asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to open up educational opportunities to the unemployed.

): The development of educational opportunities for unemployed adults in England and Wales is being encouraged by my Department and the Welsh Office through the Replan programme, which began in 1984.

Will the Minister say how many of the 3 million unemployed over 18 years old are receiving any form of education?

That is rather a difficult question, but I can certainly undertake to let the hon. Lady have a written reply.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many unemployed people are gaining useful knowledge in our adult education colleges, and will she continue to bear them in mind, because the level of funding that they enjoy is but a tiny fraction of the overall education budget?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Although the funding has not been substantial, it has been effective, and the programme undertaken by the National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education and the Further Education Unit for Unemployed Adults in colleges of further education has been most successful. It has been providing good opportunities for people to learn about leisure and to receive pre-vocational education to equip them for the future.

That is a dismal response by the Minster. The potential for educating and training unemployed people is enormous. Could the Minister not talk to the Secretary of State for Employment, Lord Young of Graffham, because it seems that it is possible to have a Government programme that allows training for unemployed people if they come off the dole queue, but very little or no training or education without people's benefits being taken away. We want people to be allowed to have education and training while retaining their benefits. Why can we not have genuine education for unemployed people?

There is genuine education under the Replan scheme. The Restart scheme about which the hon. Gentleman spoke is being carried out with some help from us, but the main opportunities that we provide are taken up under the Replan scheme, which is funded not only through NIACE and the Further Education Unit but through the education support grants which local authorities are helping to fund. They are doing excellent work in providing training and vocational training for the unemployed and are giving them opportunities to use their time in leisure and recreation pursuits while they seek new employment.

In the context of the unemployed, does not the Open University play a good role? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the extra funding that has been given to that most excellent avenue of opportunity?

My hon. Friend is right. The Open University has undertaken to provide a special project for the unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the levels of pay of non-academic and ancillary staff in higher education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the levels of pay of non-academic and ancillary staff in higher education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the levels of pay of non-academic and ancillary staff in higher education.

The Government are not involved in pay negotiations for this group of staff and it is for employers to reach agreement on pay levels which they can afford, having regard to recruitment, retention and motivation.

That answer tends to suggest that the Government consider that they have no responsibility in this field. That surprises me, and I should like the Minister to tell us what she proposes to do to overcome the problem that universities in particular presently face.

The hon. Gentleman will know that a quantum of money goes to the universities. The pay bill that applies to both academic and non-academic staff must be regarded as one item within the overall resources that are agreed by the Government, and it is for the universities to decide how it is spent.

Will the Minister accept that over 90 per cent. of manual and clerical workers in universitites are on almost poverty level wages for a full week's work? Is she prepared to reconsider her recent answer on this question and to do something about it?

I have no doubt that a very important contribution is being made by that group of people, but I must reiterate that it is for the universities, within their overall resources, to decide their priorities and to allocate money accordingly.

Is the Minister trying to tell the House that her Department and the Government escape responsibility for people on very low pay, which is the question that we are discussing? Does the Minister agree that 90 per cent. of those upon whom we are focusing our minds are receiving under £100 a week, and that two-thirds of the clerical staff receive no payment whatsoever for overtime? We are talking about very low pay and the Minister, on behalf of her Government, must accept some responsibility.

It is quite obvious that the Opposition do not understand. The universities obtain a grant from the Government. It is then for the universities to negotiate within the proper forum the kind of pay agreement that they want. Within the totality of the money that is given, it is for the universities to decide their own priorities.

As many of the ancillary and non-academic staff in universities are particularly concerned about matters involving the organisation of universities and the organisation of meetings at universities, many of my constituents who do these jobs are very worried about something that is happening today at the University of East Anglia. The Labour club there is being addressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), at a time when the University of East Anglia has asked for the postponement of a meeting that is to be addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor). Does that not suggest double standards and is this not—[Interruption.]

Order. I should have thought that that question was miles wide of pay.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has written a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and that he will be receiving an answer to the point that he has just raised.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government announced that additional resources were to be made available for the universities? Will she also confirm that there is considerable confusion in the universities because they do not know how much each of them will receive, or how much the Government insist should be earmarked for academic and for non-academic salaries? It would be helpful if the Government would tell the universities the figure for academic salaries, so that the universities can decide whether any money will be available for the very low-paid groups of people who are in non-academic posts in universities. Will the Minister accept that the Opposition are appalled by the very low wages that are paid to some of the non-academic staff in universities?

