asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the relationship of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to the YTS Inspectorate being established within the Manpower Services Commission.

The two organisations will be entirely separate. Contacts between them will develop as the pattern of work of the training standards advisory service becomes established. I am confident that the present constructive relationship between Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the Manpower Services Commission will continue.

Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern in education and training circles that a separate and distinctive inspectorate is likely to encourage further division between the two rather than what we all wish, which is much more co-operation. It also compounds suspicion that there is likely to be a difference in standards between education and the YTS.

Those suspicions are not well founded. Obviously there is some overlap between the functions of the two bodies, and there is a considerable need for liaison. I do not think it should be impossible to achieve that greater liaison.

The Minister, in one of his illustrious speeches, called for education and training to be part of the same thing—learning. Why, then, are the Government to set up a new kind of inspectorate that is different and does not talk on an intimate basis to the other and is not part of the same body? Why can we not have one inspectorate for all kinds of educational training?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reads my speeches. I do not think that it should be impossible to secure greater liaison. I think that there is a slight difference between on-the-job and off-the-job training. It is appropriate that there should be different bodies.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the educational content of YTS.

My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations on this aspect of YTS.

Does the Minister not realise that there is only 20 weeks off-the-job training on a two-year YTS course, as against the 26 weeks recommended by educationists and, indeed, the MSC model schemes? Does he agree that the lack of educational content makes a nonsense of the so-called quality training that he is seeking to achieve? It would be impossible to achieve.

No. The figure of 20 weeks off-the-job education and training agreed by the MSC for the two-year YTS is a minimum requirement. Longer periods will be encouraged when these are suggested by the trainee's needs when a vocational course is pursued.

Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not have a brief to read from. Will he say whether the certificate of pre-vocational education will be widely available to YTS trainees during their two-year scheme?

We hope to develop CPVE in that way. I think I am right in saying that so far about 15,000 students in about 1,000 institutions are on the CPVE course. That is a good start and I hope to see better achievements next year.

The Minister's answer was rather complacent. Is it not a fact that the model scheme which the MSC pioneered had a 26–week off-the-job educational content? That was an important part. Is it not worrying that we read in the papers this morning that the only young member of the Youth Training Board is considering resigning because he is worried about the whole provision and the quality of YTS, and about whether there will be a guarantee that what a YTS trainee is promised is delivered by the employer?

I do not acccept what the hon. Gentleman has said. The intention of the two-year YTS is to enable young people to get the chance to work for a qualification, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve that.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation making membership of the National Union of Students optional for students.

The Government have not closed their mind to the possibility of legislating on this and other student union matters, but have no present plans for doing so.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many students, including those belonging to Leicester university Conservatives, deeply regret being forced to become automatic members of the NUS? Will he reconsider his answer, so that students can be given the opportunity to opt into the NUS rather than being forced to become members of a union which is devoid of the political views that they espouse?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's frustration, but I understand that it is open to individual student unions to decide, on a democratic basis, whether to disaffiliate from the NUS.

Is the Minister aware that he has a little local difficulty with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), but that Labour Members agree that it sounds a sensible idea? If it goes ahead, will the Minister consider the possibility of a ballot, because the Government are always rabbiting on about ballots? The Government thought that it would be a good idea to have political fund ballots for all the trade unions. The result has been to leave the Government with egg all over their face, because some unions pay money to the Labour party now when they did not do so before.

I am slightly confused by this train of thought. The Government are not against ballots in any circumstances, but I repeat that we sympathise with the view of those who question automatic membership of the student union.

Why is it necessary to have a National Union of Students at all? Why could it not be abolished? Does my hon. Friend recollect that many of us who were at university before the war got on very well without a union at all?

I suppose that theoretically the NUS could vote itself out of existence as well.

Does the Minister appreciate that while the NUS and, I am sure, all of us here deplore a violent response to expressions of view, however much we may despise them, it would be better for the Government to spend time discussing with the NUS the cuts that they are making in the standard of life for students, or they will disappear along with the union?

Order. That supplementary was a little wide of the question.

The House has made known its views on the linkage of that supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the numbers of physics and chemistry teachers entering secondary education.

