance and pay. That would require regular appraisal of professional performance. I would certainly welcome a new pay system in which good teachers receive differential rewards. Appraisal can serve a variety of other purposes, such as fostering professional development of teachers and underpinning the more effective management of the teacher force. If progress on appraisal in the context of pay negotiations is too slow—all the evidence points that way—it is my duty to explore the possibilities for progress in other ways.

As there is a need to build into the teacher salary system a proper method of assessment, and as there is still confusion and argument about the actual duties of teachers, should not the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 be drastically amended to take account of the new conditions?

I am not absolutely convinced that we know of a better system to put in its place, but I am ready to listen to suggestions. I know that representatives of the local education authorities will meet me soon to discuss my hon. Friend's proposition.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that much of the grievance is caused by ossification in the structure of education, and that many of those who are most ready to go out on strike are the able teachers who are unable to get promotion? Does he accept that there is a vast amount of goodwill on all sides towards restructuring education? What does he intend to do about coming clean with the teachers about the money that is available?

I accept that the fall in the number of pupils has sharply reduced the promotion prospects for teachers, and that is an added reason why an appraisal system might replace some of the prospects for some of the teachers in the light of changing circumstances due to a fall in the number of chidren at school. As for the potentially increased money that is available, I am aware of the suggestions that an extra 7 per cent. might be available in addition to the increase that might result from annual negotiation. I see no prospect whatsoever of such an increase. I hope that the teaches' leaders will not mislead their members.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no justification for teachers taking action in pusuit of pay demands that harms their pupils? Is he aware that many teachers would prefer it if their professional voice was represented by a general teaching council and not by a union that has imported values that are properly alien to the teaching profession?

I agree that, for the vast majority of teachers, it must be almost unthinkable to damage the education prospects of children in their charge. As for a general teaching council, the Government are willing to listen to arguments in its favour, but I am not convinced that it is automatically a force for good. I remain to be convinced.

Do not the Conservative Government think that there is never any justification for any group of people taking action? Does not a vote of 12,000 out of 14,000 in the 23 areas, because they have fallen behind since Houghton by over 30 per cent., show that teachers have been driven to desperation, and that that is why they are taking action? Why does the Minister want to wed the wage demand to the restructuring when these people need the money now and he could do the restructuring at another time?

The employers have made it clear that 4 per cent. is as much as they can afford. Capacity to pay must be the paramount consideration in pay settlements. I know that this is unpalatable to the teachers, but it remains an inescapable reality.

Bearing in mind that the third largest teachers union — the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association—has decided this week not to take strike action, does my right hon. Friend agree that ways must be found to give fairer representation to those unions that are acting in the best interests of professional teaching?

From time to time the constitution of the Burnham committee comes up for consideration by the holder of my office, particularly when applications for the membership to be reconsidered are made in the light of changed factors. I am open to suggestions that that time may come before long, but I am not convinced that that has happened yet.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that this is the second successive year when he will have presided over disrupted classrooms and a demoralised and undervalued profession? Does he not understand that it is his job to bring the parties — the teachers and the employers—together? Why does he not arrange to see both parties immediately?

Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that what the negotiating machinery should be is laid down in statute. It is not for me to intervene in that statutory process. As for the second year of disruption, I should have thought that that added to the arguments for the teachers to consider seriously the proposals, in some form, that have been laid before them by the employers, although I must again repeat that the amount of money that might be available which I have seen quoted is wholly misleading.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in resolving the teachers' salary claim; and if he will make a statement.

On 28 January the teachers panel rejected the management panel's offer of a 4 per cent. pay increase and refused arbitration. A further meeting of the Burnham committee was held on 11 February but no agreement was reached.

Given the damage that will be done to children's education, will my right hon. Friend appeal even to the members of the National Union of Teachers not to join in this militant action while negotiations are still alive, and will he give us some idea of the actual salary claim that has been submitted by the NUT?

I certainly appeal to the teachers not to disrupt the interests of the children in their charge. I believe that many teachers, even those who belong to the unions that have suggested disruption, will think many times before taking disruptive action. As for the evaluation of the teachers' pay claim, I have seen estimates which suggest that it might cost as much as 50 per cent. of the present remuneration of teachers, but lesser figures have also been canvassed.