I register what the hon. Gentleman said about non-academic pay. The answer to his first question is that that matter will be decided at the beginning of next year. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the money is allocated to the universities and that it is for the universities to decide their priorities.

But how much? The hon. Lady has not told the universities how much is available.

They will learn how much money is to be made available for academic pay early next year. It is entirely up to individual universities to decide, with the proper unions, how the money is to be allocated for the restructuring of academic and non-academic staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the past three months on the state of repair of school buildings.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the past three months on the state of repair of school buildings.

My right hon. Friend has received no major representations on this subject. The repair and maintenance of school buildings is raised from time to time in correspondence from hon. Members and from members of the public.

Is the Minister aware that an Audit Commission study in 1985 showed that Coventry education department was underspending, because of financial constraints, by £1 million a year, which is about 100 per cent., and that as a result the schools in Coventry are in urgent need of repair and renewal? What does the Minister propose to do about that?

It is nothing to do with the Government.

Responsibility for the organisation—[Interruption.]

Order.

I congratulate Labour Members on their interest in this matter. As they know, the condition of school stock has been arrived at over 20 years of benign, and sometimes malign, neglect. Labour Members have to take their share of the responsibility. I remind the House that the Labour party was in power for 11 out of the past 22 years. When it admits its share of the blame, we shall start to listen to its points.

Will the Minister nevertheless accept that the Conservative party is now in office, and that there is a problem? The Secretary of State recently visited Lancashire and is aware of the problems there, and of the fact that much money is needed to put the schools in good order. What will the Government's response be? Will they help or will they continue to sit aside and let the situation deteriorate?

On the hon. Gentleman's first question, the Conservative party is in power, and we shall be for the next 20 years at least. Secondly, local education authorities are constantly telling us that one of their priorities is to spend more on the repair and maintenance of education buildings. The planned increase of 18·8 per cent. in cash in 1987–88 over 1986–87 plans provides for them to meet this and other priorities.

Does the Audit Commission report not show that the problem is not one of cash leaving the Government, but rather where it is going, and that £700 million is being wasted by local authorities on maintaining surplus places? Will my hon. Friend assure us that strong steps will be taken to force local authorities to take speedy action so that areas such as my constituency, where there is a fairly unusual problem of rising rolls, can have money allocated to them so that they can repair buildings?

An awful lot can result from the good management of our schools, as my hon. Friend said. I cannot comment on allocations that have yet to be announced.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the problem of the costs of repairing school buildings, as in many other problems, a trouble shared is a trouble halved? Is he aware that in my constituency, in the village of Mendlesham, we have just built a brand new school, funded jointly by the community and the local education authority, which is to be used for both educational and community purposes? Does he not warmly welcome this exciting new project?

I welcome that partnership, which is such a tremendous, dynamic and go-ahead partnership by the people in this constituency. It shows what sensible, good-natured and responsive people they are.

I was staggered to hear the Minister say that he had not received any major representations about the condition of schools. Does he not recollect being in Bradford recently, when he expressed concern about crumbling schools in that city? Does he not recognise that the ratepayers of Bradford are becoming heartily sick of Education Ministers coming to the city, drinking ratepayers' tea and giving very little in return except expressions of concern?

Tea and sympathy.

Order.

If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had a brain, he would be dangerous. If local education authorities spent less money on anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist and anti-police activities they could probably do a lot better in terms of repair and maintenance.

As the Audit Commission has clearly shown that local authorities are often inefficient in applying funds to schools, will the Minister issue guidelines to local authorities enouraging an extension of the Cambridgeshire scheme, which permits heads to exercise control over money spent on their schools?

I am totally enamoured of the Cambridgeshire experiment. It is our intention to ensure that it becomes widespread in the fullness of time.

The Minister must be well aware that the Audit Commission and HMI have warned the Secretary of State about the "crummy" state of our schools. [Interruption.] I was quoting from the former Secretary of State's verdict on our schools. Will the Minister now tell parents what the Government will do about it?