No. The Government are particularly concerned by the sharp reduction in recruitment to physics training courses in 1985, and the potential impact on the numbers entering teaching next autumn. The more modest decline in interest in chemistry teaching could also be of concern if the trend continues.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least one major British pharmaceutical company has told me that it would be prepared to release members of its scientific staff to teach in local schools if that would assist in the shortage? Does he welcome that initiative, and, as this is Industry Year, will he give some encouragement to it?

I give great encouragement to such initiative. Now that the dispute is, we hope, behind us, we should be able to get on with talking to education authorities, industry and others about how we can crack this long-standing problem.

In the light of the reports by the Institute of Physics and Sir Alec Merrison, well might the Government be concerned. What is the figure for physics students going into teacher training? Is it in single figures for the whole of Britain, as has been rumoured? What action will the Government take to put this deplorable and dangerous situation right?

I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the number is not in single figures, but in three figures. For those taking PGCE in 1985, the figure was 255—

For next year?

For 1985. That figure is still a great deal too low. The figure is not in single figures for next year either. I do not have the figure, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman have it. I am aware that the problem is extremely serious, and it is one which we must tackle by radical and imaginative gestures. I hope that it will be easier to do that now that the dispute is behind us.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend is aware of the seriousness of the problem, but does he agree that the shortage of physics teachers is leading to a serious imbalance in higher education and that many universities, including the University of East Anglia in Norwich, are reporting a surplus of highly qualified applicants in subjects like accountancy, while there is a shortage in vital subjects such a physics?

I am aware of that. The education service consumes its own smoke, and that produces precisely the kinds of problems to which my hon. Friend referred. We must look imaginatively at in-service training and retraining of people with other qualifications.

Is it not true that one of the reasons why people are not entering schools to teach these subjects is that the pay is not good enough? These people recognise that they can earn more in industry. What will the Minister do about that?

We want to see a better paid and better motivated teaching profession. I hope that serious negotiations will now start to create a career structure for teachers which better rewards teachers with responsibilities and with skills that are in short supply.

My hon. Friend rightly expressed the Government's concern over the shortage of physics and chemistry teachers, but does he share my misgivings that there is not, according to information from his Department, one teacher in the public sector teaching Japanese in what is Industry Year? What does my hon. Friend's Department intend to do about that?

Since my hon. Friend last raised that point with me, I have looked into the matter with great concern. However, I have not yet produced the teachers that he would like to see, but I shall report back to my hon. Friend on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the National Union of Students to discuss the level of student grants.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the National Union of Students to discuss the level of student support.

My right hon. Friend has received some 940 letters about the level of student grants for 1986–87 and last met NUS representatives to discuss student financial support on 3 December 1984. I last met NUS representatives on 12 February 1986.

Will the Minister confirm that student grants are now 14 per cent. below the level in 1979 and that that represents a significant drop in the living standards of students? Is that not damaging for the future of university education?

I would go further and confirm that student grants have been dropping on and off ever since 1962, under both Conservative and Labour Governments. The fact that the number of students is rising to unprecedented heights under this Government hardly suggests that the level of grant is a major disincentive to higher education.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are hon. Members who believe that the shortfall in grants could be made up by loans? We could adopt a system that is in existence in western Europe and the United States.

I note my hon. Friend's views on that matter, and I have made the Government's views clear on numerous occasions recently.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's policy appears to be that students will be able to attend universities only if they have rich fathers or if they have made sufficient earnings in the vacation? Is he aware that very few students have these options available?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] I am stating the facts. Will the country reach the position where we have to reduce the level of university education and so become a barbarian dung-heap?

That is neither the Government's policy nor the effect of their policies.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when the levels of parental contribution were altered just over a year ago there was a great outcry against them? At that time many parents felt that they would face great cash-flow problems arising from the proposed changes, but that a system of student loans would have gone a long way towards reducing the genuine hardship which many students now face because their parents will not top up their grant to the level that the Government think is appropriate.

I note my hon. Friend's point.

What proportion of the correspondence that the Minister has had on the matter supports the Government's view on student grants? Is he aware that only yesterday I received a letter from a student in Fife who says that he must give up the last year of his course if the 2 per cent. rise is imposed? Does the Minister agree that that is a disaster and speaks volumes about the Government's priorities?