Will the Secretary of State accept that in addition to the 23 local education authority areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), in which three days' industrial action is to take place next week in pursuit of the teachers' pay claim, many thousands of other teachers will also refuse to cover for absent colleagues and make voluntary contributions at lunchtime and after school to the duties they perform in the schools in which they work. Will the Secretary of State therefore advise his political friends on Solihull district council that since those duties are voluntary and are not part of the teachers' contract, the district council should not be proposing to take the NUT to court under the Trade Union Act 1984.

Such decisions are entirely for the local education authorities concerned, but the teachers ought to consider whether it is in their interests, in seeking higher esteem as professionals, to disrupt the education of the children in their charge. I believe that the vast majority of teachers will not do it.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that ordinary teachers are aware of the possibilities of enhancement that could come from restructuring? Does this not also cast a light on the effectiveness of the present Burnham structure?

I think that there has been a misconception and that it has sometimes been encouraged by some of the teachers' unions. Some form of teaching assessment, preferably associated with pay, might enhance the career development of teachers and improve the deployment of teachers by their employers, for the benefit of all the children.

Will the Secretary of State be more constructive this afternoon and recognise that teachers do an extremely difficult job, that they do it very well and that since Houghton their pay has fallen by 30 per cent.? Will he also recognise that it is a good pay claim, that teachers are worth paying properly in the interests of our children and that he ought therefore to intervene to resolve this dispute?

I certainly recognise that teaching is a hard job and that most teachers try to do it as effectively as possible. I accept that in the years immediately after Houghton while a Labour Government were in power the benefit of that pay increase was rapidly and dramatically eroded. Since the Tory Government came into office in 1979, teachers have had an actual increase in real pay. If they were to get anything like the increase which they are now seeking, the result would be an increase in unemployment, the level of which we already very much deplore.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the NUT has clearly indicated that it will continue strike action during the examination period? Is this not a dereliction of the duty of teachers to look after the interests of every pupil?

I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the situation. I cannot believe that most teachers would wish to do such damage and, indeed, I hope that the NUT has not given such guidance.

While understanding the constitutional position, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he is perfectly entitled to call the parties in and to tell them how much money is available?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would join me in expressing what I am sure is a genuine feeling, that disruption of children's education is in no way justified. There is a negotiating machinery, and I have no right to call the parties in to negotiate. The employers have made it plain that 4 per cent. is the most that they can afford, and that is the inescapable reality.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has issued any guidance to local education authorities in relation to the impact upon the education of children under 16 years of age of their taking paid employment.

No, Sir.

I am grateful to the Minister for that lengthy answer. Against the background of the recent Low Pay Unit report, which showed extensive and occasionally illegal part-time employment of children under the age of 16, will the Minister consider reviewing, and possibly extending, the power of local education authorities so that they may intervene in circumstances where it is clear that such employment is damaging the education of the individual child?

I am aware of the allegations in the recent Low Pay Unit report "Working Children" about the illegal employment of children. Clear responsibilities are already laid on parents, employers and local education authorities. I understand that most local authorities now follow the lines of a circular issued in 1976, and we have no further plans.

Is not the recent activity in some schools of children under 16, picketing and threatening to strike, indicative of an attempt to copy those in paid employment, such as teachers, who are supposed to be teaching those children?

I am not entirely sure whether my hon. Friend's question follows from the answer I have just given. None the less, the point can validly be made that if teachers wish to set an example they must carefully consider the action that they propose to take, both in and out of school.

Does the Minister accept that many children no longer get full benefit from their education because of family poverty and that some children take extemely badly paid part-time jobs, either at early or very late hours, which do not allow them to get the full benefit from their education? Will he press the local authorities to enforce the legislation so that youngsters cannot be exploited in this way?

It is always of concern to us if laws to protect the welfare of children are not properly enforced. Employers have a duty to obey the law, and parents have the primary responsibility for the welfare of their children. Therefore, it is not just the local education authorities who have a responsibility in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the change in the annual incomes in real terms of universities since 1979; and whether the income of Oxford university has changed in the same way as the average for all universities.