We have announced a massive increase in expenditure, a figure of 18·8 per cent. Local authorities have it within their gift to embark upon the privatisation of non-teaching services. Therefore, they can save money for expenditure on education where it is needed and where it is desired.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest position regarding the teachers' pay and conditions of service negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

Over the weekend a National Union of Teachers special conference voted narrowly to accept the proposals in the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service document signed by the local authorities and some teacher unions. The NUT is now balloting its members. Local authorities meet today to discuss the proposals. I remain willing to hold further discussions with the local authorities and any of the teacher unions.

I support my right hon. Friend's objectives in encouraging responsibility and rewarding the good classroom teacher. However, will he accept that there is a genuine predicament in the case of the good classroom teacher teaching in our excellent smaller schools in villages and market towns? Having achieved the maximum after nine years, they could well find themselves locked in and their chances of subsequent promotion very limited.

One of the major flaws of the ACAS proposals is exactly that. I am sure that it would affect adversely the small primary school. Under the ACAS proposals there would be no promoted posts in about three quarters of primary schools. Therefore, there would be no incentive for teachers to do well unless they sought to become a head or a deputy. However, deputies in the small schools would get only £5 a week more than the main professional grade teachers under the ACAS proposals.

Since his statement last week, and in his reply to the earlier question, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is prepared to meet the employers and the unions, and that he is prepared to be flexible about his own suggested imposed settlement. Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the areas of his settlement that he is prepared to be flexible about?

In the meetings that I have had with Councillor Pearman and the unions so far—another union has asked to see me next week—I have made clear the conditions behind the Government's position, which is that any offer should come within the cost envelope of some £600 million for this year and next year, and must have a sufficient number of incentive posts in it to ensure a good career structure for the young, able and energetic person who wants to become a teacher.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of parents and, I suspect, teachers, will welcome the introduction of legislation that will bring some form of order into the chaos that currently surrounds negotiations on teachers' pay? Will my right hon. Friend further accept that once the legislation is on the statute book it will be warmly welcomed as a means of preventing further disruption in our schools to the disadvantage of our children?

When the definition of the teacher's job—contained in appendix 1 of the ACAS document—is in force, it will be clear what teachers should and should no do. It will be out of order and a breach of contract if they indulge in the sort of disruptive action that has so damaged schools, the education of our children, and the reputation of the teaching profession.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one cannot impose a solution on teachers? Will he reassure the teachers who want to see him that not only his door but his mind will remain open?

I have made that absolutely clear, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is a spokesman for the Liberal party. Since I have held this post, I have listened to what he has said. I have yet to distinguish any issue concerning education on which the Liberal party's views differ from those of the Labour party. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in the career structure of the profession, there must be proper incentive posts and proper rewards. I should have thought that that was one of the elements of Liberal thinking such as we know it.

Does my right hon. Friend sense that he is very close to an agreement which will satisfy the majority of teachers, and certainly the majority of the public? Does he agree that, in the end, the prize will be more glittering if he can achieve a settlement by agreement?

Certainly. That is why I said that my door remains open. What Mr. McAvoy said has made the situation more difficult. Following the NUT conference, Mr. McAvoy, the deputy general secretary, said:

"There is no likelihood of our agreement being changed as far as the NUT is concerned."

"It was 'sad' other unions felt there was an alternative."

"There is an alternative—and that is a return to action and disruption".

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as Secretary of State, perhaps his most important priority is to get the confidence of the teaching profession as a whole? Does he agree that he will do that only if he is prepared to negotiate, listen to what the teachers say and recognise that their view about the way in which salary scales should be organised must be taken seriously if he is to gain their confidence?

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, in this matter, there is no collective view of the profession. Two unions did not approve the draft document. Since then, other unions have made it clear to me that they do not agree with an element of the structure. There is no agreed professional view of the position. That problem has been inherent in the trouble for the past two years. There has been very muddled progress over that period, as the unions and the local authority employers have not been able to agree. Alas, that is still the position. That is why we have to introduce a Bill. That is why I have to make the Government's position clear.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is said that some 1 million people are incapable of correctly filling in their applications for British Gas shares? Does this not show that their education was somewhat inadequate? Does it not point to a clear need for a total restructuring of the salaries of professional teachers and of their conditions of service so that this does not occur in future?

There must be other objectives to the education system than a facility to fill in prospectuses. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend. There is considerable disquiet about the quality of education at all levels in our schools. The dispute is an important opportunity to improve the quality of the teaching profession. We must not forgo that opportunity.