I imagine that under this Government, as under previous Governments, few students will have written to welcome a cut in grant. I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would send me the details of the case to which he referred.

Is it not the case that it is not merely the level of student grants which has caused anxiety, but the overall problem of student finance, which comes from a variety of departments and quarters? Will my hon. Friend explain why the review of student finance which at one time was anticipated was abandoned?

I am sure that my hon. Friend recalls our position, which is that once the Government decided against the student loans proposal, it was decided that there was insufficient material for the review.

Does the Minister not believe that at present some students are suffering acute hardship because of the level of student grants? Does he believe that student grants can fall any further than their present level? Why cannot we have the public inquiry into student grants which was promised last year? It now appears that even some alliance Members are in favour of loans. Would it not be useful to have that inquiry to establish that loans are impractical and determine the genuine difficulty facing students today?

We are constantly alert for evidence of genuine difficulty of the type that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Again, I extend an invitation to him to send me details. On the question of a review, I have nothing to add to what I said a moment ago.

Why do the Government assume that students can survive on up to 30 per cent. less grant than members of the Government had when they were at university? I am thinking, for example, of the Secretary of State for Social Services. Surely there should he parity between what members of the Government received and what students today receive?

We must take a broad view of these matters and look at the expansion, which, I insist, continues to take place and which is welcome. We must look at the burden of expansion which is placed on people with lower incomes than the majority of students will ever have, and think of a partnership beween students, their parents and taxpayers when financing that welcome expansion.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received to his draft circular on the treatment of politically controversial issues in schools and colleges; and if he will make a statement.

The drafts were issued on 4 February, and it is too early for there to have been any significant reponse.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this initiative. Does he agree that it is a cardinal principle in the teaching profession to maintain impartiality in teaching political matters, and that heads and teachers who express a strong political allegiance drive a wedge between the vital relationships of teacher and pupil, and teacher and parent?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure the House will accept that brainwashing in the classroom can have no place in a free society.

What steps is the Minister taking to assist the police to do their proper job of giving advice about crime prevention in schools, which is being stopped in some Left-wing-controlled, Labour-dominated boroughs in London?

A very useful document is being produced by the Society of Education Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That will be endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. It is an admirable document and I hope that it will receive wide circulation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my professional career I had a colleague who insisted on plastering his walls with posters of Chairman Mao, the hammer and sickle and all sorts of exhibitions of his love of Communism, and his teaching certainly had to be watched? However, he was the exception rather than the rule. The teaching profession, on the whole, contains its own integrity and most people are not given to political bias in the classroom.

I completely accept my hon. Friend's view. I think that the antics of a few discredit the hard work and conscientiousness of the overwhelming majority of teachers. I should confess to my hon. Friend that my moral tutor at Oxford was a former member of the Communist party.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether all schools will be in a position to commence courses for the general certificate of secondary education in September, as originally planned.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present position in regard to the state of preparation of the proposed general certificate of secondary education examination; and if he is satisfied that this examination course will be prepared by September.

Preparations for the GCSE, under the national training programme, are substantial and thorough. Centrally produced materials, including videos and teachers' guides, have been made available to teachers and supplemented in many cases by further materials produced by the examining groups and the local education authorities. The training seminars for subject representatives from each school are being mounted and approved syllabuses distributed to schools. The onus is now on teachers to play their part.

I welcome the amount of preparation that my hon. Friend has put into the timetable for the GCSE. Will he join me in deploring the fact that the militants of the National Union of Teachers have tried to prevent the introduction of these courses from September? Are they not at poles with the rest of their educational colleagues?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The NUT, along with other unions, pressed us to introduce this examination. It represents a major and important reform. I am sure that it will not want to scupper it at the same time as it is picking up the money which has been negotiated under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Are not the Minister and his right hon. Friend flying in the face of reality and disregarding the assessments of those closest to the situation? Is it not now clear that no valid new examination system will be ready by September this year?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view. I know that he has a considerable concern in this matter, not least because I think that he has a child, as I have, who will be affected by it. We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider sympathetically any realistic proposals for adding to the literally unprecedented preparations which have been made for this examination. That remains the position, and we shall consider further any realistic proposals.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in Kent we are grappling nobly with school rolls falling by some 30,000 places? The GCSE may benefit from teachers' training courses, but it also requires a range of new books and other equipment. Will the Minister give some assurance that the education authorities will be helped in their provision of those things?