The annual recurrent income from all sources of universities in Great Britain increased by 10·8 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1982–83. The corresponding increase for the University of Oxford was 9·3 per cent. The figures do not allow a true comparison between years because of changes in funding arrangements during the period and the provision of additional funds for reductions in staff.

Given that there has been higher spending on education in real terms under this Government, including spending on Oxford university and its lecturers' salaries, was it not deplorable that that university's congregation recently decided not to confer the traditional honorary degree on the Prime Minister—its most famous daughter—on the spurious ground of education cuts and without a proper study of the facts?

The House will recall the observation that no cause should be considered lost until the University of Oxford has espoused it.

Does the Minister understand the bafflement of those universities which have a technological specialisation who appear to have been singled out particularly for loss of income, when they believe they are doing a good job to enhance the economic structure of the country?

It is true that the University Grants Committee in 1981 exercised discrimination between various institutions, but it is also true that Loughborough and Bath, which were previously colleges of advanced technology, were beneficiaries when others were not.

Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any relationship between the amount of money that taxpayers give to Oxford and what comes out of that university?

The late Richard Crossman used to say that Whitehall and Westminster were dominated by Oxford because there was a better train service to Oxford than to Cambridge, but the House will recall the observation of Hazlitt:

"You will hear more good things on the outside of a stagecoach from London to Oxford than if you were to pass a twelvemonth with the under-graduates, or heads of colleges, of that famous university."

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at secondary schools in England in real terms in 1979 and in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Local education authorities in England spent an average of £850 per secondary pupil in 1979–80 and £945 in 1982–83, the latest year for which firm figures are available. Both figures are at 1982–83 prices.

Do these figures not make nonsense of the Opposition's claims about education cuts? Does my hon. Friend think that the increase in expenditure per secondary school pupil has been accompanied by an improvement in standards?

I am pleased to tell the House that under this Government since 1979 spending per child per year on education has increased in real terms, allowing for inflation. Expenditure per child is at an all-time record. We have not cut spending per child, but have increased it. Much of that increase has gone on improving the pupil-teacher ratio to another all-time record. What matters is how effectively we spend the available money and the standards that are achieved.

Is the Minister not deceiving himself and possibly deceiving the House when he tries to pretend that things are improving under the present regime? May I remind him that with high unemployment and poverty there are greater demands for free school meals and necessary clothing? Is he aware that last year the cost of books went up by 15 per cent. and the cost of paper by 18 per cent.? In view of all that, how can we be improving education?

I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Inspectorate made it clear in its reports on the effects upon education provision of local education authority expenditure policies that there is no simple relationship between expenditure on the one hand and the quality of education and the achievement of pupils on the other. The major message is that better use could be made of available resources, given more efficient management at the level of local education authority and school alike.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends to meet teacher trade unions to discuss the introduction of teacher assessments.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to introduce teacher assessment.

Following my discussion with representives of the National Union of Teachers on 21 January the Department is consulting the other teacher associations and the local authority associations to explore the prospects for further joint consideration of the appraisal of teachers' performance.

Does my right hon. Friend notice the almost universal welcome for his proposals on teachers' assessment? Does he not think it essential that annual assessment should be linked to pay increments? Does he agree that the vast majority of teachers would welcome such a move, even if the unrepresentative leaders of the NUT would not?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there must be a large number of teachers who would welcome at least discussion of the possibility. I remind the House that the Government stand ready to make available some taxpayers' and ratepayers' money for the carrying out of pilot schemes on the workability of appraisal systems.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in assessing the quality of staff in schools the head teacher's role is fundamental and that, therefore, the highest quality of head teacher should be appointed, who should then be given more freedom than is currently the case to dismiss those members of staff who are not coming up to scratch?

I agree with the first two limbs of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As for the third, it is important that head teachers and others concerned should be able more systematically to use in-service training for the benefit of teachers who can be improved in their effectiveness thereby.

Why do the Government believe that substantial extra resources should be given to the already well-off by way of tax cuts to make them work more effectively, but that teachers' salaries should be reduced substantially to make them work more effectively?