The Secretary of State, in his first answer, avoided the issue. He did not make it clear what was the issue at the recalled conference of the NUT, at which I was present. The issue was not his offer. The teachers are united in their disagreement with it. The issue was the employers' offer, which, with the union's agreement, still has to be submitted to the right hon. Gentleman. One hundred thousand or so people did not agree with that offer—which is far better than the Secretary of State's offer—and 125,000 did agree with it. The important word in the main question is "negotiations". If the Secretary of State tries to impose his will on all the unions without negotiations, he will unify them, and he will disrupt schools once again.

One must appreciate that the NUT has made it clear that it is not prepared to move at all. It has not moved since Coventry. That is what the deputy general secretary of the NUT said. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the NUT. Does he agree with the sentiment:

"There is an alternaive—and that is a return to action and disruption"?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the past decade there has been a considerable improvement in the teacher-pupil ratio, without an equivalent improvement in the quality of education? If so, will he resist the demands for more teachers and more free periods and concentrate the available resources on rewarding good teachers who are conscientious and accept responsibility?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio from 18·9:1 to 17·6:1 while we have been in office. I also agree that that has not necessarily been accompanied in all our schools by an improvement in the quality of education. I think that all hon. Members are concerned about that. The whole thrust of the Government's and my proposals is to improve the quality of the teaching profession by having proper incentives and rewards for at least half the profession, whereas the ACAS proposals cover only a third of the profession.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 23 September this year he said to a meeting of educationists, "I worry about the present extension of central control. I want more decisions to be taken at the rim of the wheel and fewer at the hub"? If so, why is the right hon. Gentleman poking his nose into the teachers' negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that only 10 minutes ago my hon. Friend the Minister of State was being pressed to interfere in the wage negotiations in our universities. I stand by exactly what I said. The hon. Gentleman will see, if he studies the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the very wide, extensive reforms that we are introducing to increase the power of head teachers and governors. That is what I want to do, but the Labour party is opposed to it.

Does my right hon. Friend feel that the time has come to remove the local authorities from the pay equation? After all, the teachers want to negotiate national conditions and the people want national curricula and national standards in our schools.

There is little doubt that there is a move, which I support and will encourage, towards national curricula. As regards the future of determining teachers' pay and conditions, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, which will have its Second Reading next Monday, will set out our proposals for an interim advisory committee. I am sure that many people will welcome the fact that the Burnham negotiating machinery is coming to its end.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to accept any modification at all to his proposals, or is he merely delaying until he has got his legislation through Parliament so that he can impose a settlement on the teachers and the employers? We are entitled to know the answer.

The answer is that on 30 October I set out the Government's conditions and provided a further £600 million. Since then there has been no move towards the Government's position. Some of the unions are saying to me that they would like to reconsider their position. I am willing to listen.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the working of the Education Act 1981.

My right hon. Friend will shortly be undertaking a review of the provisions of the Education Act 1981 and its associated guidance to local education authorities, health authorities and social services departments in the light of recent research findings. Any possible amendments will be the subject of consultation with interested bodies in the usual way.

Although the recently published survey, which the Minister has not mentioned, shows that there are many problems associated with the integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools, does he agree that the main difficulty arises from the insufficient provision made by the Government? Is he aware that there is deep and growing concern among parents—I am pleased to have the Minister's assent—at the slow progress in meeting the aims of the 1981 Act? Will he therefore consider constituting a special unit in his Department to monitor and develop progress towards the aims of the Act? Unless something is done about that, the hon. Gentleman will soon be accused of not caring about the provisions of this important legislation.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern. As he knows, a short while ago the Department of Education and Science funded a three and a half year project at the University of London institute of education to study the developments within local authorities following the introduction of the 1981 Act. We are now studying the implications of that project and we shall return to it at some time in future.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although there have been some early and obvious benefits from the implementation of the Act for handicapped youngsters and their classmates, there are still problems —for example, in small village schools of ancient construction which have difficulties in handling wheelchair cases?

My hon. Friend is right about that difficulty. We would all like to spend more money on special education, but much good work is being done within existing resources. As he knows, all local education authorities now operate the procedures introduced by the 1981 Act.

Does the Minister accept that the implementation of the Act has been severely handicapped because no extra resources have been available to adapt buildings, to provide the extra educational psychologists who are needed to make the statements, to train teachers in the mainstream schools, to provide special provision or to provide speech therapists or physiotherapists from the district health authorities? When will the Government provide the money to make the legislation work?