We are considering the matter of resources. It is a matter which has been raised with us by many people.

Is the Minister aware of the extreme concern expressed by the Secondary Heads Association in the north of England, area 17, in a letter that it has sent to me expressing concern about the introduction of the GCSE? It supports the examination itself, but is concerned about the introduction in September and thinks that it is wholly unrealistic. The association has suggested that instead of schools starting the summer holidays in July, they should start a week earlier to allow teachers to have an in-service course.

I am hoping to meet representatives of the Secondary Heads Association shortly to talk about allowing training days at the end of the summer term. That is one of the suggestions that we are considering sympathetically.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as recently as 25 September, as far as heads in Devon were aware only the history syllabus had been authorised by his Department? None of the other syllabuses had been authorised. Unless syllabuses are known, teacher training courses cannot be planned and children cannot be advised on the courses they should take. That is why it is impossible for this examination to go ahead in two years' time without sacrificing one year's input of school children.

On a point of detail, it is the Secondary Examinations Council rather than my Department which approves syllabuses, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows. At the latest count, the SEC had approved 100 syllabuses. It is still on course to approve all the syllabuses by the end of April, so that they can be in schools by May.

In view of the enormous logistical difficulties, quite apart from the dispute, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would not be seen as a sign of weakness to postpone the examination for a year? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he does not want to do that it would make sense to close secondary schools for two days in the very near future, to give teachers a chance to catch up a bit?

The point about training days refers to phase 3 of the training, which is next summer rather than this term. We have looked at the position carefully, but I do not think that there is any option other than pressing ahead to make a success of this examination. Running O-levels and the CSE at the same time as we were trying to introduce the examination would not be possible.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that hardly any of the examination boards in England and Wales are in favour of any postponement of this examination? Will he confirm that work on preparing the syllabuses is virtually complete and that in most examination boards the training is well under way?

My hon. Friend is right on all those points, but I still concede that the timetable is tight and that the job of introducing the new examination is tough. However, I think that it is perfectly within our resources to manage that job.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are four basic criteria by which the new examination has to be measured? It must be workable for the teachers, credible to the parents, fair to the pupils and must win a high level of public acceptance from employers. At present, the Government are on course to fail all those tests. Is it not essential that the Government take urgent action to get a grip on this new examination and to turn it into a success rather than the failure it is turning out to be?

That is what we are intent on doing. I am not sure from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that that is his objective.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he makes of the level of public pressure for greater spending on education.

I have no doubt that there is considerable public pressure for higher standards in education, and for the best possible return on the resources invested in the education service. The Government will continue to work towards those aims.

In view of the recent comment by the Minister of State that one of the reasons for lack of increased public expenditure on education is lack of public pressure, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who is telling the truth? If the money has been available, why has the right hon. Gentleman spent the past 12 months telling us that there are insufficient funds to pay teachers the extra money they want? If the funds have not been available, what is the point in the comments of the Minister of State?

The Government take the view, which I think is shared by the majority of people, that teachers deserve more pay for effective teaching, but that teachers should also carry out the duties they have habitually carried out in the past, minus midday supervision, but plus appraisal. The Government are making substantial extra sums available over and above the annual pay awards to achieve that dual purpose. The money is still available to provide more pay for effective teaching, provided the teaching unions agree to duties being part of the contract.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his words are welcome, particularly to those who believe that more money should be made available for education? Will he also accept that higher priority should be given to education in the overall political arena and that the majority of teachers, as represented by their unions on the teachers' side of the panel, accept that more money means acceptance of conditions relating to assessment and so on? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the implications of the ACAS talks?

I agree with all of my hon. Friend's comments. As for his question about ACAS, we must all hope that yesterday's agreement will lead to fruitful negotiations.

When will the Secretary of State admit that school standards are now higher then they have ever been?—[Interruption.] It is typical that the voices raised against that reality are those of Conservative Members. When will the Secretary of State realise that he is not paying teachers what they are worth, that they recognise him as the real enemy and that they make that clear in all of their organisations? When will he also realise that teachers do a vast amount of work for which there is no overtime, that they are going back to work embittered and angry, and that it will all happen again within a very short period of time?

