asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teachers' pay dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teachers' pay dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the outstanding issues in the teachers' dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the current position in the teachers' dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the latest position in the teachers' dispute.

The teachers' panel of the Burnham committee met on 5 December and resolved to seek an early resumption of negotiations. The management panel met on 11 December and agreed to undertake further informal discussions with the teachers' side. Discussions are taking place today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families are desperately worried by the serious and permanent damage that is being inflicted on their children by the dispute? Is he further aware that while many of them recognise that the intransigence of the NUT has brought about the situation, they look to the Government in general and to my right hon. Friend in particular to take a lead in bringing about an early solution to the problem?

Yes, and some of the teachers' unions could end the disruption today. The Government have taken an initiative in the conditional offer that they have made.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are two unyielding obstacles—the determination of the teachers to prolong the dispute and the non-availability of resources to make an increased pay settlement in 1985? Will he equip himself with the powers necessary to pursue the objectives which he rightly has, and bring an end to this damaging dispute?

If the Government sought to equip themselves with powers, I doubt whether that would immediately end the disruption.

Mr. Alan Howarth.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question is No. 2 on the Order Paper and I was informed that my question would be taken with question No. 1.

The mistake is entirely mine. Mr. Hancock.

Will the Secretary of State say whether responsibility for settling the teachers' dispute has been taken out of his hands by the Prime Minister? Will he inform the House what proposals she has laid before him for any solution to the dispute and of any initiative coming from her?

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The Government have no new initiatives to put before the House.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's desire that, as resources become available, teachers' salaries should more adequately reflect the great importance of their responsibilities and their high professional standards, but that one of the conditions for teachers enjoying such a high professional standing is that they should forswear the disruption of their pupils' education?

I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. To ensure the recruitment and retention of the right quality of persons as teachers and effective teaching, the Government see it as necessary to provide an adequate pay and career structure.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious anxiety now being displayed by parents at the effective abandonment of children during lunchtime in many areas by the teachers' unions' withdrawal of supervision? Is he aware of the problems in Newcastle where, in some areas, children have been threatened with sexual abuse and assaulted during lunchtime because there is no supervision? What steps is he taking to ensure that local authorities use their maximum powers to ensure that alternative arrangements are made at lunchtime to provide supervision for those children?

The House will be aware that the Government have introduced a Bill to enable local education authorities to make alternative and effective arrangements for midday supervision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Teachers has taken special selective action in the constituencies of some Members to whose views it has taken exception? Does he agree that that is an especially nasty and vindictive form of attack on innocent children?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is only a fraction worse than the general indifference to children's welfare shown by some teacher unions.

The Minister says that the unions could end the dispute overnight. Why does he not say that the reality is that the Government could end the dispute overnight? Despite his gerrymandering of the Burnham committee, the teachers' unity will continue for a long time after Christmas because of the Government's intransigence in failing to pay teachers a professional wage and refusing to give them the status that they should have, which would be the way to get children back to school. He knows that as well as the House does.

Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in ignoring the fact that after a mere 20 minutes the National Union of Teachers and other teachers' unions rejected the Government's initiative when they offered substantial increases, conditionally, of pay for good teachers?

Did the Secretary of State mean what he said when he told the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the Government have no intention of taking any initiative to bring this dispute to a halt?

The Government have taken an initiative which the teachers' unions could request the employers to pick up again tomorrow if they wished.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the NUT's demands, which if responded to by him would settle the dispute, are entirely reasonable? It has asked for the cost of living during the current financial year to be taken into account, for the relativities between teachers and other professions to be restored, that there should be an element in the settlement to take account of the fact that teachers have fallen far behind others, and that he should give a commitment that there will be an attempt in future years to restore teachers' salaries to the level of Houghton? Is that not reasonable?

No, Sir. The NUT walked out of negotiations in December 1984 which might have provided additional finance from taxpayers for the current year.

Why does the Secretary of State have a one-track mind? There are two arguments in this. Why does he not stop interfering, and let the unions negotiate and settle the matter? They will win in the end.