From the moment that the Act was initiated we always said that financial provision was the responsibility of the local education authorities. I remind the House that the number of children who were the subject of a statement of special educational needs and who were in ordinary schools at January last was 26,423.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to bring forward any proposals to aid the speedier reorganisation of schools by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend intends shortly to issue a circular to local education authorities giving guidance on the action needed to reorganise schools in response to falling rolls.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal cause of complaints that are heard from time to time about low capitation and poor quality of repairs in schools is the failure of authorities, such as Avon, to reorganise schools, thereby wasting the money that could otherwise be provided to improve standards in schools? Will he allow and encourage authorities to speed up much-needed reorganisation? Will he also take into account the fact that when authorities are contemplating reorganisation, they are often considering a period of three years?

The point of the circular will be to answer just the points made by my hon. Friend. How, when and why local education authorities reorganise their provision is entirely for them, but they must take account of the children and the needs of the community if they do so.

Will the Minister consider carefully the way in which the Education Act 1981—the Warnock Act—could be better implemented, with reorganisation, to enable more facilities to be made available?

I undertake to do just that.

Will my hon. Friend look at the administration of our schools, as many teachers who serve on local education authorities appear to act in a negative way, especially in relation to Leicestershire county council schools? Will he also encourage further single-sex schools to be established, as they are the only real way to allow pupils to develop?

Our role in the receiving sense is simply to take account of the provision as it stands and how it might be shaped for the future. The maintenance of schools of proven worth and of single-sex schools figures highly among our concerns.

Does the Minister realise that the Department of Education and Science is pressing for the economic use of schools? It is recognised that in future some of those places will be required as the numbers increase. Therefore, some authorities are applying under section 13 for closures of one form per school to allow a thinning-out to get over the problem temporarily. However, on occasion, the Department is overruling the recommendations, especially in Tory areas, and that is causing an imbalance in other parts of the city.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be somewhat confused about the provisions of the 1980 Act. Local education authorities can reduce their planned admission levels by up to 19·99 per cent. without recourse to the Department. If they wish to go beyond that, they must have recourse to the Secretary of State. How local authorities respond is entirely a matter for them.

Has my hon. Friend studied the recent figures which show that the part of the United Kingdom with the highest success rate in A and O-levels is Northern Ireland, where 25 per cent. of all children go to grammar schools? Consequently, will he resist, or look very carefully at, any proposals from county councils that seek to wind up, abolish or undermine grammar school education in places such as Southend, as it is extremely successful and popular?

My hon. Friend, as ever, has his constituency interests at heart. However, we take careful account of all the arguments before approving any proposals for closure or amalgamation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the past three months on the level of student financial support.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the past three months on the level of student financial support.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the past three months on the level of student financial support.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the past three months on the level of student financial support.

Since the beginning of September my right hon. Friend has received about 40 representations on the level of financial support for students. In addition, a number of letters have been received on issues which fall within the scope of the review of student support, including submissions made in response to invitations to submit evidence to the review.

Does the Minister realise that, because of the cuts in the real value of student grants, many students face hardship of a kind that has never been experienced before? If a student loan system was introduced, it would remove access to higher education for many students who come from lower income families. As evidence from other countries clearly suggests that to be the case, why do the Government not abandon that idea altogether?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the grant has been cut by the extent often claimed by the NUS, which is 20 per cent. The real figure is closer to 12 per cent. The hon. Gentleman has selectively used evidence about the effect of loans in other countries. However, I will look at that carefully and fairly, because I do not want anything in my review to damage the chances of access to higher education by those from lower income backgrounds. A loan system need not do that.

Why have the Government introduced new student grant regulations requiring mature students to have earned £12,000 in the three years prior to going to college? Will that not block access to education by women who have been bringing up families, by the unemployed and by the low-paid? Surely that will block access to the majority of those seeking mature student grants.

Not uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point. The number of mature students has increased by 15 per cent. since 1979, and we are proud of that record. Moreover, the change was introduced partly at the suggestion of the NUS and the local authority associations in order to spread the benefit. The hon. Gentleman clearly misunderstands the whole purpose of the benefit. It is not intended for all students who have reached a certain age, but to compensate those entering higher education for any financial obligations that they have built up.