The Government have set aside substantially more money for the pay of effective teachers, on the conditions that I have described. That is the reality. No amount of vituperation from the hon. Gentleman will change it. As for school standards, there are many good schools, but there is surely, by common agreement, scope for improvement.

As regards yesterday's settlement of the teacher's pay dispute, does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Teachers has shown yet again that it is prepared to do damage to children's education and harm to teachers as a body? Has not the time come to remind individual teachers who are concerned about their individual professional standards and who are anxious to obtain higher salaries that they can join other unions instead?

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the behaviour of the National Union of Teachers seems to be appalling. It is willing for its members to take the money that has been negotiated by the other unions and the employers, but to continue the disruption. It is urging its members to stand in the way of the reform talks that we so patently need. I regard the NUT's position as utterly indefensible.

Has the Secretary of State turned his mind to the fact that in Japan only 1 per cent. of the national income is spent on defence and that one of the reasons why Japanese research and development and the manufacture and sale of high technology are more successful than ours is that we spend 6 per cent. of our national income on defence and thus divert money away from many things, including proper investment in education?

But does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Japanese Government and people do that only because they have accepted total protection from the United States? Would the right hon. Gentleman support a move by this country towards that kind of policy?

Regarding capital spending, which is very important to parents, would it not help my right hon. Friend to deal with this pressure if a rather higher proportion of capital receipts were made available to local education authorities to spend in their own areas?

Yes, indeed, and if it were possible that would make the Government that little bit more popular. But the trouble is that when that policy was adopted two or three years ago the local education authorities together spent £1,000 million more than they had warned they would spend, which came near to wrecking the national economy.

Does the Secretary of State understand that parents are rightly asking for more books, more equipment and more effective teaching, so as to raise standards in schools? Why does the Prime Minisster seem concerned only with educational red herrings, such as vouchers and privatisation, which will do nothing to help the vast majority of pupils? When will the Government acknowledge that all our children should have the right to good quality education?

The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman seems only to have read half of the annual report by HMI, which said that there was too little spending on books in many local education authorities, but went on to say that, with better management by many local authorities, money now wasted could be redeployed in favour of books, equipment and maintenance.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what sum from the inner cities programme will benefit inner cities education projects.

The main focus of the new inner cities initiative is to be on improving employment opportunities, supporting local industry and improving the physical environment. However, the urban programme is already supporting education expenditure of about £33 million in urban areas in 1985–86 and over £81 million of education expenditure, mostly in urban areas, is being supported by section 11 grants.

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. In the light of the opinion poll released this week, commissioned by ILEA, which shows that more people—40 per cent.—think that the quality of state education in inner London is poor, very poor or terrible than think it is good, very good or excellent, will he direct the educational funds aimed at inner cities to dealing with the quality of education in inner London, which is at the core of the problem, rather than allowing it to be directed to peripheral activities, which will not give youngsters the employment opportunities at which the inner cities programme is aimed?

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about quality. If there was a direct relationship between quality and the amount of resources spent, standards in ILEA would be second to none, but, alas, that is not the case.

When my hon. Friend visits Highfields in Leicester, following the initiative announced by his right hon. Friend, will he consider the need for single sex education and how that might be met?

Before I go to Highfields I shall, of course, talk to my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that he will mark my card.

The Minister must accept that the figures he has quoted are no more than a tiny fraction of the massive thousands of millions of pounds that are spent each year on education nationally. Does he agree that what is much more important, and is receiving little or no attention, is the shift of the main line budget for education into the inner city areas? Does he accept that there is a direct relationship between the amount of money available for refurbishing rundown buildings and the environment in which children have to grow up?

I have tried to deal with the question of the relationship between input and output in education. I did not mention all the funds that are going to the inner cities. I did not mention, for example, the money that is being paid under the education support grants. I do not think that the situation is as easy as the hon. Gentleman said. If it were just a question of resources equalling quality, we should not have to deal with some of the horrors that are on the scene.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to local education authorities over the relative merits of school sixth forms as opposed to other forms of post-16 provision.