It would be extremely satisfatory if some Opposition Members spoke up for the children.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recently saw a deputation of parents whose children had refused to attend a detention imposed on them for misbehaving during the teachers' strike? Is that not understandable, but sad, silly and tragic? Has not the time come for teachers to stop damaging children's education and to go back to work, and for a proper inquiry, not just into pay, but into pay and conditions, to be held?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I am not convinced that an inquiry, however broad, would automatically bring this disruption immediately to an end.

Is the Minister aware that of the many teachers whom I have met and who are now in dispute, every one regrets having to take what he or she regards as necessary action to protect his or her profession and rights? Is he further aware that the teachers deeply resent the sort of allegation that he has seen fit to make again today, that they do not look after the welfare of the children, about whom they care deeply, but that that does not present them from trying to ensure that their profession has a decent life and continues to attract the first-class people whom the Minister would wish it to attract?

The teachers are men and women given by God free will, and it is their decision to disrupt children's education. There is no question of having to do that.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that while nothing can excuse the victimisation of children that is taking place on such a wide scale, and while only the teachers can give a status to their profession, there is real merit in my right hon. Friend considering during the recess the suggestion made by his predecessor, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who suggested the establishment of a review body to consider the whole issue, on condition that further action was immediately called off?

The behaviour of teachers is not such as to recommend the Government to consider a review body. Moreover, it is perfectly possible for the employers and teachers to agree on pay that rewards good teachers, recruits and retains people of the right quality, and which is affordable.

Does the Secretary of State genuinely believe that he is doing enough to settle the teachers' dispute?

If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions that would be affordable, would achieve the Government's purposes, and would end the disruption, I would gladly listen to them or read them. Of the options available to the Government, I believe that the right one is to persuade the teachers to do their duty by the children and to finish the disruption now.

Would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the attitude of the general secretary of the NUT when in a 20-minute address to the Back-Bench education committee he never once mentioned the effect of the dispute on the children, whom we should consider primarily, nor its financial effect? Many of us see other areas for expenditure in the education service, such as on improvement in the capitation allowance, and in buildings, and on welfare in schools.

I would not be surprised if that were true, and I am sure that the gentleman concerned remains self-righteous despite it.

With the dispute now in its 11th month, is it not about time that the Secretary of State took a fresh initiative? He has not moved since the beginning of August to try to end the disruption in our schools. Why does he not establish an independent fast-acting inquiry on teachers' pay, which many of us have been urging on him for many months?

The employers also asked for an inquiry and the Government considered such ideas, but there is no reason to expect that an inquiry would automatically end the current disruption. I hope that the hon. Gentleman tries to bring the same persuasive power to bear on the teachers as he does on the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet decided on the level of future British contributions to the CERN project.

My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision in this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the CERN project is a rare example of a successful European collaborative venture that which will help to keep Europe in the forefront of world science? Does he agree that if we alone reduce our contribution we shall send all the wrong signals to the many other European countries involved, as well as damaging the project itself?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question and one of the first things that I did was to go to visit CERN for myself. It is a centre of excellence. It is no part of our intention to damage it, but we have taken serious note of Professor Kendrew's recommendations, and in his view it will be possible to save 25 per cent. of the expenses. I reaffirmed in my contacts with member states that the Government continue to place the highest priority on European collaboration.

Why did the hon. Gentleman say last night that it would be wrong to make a hasty judgment?

Because that is self-evidently the truth. Professor Kendrew reported in June. I am undertaking a round of consultations and so far I have talked to nine of the 13 Ministers of member states. That is not evidence of hasty judgments.

Are there not grave implications for international co-operative ventures such as might come with SDI? Would it not be more sensible to invest money than to withdraw from something as valuable as CERN?

Not for the first time, I fail to see the connection between two propositions that the hon. Gentleman has put.

Is the Minister's proposal for a joint independent review of CERN similar to that of the Kendrew committee, or is he considering a wider international review of particle physics research, in which the United States and the Soviet Union might participate? Does not the latter course open up wider possibilities of international co-operation?