There is no question of reducing teachers' salaries, which have kept pace with inflation in real terms since 1979. The hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the current emphasis on tax cuts, which many of my hon. Friends believe should go to raise the tax threshold and thus to increase the net earnings of those on all levels of pay.

How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to assess teachers when a late hon. Friend of mine had a brother-in-law who obtained two double firsts in English at Cambridge university and who was employed at his local grammar school, where it was widely accepted that he could not teach for toffee?

The assessment would need to be by people who could judge the effectiveness in the classroom of each teacher, which would mean including the head teacher, the head of department, the teacher's own peers and representatives of the local education authority. The Government propose to run pilot schemes to assess the best way to carry out the appraisal. I hope that hon. Members will remember that there are many callings where assessment is regular and taken for granted.

Will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to the unions that there are serious problems with the teachers' career structure? Does he agree that with the tremendous collapse of the birthrate and the reduction in promotional posts in schools, it is vitally important to have some form of discriminatory assessment that gives encouragement to the best teachers?

I agree with every word of that supplementary question. Even if the pay factor were not considered, the necessity for some system of appraisal to improve the use of in-service training is itself a strong argument for it.

How much extra money will be available to support a new structure system?

I have told the world of education and the House several times that if the employers of teachers and the teachers' associations agree on a system that I can fully accept as negotiable, affordable and good for education, I shall be willing to take the agreement to my colleagues, though I have always emphasised that I cannot guarantee that my colleagues will make the necessary money available.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the total income, at 1985 prices, from grants and fees to Oxford university in 1979; and what it is estimated to be in the current year.

The total income of Oxford university, from recurrent grant allocated by the University Grants Committee and from university tuition fees for home full-time students, increased in real terms from £46·2 million in the academic year 1979–80 to an estimated £46·9 million in the academic year 1984–85. These data are in 1983–84 cost terms. The figures are not strictly comparable because of certain changes in funding arrangements over the period.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures, and other comparative figures which are available, suggest a continuing preferential treatment for Oxford university? In view of the declining reputation of that university — [Interruption] — is he prepared to reconsider resource allocation in the higher education sector so as to give a better deal to modern and progressive universities in the north of England, such as Bradford and Salford?

In an earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) I explained that the University of Oxford had done less well than the generality of universities. It is now nearly 50 years since we had a Cambridge man in Downing street. If the University of Oxford insists on committing hubris, we run the risk of being visited with the nemesis of another Cambridge man.

Will the Minister accept that while we, at least at face value, accept his figures, some of us have had our faith in higher education restored by the Oxford decision, and in this case believe that it is money well spent?

I see the rhythm of the questions running. The funding issues are complex. I regret sometimes that they are not quite as well understood in the University of Oxford as elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, having considered the views of the seven voluntary organisations representing deaf and blind children, he is now in a position to make a statement on the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers' report on teacher training and special educational needs.

My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales are still considering the report of the committee. When reaching their decisions they will take account of the views of the seven organisations to which the hon. Member refers.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the ACSET report caused considerable concern among teachers of the visually and orally handicapped? Will he now recognise that he should announce as quickly as possible that special qualifications will continue to be required? Will he further recognise that the move towards care in non-specialist schools should not be used by the Government as a means of downgrading standards, and that special schools and special teachers will continue to be required on a proper scale?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's sincere interest in this matter. Our aim at all times is to improve standards. I am afraid that he must wait a little longer before my right hon. Friends are in a position to make an announcement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that not only those involved in the training of teachers of the deaf but the parents of deaf children are very concerned about the proposals in the ACSET report, and that the sooner the fears that have been raised are laid to rest, the better?

I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago. We have been made fully aware by hon. Members and directly of the concern that parents, teachers and those responsible for the provision of education for the deaf and blind feel about the proposals. Again, the House must wait a little longer before we are in a position to make an announcement.

Will the Minister acknowledge that deaf and blind children have special educational needs, and that removing the mandatory requirement for special educational qualifications for their teachers can be justified only if the special education need is removed? Since, in the nature of the case, that is impossible, it would be quite wrong to remove this specialist qualification for teachers of blind and deaf children.