My right hon. Friend's advice is set out in circular 4/82. That circular made clear his belief that no single pattern of secondary organisation has overriding advantages of principle; it went on to urge local education authorities to choose the system most suited to local circumstances and preferences.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. If, as he says, there is no single pattern of secondary organisation with an overriding advantage, does he agree that sixth forms of proven quality should be kept and that within any local authority area there should be a choice between staying on at school post-16 and going on to college?

We are committed to retaining good sixth forms in schools of proven worth. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the progress of the technical and vocational education initiative.

Seventy-three education authorities throughout Great Britain are now involved in the TVEI. All authorities have been given the opportunity to take part in this important initiative; most are already running projects, and proposals from a further 25 which wish to join in the final phase starting this September are under consideration. The Government are encouraged by the enthusiasm and commitment that the TVEI has generated among those involved. The pilot projects, which are exploring how the education of 14 to 18–year-olds can be made more relevant to adult and working life, are already providing important lessons. We are considering how these should be applied more widely.

As the effectiveness and popularity of the TVEI increases among parents and children, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government remain committed to the necessary increase in funding for the TVEI to meet increased demand?

The Government are committed to considering how the lessons that have been learnt from this extremely successful initiative, in which we are investing about £250 million of the taxpayers' money, can be more widely applied. That will, of course, have some financial implications.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

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.

Is it not a matter of the deepest public concern that many old people have died and are dying of hypothermia in this bitter cold winter? How could the Prime Minister and the Government stand idly by and watch these poor people in cold, unheated rooms waiting for approaching death? What will happen now? Will the rich and wealthy members of the Government blame everyone but themselves, when everyone knows exactly who is to blame for the deaths of many poor old people?

May I make three points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. First, spending on help with heating has increased dramatically from 1978 until now.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any member of the Civil Service who frustrates the efforts of the fraud squad to prevent the pilfering of public money by claimants is dismissed instantly?

I hope that no one will frustrate the efforts of the fraud squad, which is entirely independent. Its efforts must be allowed to bear fruit.

Will the Prime Minister join me and hon. Members on both sides of the House in applauding the initiative of Age Concern in providing 1,000 survival kits to old people, who it considers are most at risk from the cold weather? Does the right hon. Lady share Age Concern's view that, while it is doing what it can, the Government must act by issuing urgent heating allowances? Will she give the country an assurance that she will change the system of helping with heating costs so that we shall never again experience a winter in which poor people freeze to death for want of help with their heating bills?

The right hon. Gentleman heard that help with heating bills has greatly exceeded anything that was made available in real terms during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. He has heard also that of the 500 DHSS offices, almost all are making available the payment of extra severe weather payments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has arranged for massive advertising in the national press on the availability of extra help with fuel bills. This is being supplemented by considerable local effort.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the £140 million is somewhat misleading, in that it should be compared with the £1·5 billion which has been denied to old-age pensioners in Britain as a consequence of changing the formula for calculating old-age pensions? Does she further agree that pensioners and poor people are interested, not in swapping figures, but in how they pay their heating bills? May I ask her again whether, in view of the tragic experience of this year and last, she can assure us that she will change the system to provide a more generous, simpler and better advertised system of providing help with heating bills so that we never experience another winter of disconnection?

The amount available exceeds anything that was available before. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of that. I repeat that £400 million is available for help with heating. In addition, almost all of the 500 supplementary benefit offices are open for help with severe weather payments They are paid restrospectively, and there will be a massive advertising campaign to help with that. The right hon. Gentleman does not like the extent of the help that is available.

I acknowledge the extent. It is the effectiveness about which the right hon. Lady must answer. Why, if there is such help, has our death rate during the winter been three times that of the United States of America and four times that of Sweden? Will she now make changes that ensure that we stop the incidence of hypothermia? Will she recognise that the number of deaths last year was higher than the year before, and that the number of deaths this year will be higher again? Will she stop this awful mounting crisis by changing her policies?

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that £400 million is available now, as compared with £90 million during the winter of discontent, when not one Labour Member raised the matter in the House? Moreover, nearly 500 DHSS offices are open now for severe weather payments. What the right hon. Gentleman has been asking for is happening. He does not like the fact that it is being done.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read Today and to reflect on the fact that modern technology also creates jobs? It does not just destroy them. Has she had time to reflect on the fact that none of that would have been possible without the Government's magnificent trade union legislation and their fostering of an atmosphere of free enterprise?