For the moment, our objective is to secure a radical review of the CERN operations, but against a mental background of the kind recommended by the hon. Gentleman. I noted carefully the thoughtful comments that he made on this subject in last night's debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will institute an inquiry into the arrangements for the remuneration of teachers and their conditions of service.

On 11 December the management panel restated its view that a Royal Commission or some other kind of inquiry should be established to look into teachers' pay, structure, conditions of service and negotiating machinery. Naturally I will give careful consideration to that request, but I have to say that it is difficult to see how such action would produce an early resolution of the present dispute in view of the union's insistence on a settlement for 1985 without conditions, at a level which the employers cannot afford.

While I hope that good sense will prevail, particularly on the part of the NUT leadership and the dispute will be brought to an end, I should like my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming. Is there any good reason why he should not set up a short inquiry now, irrespective of whether the negotiations are successful, and in linking conditions of service and pay have such an inquiry, whether or not with the co-operation of the NUT?

It is not self-evident that such an inquiry would bring to an end the present disruption. Discussions are taking place this afternoon between the employers and the teachers' representatives. I do not want to pin too much hope on what might emerge from the discussions this afternoon, but I repeat that an inquiry would not necessarily end the disruption.

The Secretary of State said earlier that this was a bitter and damaging dispute, and he referred to initiatives. Does he agree that it was his initial initiative and the requirement to link appraisal and pay that has caused the length and bitterness of this dispute? Is not the Secretary of State's initiative responsible, therefore, for a high proportion of the bitterness and damage to which he referred?

No, indeed not. I do not for a moment believe that my modest suggestion, which is agreed in principle by so many teachers as well as by so many members of the public, has any part to play in this dispute.

I accept the constraints under which the employers must operate in this dispute, but is it not a fact that there is a great shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Is not this shortage likely to continue until arrangements can be made to make salaries attractive to graduates in those disciplines?

Most certainly yes. One of the advantages of the offer that the employers made on 12 September, with the help of conditional additional money from the taxpayers, was precisely that it would have enabled employers to offer relatively attractive salaries to teachers who are in short supply.

Whenever it is suggested that an independent inquiry of some kind should be set up—a suggestion that comes from both sides of the House and from outside—why does the Secretary of State keep on repeating, parrot fashion, the phrase, "It is not self-evident that such an inquiry would end the present disruption"? Nobody is suggesting that it would, but just because it is not self-evident to the Secretary of State, must everybody else therefore be ignored? Why will he not shift just a little bit to meet the views of many people, of all persuasions, and make some kind of movement to resolve the present dispute?

It is an indication of the irrationality of some of the unions involved in the dispute that makes the right hon. Gentleman accept the possibility that even an inquiry would not bring to an end the destructive damage that is being caused by the dispute to the education of children. It is often in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if introduced, an inquiry would end the disruption. I believe that it is right to say that that is not self-evident.

Is it not time, after 11 months of dispute, that the teacher trade unions made use of the good offices of ACAS to try to resolve the dispute? Even though the full-scale intervention of ACAS would not necessarily end the dispute, it should lead, first, to a lowering of the temperature and, secondly, to an end to the industrial trouble while ACAS does its best to solve the problem. Why do the trade unions not go to ACAS and be seen to be trying to solve the problem?

My hon. Friend makes very sensible suggestions, but they are, alas, for the trade unions and the teachers concerned, not for the Government.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and people outside, will be deeply depressed by what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon. Why does he not put an end to the Government's muddle, indecision and inactivity over the teachers' dispute and announce that he has decided upon and agreed to set up an independent inquiry?

For the umpteenth time—because I do not believe that it would fulfil the hopes of many hon. Members, and of many outside the House, who imagine that the teacher unions would then behave reasonably.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to restore the student grant, in real terms, to its 1979–80 value.

No, Sir.