The House will know of the right hon. Gentleman's deep feelings on this matter. However, I must remind the House that the ACSET report on teacher training and special educational needs included a wide variety of recommendations on training generally and on the staffing of schools. The House will understand, I am sure, that these recommendations and the comments that my right hon. Friends have received deserve careful consideration.

Would my hon. Friend care to count the number of times that he has given a virtually identical answer to this question? While it is accepted that these matters must take some time, would he spare a thought for those teachers in deaf units and deaf schools whose anxieties seem to them to have been held in suspense for a very long time?

I note the views of my hon. Friend, but again I must ask him to be patient. We are fully aware of the uncertainty over the proposals and the need to reach an early resolution of them. We shall do the House and the education service no benefit if we rush into early decisions which might in themselves cause a deterioration of the service provided.

Will the Minister accept that at present there is great uncertainty in the universities and other places providing specialist courses and that he must make a statement urgently? Is he aware that particular alarm is felt by all those involved in special education, in that the Government's White Paper on public expenditure refers to cutting expenditure on special education by approximately 10 per cent. in real terms, when the number of children involved is falling by approximately only 1 per cent.?

Because opinion was so divided on some of the recommendations that were made, we felt it necessary to take a great deal of time in considering the proposals and their effects on those who teach the deaf and the blind. None the less, I note the views of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implication of the White Paper on public expenditure, Cmnd. 9428, for education provision.

Provision for local authority current expenditure on education in 1985–86 is increased by nearly £300 million over previous plans, when allowance is made for the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the transfer of some funds to the Manpower Services Commission. For universities, additional resources have been provided for the improvement on a selective basis of science equipment in universities, but planned recurrent expenditure is slightly reduced as a consequence of the revised pay assumption.

Why does the Minister behave like Pontius Pilate in blaming local authorities for his own actions? Surely he is calling the tune because he is refusing to pay the piper. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, for instance, in the White Paper there is an 11·3 per cent. cut in revenue for special education provision for those in most need, the disabled and the handicapped, and a dramatic cut in capital expenditure for provision for the under-fives, when only about 40 per cent. of them can participate is such education? Does not the right hon. Gentleman not accept that — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] You would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that as honours have been heaped upon me by my school, unlike other hon. Members, they would listen with some respect. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have raised the subject enough today. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the provisions in the Government's public expenditure White Paper mark an attack on education provision?

The hon. Gentleman is forgetting, while he sits back smirking with self-satisfaction—

I am listening.

The hon. Gentleman is forgetting, first, that there is still a fall in the number of children in schools, secondly, that there is an unallocated margin in addition to that shown for education, part of which will be spent on education; and thirdly, that I announced in my answer to him an increase of £300 million.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that much of the money that is set aside in the White Paper for education provision will go to secondary school pupils between the age of 11 and 16 who will not take their places at school because they are hard-core truants? Is there not a link between hard-core truancy and teenage crime? Will my right hon. Friend set about discussing with colleagues in the Home Office how that evil can be stamped out?

I accept much of what my hon. Friend says. The Government hope to publish soon proposals to improve the effectiveness of the education welfare service.

Is it not possible to get a sensible answer from the Secretary of State? How does he reconcile the answer that he has just given with his recent decision to refuse permission to Northumberland county council to build a high school in Cramlington?

In order to reduce the risks of yet higher unemployment by overspending, the Government are restraining the capital allocations for local education authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the number of children in school by 1 January 1987.

By January 1987, some 7·5 million children are projected to be in schools in England.

While accepting that the quality of teachers may be more important than their quantity, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that it is the policy of his Department to go on improving pupil-teacher ratios even though school rolls may continue to fall?

We are of the opinion that money saved on taking surplus places out of use can best be spent within the school to improve facilities and the pupil-teacher ratio. In that sense, I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he anticipates publication of the Government's discussion document on student finance.

That has yet to be finally decided, but I hope that the consultative paper will be published during the first half of the year.

Is not the present system desperately unfair as between students, in that some get a full grant and some do not get a full grant and do not get it made up? Will the Government consider taking the amount of money that is available and spreading it equally among students and allowing them to make up the difference from some sponsor, from work or by borrowing from the bank, the banks having been spoken to and persuaded by the Government that they should bring forward a loans scheme?