Will my hon. Friend give due weight to the growing feeling among students in favour of a mixed grant-loan system? They believe that it offers emancipation from the present system of parental contributions.

A fact often overlooked by commentators on this question is that the only people who do not contribute directly to the cost of student support are the main beneficiaries, the students theselves.

Will my hon. Friend seek to reallocate the available finance for student support so that all students are put on an equal footing, irrespective of whether the parents cough up the full parental contribution.?

In the course of the review on student support we shall take all proposals into account, including those of my hon. Friend.

Accepting the increase in the number of students in higher education, is the Minister genuinely satisfied that, bearing in mind the needs of the nation and the availability of talent, he is doing enough to get students into higher education?

We are doing more than many other previous Governments. The real problem is not student grants, but the quality of education provided in primary schools and upwards. No Government have done more than this one to improve that quality.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December 1986.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider setting up an official inquiry to consider what precedents there are, if any, for the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to intervene in a court case involving Her Majesty's Government by privately contacting the counsel acting against Her Majesty's Government?

My hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. If there are any such precedents for this astonishing action, perhaps the deputy leader of the Opposition will let us know.

In her consideration of these matters, especially what is known as public interest, will the Prime Minister tell us how she distinguished between a book written by Mr. Peter Wright and a book based on information supplied by Mr. Peter Wright? Why did the Prime Minister choose to prosecute or attempt to suppress publication in one case, yet allow, indeed encourage, publication in the other?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I cannot comment—[Interruption.]—on matters which may arise in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case in Australia while those proceedings continue. I also intend to follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and not comment on security matters.

I am asking the Prime Minister to answer for past errors. Was it not the Government's decision not to take action against Mr. Chapman Pincher in 1981 that has produced their present humiliation? Is that not the result of the authority of the Attorney-General being usurped by the Prime Minister in order to manipulate the law for party political reasons?

The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to be mischievous. I shall not answer his questions, however hard he tries.

Nobody is taken in by the Prime Minister's prevarication on these matters. The House and the country know that the Prime Minister has begun to treat the law as if it were her own property. Hence the Prime Minister's willingness to allow Mr. Wright to sell his secrets to Chapman Pincher, but not to allow him to sell his secrets under his own name.

I repeat, it would be inappropriate for me—[Interruption.]—to comment on matters which may arise in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case in Australia while those preceedings continue. I also intend to follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers of not commenting on security matters—a precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman adhered when he was in junior office in the Labour Government.

Before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes back to her timetable, will she ask the chiefs of staff whether they could let us have an assessment of the Labour party's latest alternative to a nuclear deterrent, and whether it could be published? I understand that its alternative is to build a ditch from the Baltic to the Adriatic and to fill it with explosive slurry to deter Soviet tanks.

My right hon. Friend makes it abundantly clear that we do not need an assessment from the chiefs of staff. The Labour Party's suggestion is crackers.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the light of the present difficulties of the British and American Governments, many people are contrasting the British Government's shady, hole-in-the-corner, sweep-it-under-the-carpet tactics with America, where everything will come out in the wash? When are the people of the United Kingdom to be entrusted with open government?

Speaking as a housewife, I think that the right hon. Gentleman became rather confused about his subject. We are fine. How is the right hon. Gentleman?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the more people learn about the defence policies of the Opposition parties the more they support the Government's policy of maintaining full membership of NATO and retaining our own nuclear deterrent? Will my right hon. Friend take note that last Thursday, 24 hours after a party political broadcast on behalf of the SDP, in which it outlined its defence policy, it not only lost a seat on Hyndburn council to the Conservative party, but came bottom of the poll? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two events are not unconnected?

I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents and hope that we will have many other similar successes. I am sure that his constituents were entirely right in rejecting the Liberal-SDP defence policy, which is for a deterrent which does not deter.

Rolls-Royce was nationalised by a previous Conservative Government. If the Prime Minister achieves her own way and the company is privatised, and it fails again, will she renationalise it to save the thousands of jobs that will be lost?

Rolls-Royce is doing very well and winning excellent orders, and many people both inside and outside the company are looking forward to the privatisation and the wider share ownership that will then ensue, which is anathema to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the spread of AIDS could be greatly reduced if there were a change in public attitudes, especially if indulging in homosexual activities and drug taking could once again become morally and socially unacceptable?