Will the Under-Secretary admit that yesterday's decision to increase student grants this year by only 2 per cent. will mean that by next year students will have sustained a cut in real terms of 20 per cent. since 1979, and that yesterday's decision to reduce students' housing benefit, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit during short vacations will mean that in real terms £14 million will be cut from students' allowances during the next year, making a net saving to the Government of £20 million? Does he not accept that he is surreptitiously introducing by the back door the provisions of his Green Paper, against the wishes of his own Back Benchers?

I accept—because it is incontrovertible —that over the years there has been a cut in the grant to students, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that the number of students in this country is at an all-time high. Secondly, he must accept that students in this country benefit from the most generous system of support in the Western world. Thirdly, he must accept that the cost of that support must be shared among students, parents and the taxpayer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that our student grant system is the envy of many students throughout the world, who are expected to make a much greater contribution towards their education? Will he undertake again to review the possibility of introducing a loan system, which works perfectly satisfactorily in many other civilised, developed countries?

Let me elaborate on the cost of student grants in this country. The United Kingdom devotes a greater proportion of GNP to student support than do our major competitors. For example, it is twice as much as West Germany, two and a half times as much as the United States, and about seven times as much as France and Italy.

Can we take it from what the Minister has said that the Government are now determined to reduce the record number of students by giving them inadequate support? Why, after six years in office, cannot the Government at least afford to maintain the level of student grants rather than cutting them by about 3 per cent. next year? Should not the Minister come clean and tell us what will happen to student grants as a result of the removal of the right to claim housing benefit during vacations? Does yesterday's statement that there will be some adjustment mean that the grant will be substantially below the amount that will be lost?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the fall in the value of the grant has resulted from a decline in the demand for higher education. Therefore, his first question falls heavily to the ground.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Association of University Teachers to discuss the proposed world archaeological conference; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. No approach on this issue has been made to the Department.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the circumstances in which a major international congress, which would normally attract academics from all over the world, has been attacked by the Association of University Teachers, which wishes to define the countries from which people should be invited? Is he further aware that that attack had been backed up by the vice-chancellor of Southampton university, Dr. Higginson? In view of this attempt to blackmail academics into submission to the current political shibboleth, will he note that the guidelines issued yesterday by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on freedom of speech in our universities are silent on this form of blackmail? Will he send them back, on the basis that they are totally inadequate?

I have, naturally enough, seen references to the ban in the press, but it is entirely a matter for the organisers of the world archaeological conference whether to impose one. I understand that the matter has not been considered by the senate or the council of the university and that no such condition was proposed by the university. My hon. Friend suggests that we send back the guidelines from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which we received only this morning. I hope that he will give us time to read them first.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations about the proposed closure of Crayford school.

No, Sir.

Will my hon Friend consider the proposal to close Crayford school carefully when it arrives on his desk for a decision, and take account of the wishes of parents and the local community? Will he also consider the problems that children will face if they have to travel a long way to another school?

I know what an informed interest in due course my hon. Friend has shown in this issue. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will want to take appropriate account of all representations from his constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to restrict the circumstances in which local education authorities may intervene in the internal management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

The Education Bill to be introduced this Session will include proposals to establish a consistent pattern in the distribution of functions between the governing body, the local education authority and the head teacher. The local education authority will not then be able to override the governing body or the head teacher in the discharge of the functions allocated to them.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure he will be gratified to learn that we are on the same wavelength. There is a widespread desire among parents to strike off the shackles of political control and make schools more autonomous. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will cover the circumstances such as have occurred at Poundswick school in Manchester? What happens in the meantime, until the Bill is passed? What protection is there for parents?

My hon. Friend has filled my cup to overflowing and I very much hope that he is a member of the Committee that considers the Bill. Irrespective of whether we are talking about Poundswick or other matters, what is at issue is not so much the powers held by different interests, as how they are exercised. When responsibilities are split, there is scope for unproductive conflict. That can never be entirely removed.

The Secretary of State wrote to me on 9 December about the dispute at Poundswick high school in Manchester. As today-17 December—marks the time limit for a reply from the Manchester education authority to the Department's recent letter, is there anything more that the Minister can say further to the reply that I received on 9 December?