It would be wrong for me to anticipate the terms of the consultative document, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will be disappointed by the breadth of the options that we offer.

Will the Minister accept that in many parts of the country even highly qualified graduates are facing long periods of unemployment? How would they be able to repay loans with which he may favour them and to which his hon. Friend has referred?

I was not in any way prejudging or prejudicing how the consultative paper will be written, but I am encouraged that prospects for graduates have improved significantly during the current year.

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

This morning I had meetings with my ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the TUC. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be leaving for Washington this afternoon.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the steady improvement in the employment prospects of YTS trainees on completing their courses? Does she agree that the success of this scheme is an indication of the major practical steps that the Government are taking to alleviate youth unemployment?

Yes, the scheme is a great success. I understand that now, on average, some 75 per cent. of leavers from YTS are either finding a job or going into further education. In some particular forms of training the figure is even higher. For example, in construction and hotel and catering, 90 per cent. are finding jobs straight away.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement to the House that British service men were not used as guinea pigs during the atomic tests in the South Pacific in the early 1950s with the evidence given to the Australian Royal Commission that service men were made to lie in and run, walk and crawl through radioactive dust.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until that commission has completed its work. I am sure he is pleased to know that we have done everything to assist its inquiry, releasing as many documents as we possibly call.

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

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

When will the right hon. Lady come to the House with a serious proposition to alleviate the plight of pensioners with regard to heating? Will she take into account the new situation that has arisen over the last weekend, whereby poor families are now being exposed to the danger of hypothermia?

The scale of help with heating bills has increased considerably under this Government — by 40 per cent. more than the rise in fuel bills. Spending is now £400 million, of which £200 million goes to pensioner households. With regard to the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raised, I understand that the inquest into this tragic case will be held tomorrow, and until the result is known it would be wrong to comment.

In her discussions with President Reagan, will my right hon. Friend stress the need for international contingency plans to deal with the possible short-term collapse of the dollar? From a strategic point of view, will she stress how absurd it would be for the strongest economy in the world to resort to protectionist measures?

We shall be putting the latter point very strongly. Such a move would affect the United States' traditional trading partners and it is also true that many developing countries need trade as much as they need aid. With regard to what would happen if there were a sudden collapse of the dollar, I believe, with my right hon. Friend, that the consequences could be very brutal if that happened and we shall, of course, be pointing that out.

With regard to the right hon. Lady's visit to the United States, I wish, first, to endorse yet again, and very firmly, the condemnation that she has again offered of the supply of arms to Northern Ireland as a result of funding from the United States of America.

"I would rather be in our position, which is sustainable, than in that of United States". — [Official Report, 8 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 462.]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support—I had expected nothing else—on the Noraid matter. It will help me in my discussions in the United States of America to be able to say that all parts of the House are united on this matter.

I am beginning to think that the right hon. Lady is not the President's No. 1 fan after all. In the 14 months since she made the statement that I quoted earlier, unemployment in the United States has gone down by 1·1 million while in Britain it has risen by 150,000; its industrial production has risen by more than 6 per cent. while ours has gone down by 1·3 per cent.; our interest rates have risen by 55 per cent. while those in the United States have gone down by 10 per cent. If the right hon. Lady is a real fan, does she not realise that, in these matters at least, emulation might be the sincerest form of flattery?

President Reagan is fortunate in one respect — there is no danger of Socialism in America. Secondly, that country has never had the extent of nationalisation or regulation. Thirdly, there is an enterprise culture. Fourthly, America has never had the union problems with which we have had to deal.

When my right hon. Friend meets the President, will she stress that while there is very strong support within the House and country for the deployment of missiles in the United Kingdom to meet our NATO commitments, we nevertheless look forward to a constructive outcome of the disarmament negotiations in Geneva?

I think that it is our strength that has brought back the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. We are greatly indebted to Secretary Shultz for his excellent diplomatic skill in getting negotiations going again. We share my hon. Friend's wish for a reduction in the number of nuclear arms.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister have regard to the problems facing many old people and widows throughout the country, but especially in the north of England, and give a commitment that heating allowances will be adequate to maintain warmth in homes? Will she take on board the example of people like Kathie Berrie, a widow in my constituency, who receives an additional 30p a day heating allowance to heat a three-bedroomed house? Will the right hon. Lady stop fudging the issue and provide heating allowances commensurate with the needs of the people?