I am sure that attitudes are changing in the light of information about AIDS. I am sure also that the most important thing is to ensure that people have full information about how this terrible disease is spread among men and women. I think that then much of the behaviour that has been going on will be entirely unacceptable for many and varied reasons.

While we may disagree on how best to make a contribution to NATO's nuclear deterrence, is that as nothing in comparison with the advocacy of a non-nuclear defence strategy for NATO? Does the Prime Minister agree that the Australian precedent, whereby Australia has agreed with the United States that New Zealand, in pursuing a non-nuclear defence strategy, can no longer remain a member of the ANZUS treaty organisation, is exactly the attitude that our European partners will take to the idea that any one NATO country can opt out of NATO's nuclear defence strategy?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. A nuclear deterrent strategy is a fundamental part of NATO's strategy, and those who do not accept it are very likely to break up the organisation and be unable to remain members.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.

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

May I assure my right hon. Friend that the questions which have come from the Conservative Benches today have not been planted by Mr. Turnbull?—[Interruption.] What damage does my right hon. Friend think that the abandonment of the bi-partisan approach to security matters has done to British security interests, and what effect does she think that will have in the future on our security interests?

The abandonment of the bi-partisan approach to security matters is totally and utterly fundamental to Britain's security. The Leader of the Opposition has abandoned a fundamental defence policy pursued by his predecessors. He has now abandoned a fundamental security policy pursued by all previous Prime Ministers.

In view of the anxiety which the Prime Minister must have suffered during the past few weeks over the contradictory application and non-application of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, and in view of her refusal to comment upon that to the House, is she considering amending the Act?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, we tried to amend the Act in 1980 and brought before the House a Bill for that purpose. It was at that time rejected. We have no present proposals to amend it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.

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

Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange today for a special flight for the Leader of the Opposition so that he can come back to the House tomorrow to answer the real allegations that he has been conniving with defence lawyers in Australia in a case against the Crown on the subject of security?

It is not for me to answer for the Leader of the Opposition and I am jolly glad that I do not have to. It is for him to do that.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to explain to the House why the London fire brigade is having to pay out about £100,000 in order to change the insignia on the buttons, the fire engines and the fire stations because the College of Arms will not let it use the GLC coat of arms? Is that part of the savings from the abolition of the GLC that the Prime Minister promised us?

The savings from the abolition of the GLC, as some our constituents have occasion to know, are enormous, and they are grateful that the GLC has been abolished.

As the Leader of the Opposition has let himself be set up to ask in the House questions which were to be asked in an Australian court the following day, is my right hon. Friend aware that she will have the full support of Conservative Members if she refuses to have any more truck on matters of national security with someone who has reduced himself to the status of Mr. Turnbull's mouthpiece?

Yes; I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister make arrangements to study the board of inquiry report which will be produced on the military aircraft crash which took place in the Borders in Scotland on Thursday night? Is she aware that such crashes are now occurring on average once every two months? Will she give the House an undertaking that she will make sure that low-flying manoeuvres are restricted to the absolute minimum and that they are carried out with procedures which quarantee the maximum safety for civilian life?

I understand that a pilot lost his life in that crash, and I should like to extend sympathy to the relatives of that pilot. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cause of the accident, in which an RAF Jaguar crashed, is still under investigation. Safety regulations for military flying over all designated range areas, and more generally, are matters to which the Government attach great importance. They are kept under close and continual review. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

If my right hon. Friend wished to acquaint herself with the course of the trial in Australia directly and speak on the telephone, would she speak to counsel acting for Her Majesty's Government, or would she speak only to counsel acting for Mr. Wright?

I think my hon. Friend can rest assured that I would do neither.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that she has often expressed pride in the fact that she was once governor of Imperial college, and that she is a science graduate in chemistry and an associate and friend of Sir George Porter? Has she seen the remarks that Sir George made yesterday, confirming that the continuing brain drain from Britain in science and engineering is the result of the Government's abandonment of science and engineering? What has she now to say about the deplorable state of our laboratories, the deplorable state of engineering in the absence of some of our key engineers and the deplorable future that faces this country without those scientists and engineers?

I read the comments of Sir George Porter. I must state that total net Government expenditure on research and development is at record levels and that the United Kingdom Government-funded civilian research and development, as a proportion of national output, exceeds the level in Japan and the United States, and that is also true for all United Kingdom expenditure on research and development compared with Germany.