We have not yet received a reply from the education authority. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern and we shall, of course, get in touch with him as soon as possible.

If the Labour and Liberal groups had had their way in Bradford, Mr. Honeyford would have been summarily dismissed a long time ago merely for expressing views with which they happened to disagree. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in the forthcoming legislation, opportunities for local authorities to dismiss school staff will be restricted?

I suggest that my hon. Friend awaits the Bill. I understand that the difficult and sensitive issue to which he referred has now been settled, but I deplore the way in which some extremists have aggravated a delicate situation in a way that is clearly not in the interests of children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the educational content of the youth training scheme.

The new two-year youth training scheme will give all trainees the opportunity to secure a recognised vocational qualification combining training and work experience with relevant education.

Does the Minister not understand that the Manpower Services Commission, YTS trainees and the Trades Union Congress aspire to a higher educational content in the YTS programme and that that cannot be achieved without additional funding? How can he expect the two-year programme to achieve a better standard of educational content with the same real terms funding as the one-year programme?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall send him a copy of the speech that I made to the further education staff college a couple of weeks ago.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the object of the YTS is to provide a skilled labour force for industry? It may be important to provide extra funding for adult education, but is it not better to address that issue separately than to try to distract the YTS to provide the funds?

I take my hon. Friend's point.

Rather than sending us copies of his speeches, will the Minister take on board the fact that many of the disadvantaged youngsters in our community who are in what are now called premium places—which used to be called mode B schemes — on two-year schemes are in great need of a special sort of education content? Is he aware that they will not receive the education content that they deserve, because of the 15 per cent. limit? Many disadvantaged youngsters will not have a mode B or premium place scheme within the YTS. What will he do about that with his colleagues in the

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that he was straying into some of the territory of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General. I still think that the hon. Gentleman would find my speech quite interesting.

Is the Minister happy with the increasing infiltration of the MSC into education, which is provoking an artificial split between education and training? Surely it is important to recognise that any training given under a two-year YTS would qualify the trainee for higher education. Does not the split between the Departments impede that development?

The more I listen to the hon. Gentleman, the better I think my speech was. I do not accept his premise.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has had from vice-chancellors and principals of institutions of higher education to the concerns that he has expressed over the suppression of free speech.

Higher education authorities have affirmed their support for the principle of free speech. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals yesterday published guidelines for the universities on freedom of speech and lawful assembly. My right hon. Friend welcomes this action and will consider whether the content of the guidelines raises questions that he would wish to discuss with the committee.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a fact that the report from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said, in effect, "Of course we believe in free speech, but"? Did it not then produce a series of excuses for not being able to implement that belief in reality? Will my hon. Friend and the Government consider the prosecution of any student who is involved in incidents such as that which we saw at Manchester university involving my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), the Minister of State, Home Office?

The practical problems of ensuring that an individual speaker is given a fair hearing are formidable. The Government are grateful for the advice of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the vice-chancellor of Manchester univerity expressing his view that a refusal to give a hearing to a Minister who had been invited to explain Government policy cannot be defended. He noted that the university's declared intention was to take firm action in response to the incident at Manchester on 8 November. The university made it clear immediately after the incident that it would consider recommending its council to withhold a proportion of the student union's grant if the latter's full report on the incident and its causes was not satisfactory.

Why does the Minister not inform his hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), as the Prime Minister is fond of informing others, that prosecutions are for the police and have nothing to do with the Government?

The premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based is obviously wrong, but his assertion that criminal prosecutions are matters for the police is obviously right.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that elections of parent governors are fairly conducted; and if he will make a statement.

Under section 2(9) of the Education Act 1980, responsibility for the conduct of elections of parent governors is for the local education authority, except in the case of aided and special agreement schools, where that is for the governors. Any contested election has to be by secret ballot, but otherwise LEAs and governing bodies are free to make what arrangements are appropriate to their particular local circumstances.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there should be provision to provide for a quorum of parents? Does he not also think it a good idea that notices of the elections for parent governors should be published in the annual report of the school, not only so that parents can be given plenty of warning, but so that they can choose suitable candidates?