This Government have not fudged the issue—they have provided 40 per cent. more for heating bills over and above inflation, more than any previous Government have done. That is a record of which we are very proud.

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

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

When my right hon. Friend meets the President of the United States later today, will she commend the United States Administration for their effective intervention recently in the foreign exchange markets to stabilise the dollar? However, will she also respectfully remind him that the only permanent solution to the problem of the high dollar is to solve the American federal budget deficit?

As my hon. Friend knows, that intervention was pursuant to the Williamsburg agreement from the economic summit held at Williamsburg in 1983. It was also pursuant to the agreement reached between all G5 countries. It is there to make certain that speculators never know whether there will be an intervention, and therefore to help with preventing the resurgence of the dollar as strongly as might otherwise happen. I agree that the deficit is a fundamental problem and I fully support the views of those in the Congress and the Administration who earnestly want to take action to reduce it.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind as she travels today with a message about Noraid that, in Northern Ireland today, many people are mourning the death of a brave prison officer who was brutally murdered on Sunday? Will she tell those who support the IRA that that is the result of their support? Will she bear in mind that many Roman Catholics are serving in the security forces at various levels and are paying the price for so doing?

I shall gladly convey that message with all the strength at my command. That was a particularly cruel and brutal murder, which should be a disgrace in any part of the world.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the large majority in favour of the Second Reading of the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill? Does she agree that there is widespread public support for that measure and that the sooner it reaches the statute book, the better?

It is a significant Bill and a significant majority. The Government took a neutral position to enable the House, in the customary way in these matters, to express its view according to conscience. I believe that that was absolutely right.

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

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

As the Prime Minister goes to North America on her expenses-paid trip—[Interruption.] She is surely not paying for herself. When she reflects on her 10 years as Leader of the Conservative party, which of her Government's policies will she think is most to blame for the 3·5 million unemployed?

I really do not think that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question warrants an answer. Everybody in the House who travels on duty or as a member of the Government justifiably travels on expenses, but the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I am staying the minimum amount of time. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I believe that we have been prepared to tackle fundamentally issues which other Governments have shirked.

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

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

What is the Prime Minister's assessment of the possibilities of a settlement of the pits dispute, following her discussions this morning?

We put out a brief statement after those talks, which it might be helpful for me to read to the hon Gentleman. It states:

"The Prime Minister, accompanied by the Lord President and the Secretaries of State for Energy and Employment, met representatives of the TUC led by their General Secretary Mr. Norman Willis for one hour today. The TUC reported on their efforts to promote a settlement of the coal dispute. The Prime Minister expressed appreciation for the TUC's efforts. She said that a settlement was long overdue. The Prime Minister said that the views of the TUC would be conveyed to the National Coal Board by the Secretary of State for Energy. The Government wanted an early resolution of the strike but any agreement must deal clearly and unambiguously with the central point of the dispute."

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

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

When my right hon. Friend visits Washington, will she stress to the American people that the whole House condemns the IRA? Will she illustrate to those foolish Americans who fund Noraid that it leads to the murder of Irishmen by Irishmen, as was the case with Mr. Patrick Kerr who was savagely murdered in front of his children while going out of the Catholic cathedral this Sunday?

Yes, Sir. I shall try, once again, to do all of that. I shall try to do as much as I can to prevent any money coining through Noraid. It is also important to stress that the IRA does not represent the Republic—indeed, the organisation is banned in the Republic—and that it is fundamentally against democracy.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that I would have been disappointed if my question had not been reached? In view of the talks that started today in Vienna, is she worried about the increase in the flow of arms to the middle east and about the fact that military expenditure is costing £300 per person in that region, which is three times as much as it costs in the rest of the world? Will she use her influence when she meets the President to ensure that stability is restored in that part of the world and that the flow of arms is reduced?

The middle east is one of the subjects that I must and will take up with the President. The occasions when an initiative can be taken are comparatively few. I believe that this is one of them and that it is the President's intention to take up the initiative that he announced in a famous speech in December 1982.