I agree that technology creates jobs. It enables industries to stay competitive. The record of our manufacturing and extractive industries in increasing productivity is excellent. All involved in them deserve congratulation.

Now that we are getting a substantial radioactive leak a week from Sellafield, does the Prime Minister agree that public concern has become public alarm and that there is no alternative to closing the plant down?

No, Sir. The nuclear power industry has the best safety record of any energy industry. It would be as well if that were fully recognised by some of those who criticise Sellafield. The Health and Safety Executive is carrying out an audit. I welcome the audit and believe that the facts should reassure people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Central regional council, which last year gave £216,000 to the striking miners, is proposing school closures in rural areas this year to save less than £50,000? Will my right hon. Friend consider changing the system of funding education to reflect, per capita, the number of pupils attending schools, so that parental preference rather than political expediency rules the roost?

As my hon. Friend knows from the Bill now before the House, the Government are concerned to get greater parental influence in the choice of schools. All parents pay for education out of their pockets as taxpayers and ratepayers and are entitled to greater choice than they have, and all options are being considered.

May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that there is a mass lobby of engineers from British Leyland bitterly protesting against the possible sale of their industry to foreign interests? May I remind the Prime Minister that, when the sale of Westland Helicopters was going through, it was claimed by the Government that the work force had been consulted? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the work force of British Leyland will be consulted before there is a sale?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government were not interfering with financial help in a rescue package with Westland. That was the basis of the decision. He will also recall that there has been, and continues to be, enormous help given to British Leyland. He is well aware of what the position is at the moment. The intention to make bids, or the indication that bids are to be made, should be in today, and we are not in a position to make any statement until all those bids are in and have been considered.

What contribution towards reconciliation in the coal industry can be made by a colliery review procedure which the National Coal Board ignores whenever it finds against it? What is sacrosanct now?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the colliery review procedure is advisory and that the final word is in the hands of the National Coal Board. That was always so.

Will my right hon. Friend concede that the last Labour Government did very little for old-age pensioners? Will she also concede that it was the Labour party which snatched away the Christmas bonus which the Tory party introduced? Will she also concede that it was Tories who reintroduced the Christmas bonus for pensioners? How does my right hon. Friend think that Members of the Labour party can accuse us, in the way they have done earlier today, when they have been such a disgrace in the past?

I could not improve on the excellent way in which my hon. Friend puts the case. I hope that hon. Members will also remember that only last year the Opposition were supporting a strike that was designed to rob pensioners of heating and light.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

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

Most people in need of extra heating have no real choice of the kind of dwelling they inhabit, and heating costs vary widely. Why do the Government base their heating costs on the individual, rather than on the cost of heating?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the rule has been changed since last year. Last year's rule was not found to be satisfactory and it is therefore now a matter of discretion, and that should enable us to give just the kind of latitude the hon. Gentleman wishes to have.

Will my right hon. Friend look again at the figures for the appalling decline in Britain's merchant fleet? Is she aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are now desperately concerned about this matter and its implications, both for our defence policy and economically? We could not mount another Falklands operation if we wished, because we do not have the ships. More than 80 per cent. of British trade is now carried in ships with foreign flags. Is she aware that there are things that could be done to change the situation? Will she instruct her senior colleagues to see that they are done, and done without delay?

I know my right hon. Friend's interest in this subject, but I must disagree with him when he says that we could not mount another Falklands operation. We could. I would like to make that clear. The Government fully recognise the role that the merchant fleet plays in times of emergency and war, and the requirements are subject to continuous review. The merchant fleet remains capable of meeting all the needs of the armed forces. We have long-standing NATO arrangements to pool Alliance merchant shipping should there be war. The important thing for the future of our merchant marine is to ensure that British shipping can compete with the fleets of other nations on costs. That is one of the problems.

In view of the widespread impression that the Cabinet is biased in favour of a takeover of parts of the British motor industry by General Motors and the rumours that are now spreading in Birmingham, will the Prime Minister tell us whether any member of the Cabinet has a relative working for General Motors or one of its subsidiaries?

I resent the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question. He is aware that bids are in today and that they will be considered, and they will be considered with one thing in mind—what will give British industry the best chance of jobs.