The greater the clarity, and the longer the warning of the elections, the better.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what means he intends that teachers should be appraised; and if he will make a statement.

I should like to see teacher appraisal conducted at the level of the individual school by the teachers themselves, in accordance with general arrangements introduced and monitored by local education authorities.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to proper teacher appraisal. However, is he aware that Fred Jarvis, the secretary of the National Union of Teachers, and various other high-ranking officials, are deliberately smearing his plan? They are suggesting that the assessment will be done purely on pupils getting better examination results, rather than teachers improving themselves in the school. Is that not a shocking approach?

I do not agree with everything that Mr. Jarvis does or says, but I am informed that there is a good deal of unanimity of opinion between Mr. Jarvis and his union and the Government on the matter of appraisal.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread concern on the Conservative Benches about the moral implications of unprosecuted fraud, hidden evidence, and ill-made money, and that we welcome the rigorous steps proposed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the weekend to clean up those parts of the City which the law does not appear to reach?

I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friend. No one is more anxious than the Government to ensure that those who are guilty of fraud are brought to justice. The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary have just received Lord Roskill's report. It contains about 112 recommendations. We shall be considering it carefully. It is a weighty document, and we hope to be able to publish it next month.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister admit that she and her Ministers have been seriously misleading the House and the country over the past three months in suggesting that the unemployment rate has been falling and that that development shows some improvement in the real economy when, in fact, the fall is caused by an increase in places on the Government community programme for the long-term unemployed? That programme has increased by just over 24,000 places. The seasonal drop in unemployment is only just under 16,000, so that in the real economy unemployment is still rising. When will the Government start to do something about real jobs in the real economy instead of just fiddling the figures?

I thought that the Opposition were in favour of a community programme and of training young people. I shall have to revise my views, because clearly they are not. Yes, there are 230,000 places on the community programme to help the long-term unemployed back into work. Yes, there are 30,000 unfilled places. Yes, we shall continue with the programme because we wish to continue to help the long-term unemployed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Labour party's policy to renationalise newly privatised industries, with compensation being given only on the basis of the original investment price? Does she agree that that is a disastrous threat to the millions of new shareholders?

Wider share ownership is a great principle of the Conservative party. The Labour party will have nothing to do with it.

In 1984 the Prime Minister promised "to protect the poor and those most in need."

What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to accept all the increases that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced yesterday, and to forget that there might have to be some losers—[Interruption.] There might have to be some losers—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to forget that there might have to be some losers. However, if he looks at the total expenditure, which is set out in the autumn statement, he will see that this year the total planned expenditure on social security is £40 billion, but by the year 1988–89 it is planned to be £46 billion. That is an increase of £6 billion, which will have to be found out of taxation and contributions by ordinary people.

Is it not about time that the Prime Minister honestly admitted to the country that more money is spent on benefits for the poor because her policies have made many more people poor? Is it not time for her to say to those whom she glibly dismisses as "some losers" that she could not live on £75 a week and could not tolerate a further loss of £5 a week? How can she defend taking money from people who are already desperately poor, when she knows that her objective is to give more to those who are already very rich?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, the point of the proposals is to direct resources to the areas of greatest need. The new family credit will go to 200,000 more families with children than now have the family income supplement. The right hon. Gentleman wants to take the benefits and all the increases, and accept none of the consequences of redistribution. My right hon. Friend wants improved incentives to work, and he wants to ensure that commitments entered into can be afforded. With that in mind, he has put forward his proposals, and they will require an increase in expenditure over planned expenditure this year and expenditure in 1988 of some £6 billion, which will have to be found by the taxpayer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think that that is reasonable. If not, how much more would his plan cost?

Will the Prime Minister now tell us when it is right to increase the money given to the near destitute in this country? What on earth is the moral or economic justification for finding that money by stealing from the very poor?

Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has gone over the top—[Interruption.] I take it that he does not want any of the increases that are to go to families, that he does not want improved incentives to work and does not want to ensure that commitments entered into can be afforded. He wants to promise the earth and not say how it is to be paid for.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although elderly people are interested in pensions and housing benefit, they are mainly concerned about the protection of their environment, law and order on their council estates, and the fear that they cannot safely open their doors in the evening? Will my right hon. Friend continue to reinforce the police and help the chief constables in the regions to have discussions with the communities on neighbourhood watch schemes?

I agree with my hon. Friend that elderly folk, along with others, are very much concerned with law and order, especially on the council estates. I think he will agree that under this Government old-age pensions have gone up by more than the cost of living, and that under this Government old-age pensioners have had their Christmas bonus every year, which was not the case under the Labour Government.

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

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

In the dispute between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence, whose side is the right hon. Lady on?

I am on the side of a company that is hoping to keep business going for its considerable work force, that has responsibilities to its shareholders and moral responsibilities to its work force, that must deal with its obligations to its bankers and that also has to consider the legal obligations of auditors. In the very sensitive situation that we now have, I suggest that it is left to the company to decide its future.

Will my right hon. Friend go further and take this opportunity to correct the impression that emerged from yesterday's statement on Westland that the Government are backing the Sikorsky deal and confirm that for a long time the Government have sought greater collaboration among European armament manufacturers, which is particularly long overdue with helicopters?

Westland is a public limited company. It must take its own decisions. The Government saw that it had a choice. The board has legal obligations to the shareholders, it has moral obligations to the work force, the banks have their obligations and the auditors have their legal obligations. The people on the board are the only ones in a position to know all the facts. They must make their assessment and present that to the company.

Reverting to the first question to the Prime Minister this afternoon, since the deputy chairman of the Conservative party is reported to be acting as a character reference for the return of Mr. Postgate to Lloyd's, will she remind him and everybody else that the Government, like her predecessor's, stand against the unacceptable face of capitalism?

I have said that the Government have probably done more than any other to try to tackle fraud wherever it occurs. That will continue to be our policy. As I said, Lord Roskill's report has reached the Government. We are publishing today the White Paper on banking supervision, and the Financial Services Bill will be introduced later this week. We have done, and shall continue to do, everything possible. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does the City a great disservice by forgetting the number of jobs and the amount of income that it provides for Britain. He is trying to suggest that because some things may be wrong somewhere, that applies to the whole City. That is not correct.

While we are on the subject of aerospace, has my right hon. Friend noticed today that the figures for the British aerospace industry are £1 billion up on this time last year, representing a 23 per cent. increase, and of that some 60 per cent. are exports to the world? Does not she think that that is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing industry?

I congratulate the aerospace industry on its excellent export record and would like to point out that other parts of manufacturing industry have done very well. Indeed, exports by manufacturing industry were a record last year.

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

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

Does the fact that the under-25 age group appears to be another group targeted for cuts in welfare benefits mean that the Prime Minister now accepts the view of the vice-chairman of the Tory party that too many young people will not get off their backsides and find work?

As I said earlier, no one has done more for youth training than have this Government. The one millionth youth trainee has now entered the scheme. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Labour party treats these matters with such levity.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent reception on the Conservative Benches of yesterday's White Paper, especially the proposal for a broader spread of personal pensions? Will she continue to preach the principles of thrift and the broader spread of financial assets?

I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the White Paper. It is meant, among other things, to give wider choice to those who wish to save through a personal pension scheme and build up a capital fund on their own account. It is also directed to help more effectively those in greatest need, such as young families, through the new family credit scheme, and to give improved incentives to work.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that, during Question Time, once again the tactics of the Labour party were to shout down my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at every opportunity— [Interruption.]—as they are trying to do to me now. Will you please use your influence to protect this House from the barbaric tactics of the Opposition?

Order. The noise during Question Time today was rather greater than usual, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.