To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responsibility he has for United Kingdom participation in the United Nations environment programme-WBO intergovernmental panel on climate change, as the Minister responsible for basic and long-term strategic research into the global environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to improve the co-ordination of United Kingdom research into the global environment.

Extensive co-ordination of research in the broad area of the global environment already takes place, both domestically and internationally. The research councils are actively engaged and I understand that the Natural Environment Research Council is likely soon to join expert groups of the climate change panel under the United Nations environment programme, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment takes lead responsibility.

International co-operation is obviously important, but will the Minister tell us what steps his Department takes to encourage co-operation between the various Departments that are responsible for the pollution that is so damaging to the atmosphere and what steps it is taking especially with the Department of Energy in encouraging the various projects necessary to reduce the levels of hydrocarbons that are burning in the power stations?

The implications of the different policies for the environment being pursued in different branches of Government are taken seriously by the Government as a whole and by those Departments. It is not, of course, a matter for the Department of Education and Science in the first instance.

Does the Minister realise that the co-ordination between various branches of Government on the environment is seen by many as absolutely chaotic? Will the Minister agree to look seriously at the approach taken in the United States, which brings together the relevant agencies to ensure that there is a productive channelling of effort to tackle these problems?

There are many ways in which one can organise research activities in an area as large and complex as that of the environment and environmental policy. One method will have advantages and disadvantages and another will have other strengths and weaknesses. We are dealing with large and complicated questions and one of the problems about having a single co-ordinating body, which might achieve the advantage of more focus, is that there is a disengagement of environmental research from other areas of research. All those matters are being considered by the advisory committee on science and technology, and the Government look forward to receiving advice from that body in due course.

But within the Secretary of State's own responsibilities, is there not a case for a joint directorate involving the research councils directly concerned—the Natural Environment Research Council, the Science and Engineering Research Council, the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council? Is the Minister aware that there seems to be strong support for such a move among all the research councils? Is he aware that the very importance of these activities and many unfortunate precedents enormously increase the scope for errors in the physical science, the politics and the policies that are actually implemented? Will he buck up his ideas?

I am always happy to try to buck up my ideas in line with the hon. Gentleman's urgings. There is a case for almost any combination of organisational structure in these matters. The case is being examined by the research councils and by ACOST. We look forward to their advice, which we shall consider very seriously.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes to help the new borough education authorities in London to overcome the problems of shortages of qualified teachers in London.

My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the need to ensure a sufficient supply of teachers in all local education authorities.

Is the Minister aware that one of the main problems in recruiting teachers in inner and outer London—particularly in my own borough of Brent—is the high cost of housing in Greater London? What steps do she and her colleagues intend to take to encourage schemes such as the scheme in my constituency which involves hostels and to encourage equity-sharing to ensure that London gets the teachers it deserves?

On the general point about teacher recruitment in London, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions to advise him on measures to tackle the high-cost housing areas, such as inner and outer London, and to consider the London weighting issue when it reports to him. A number of interesting ideas are coming forward from local authorities that have put together packages to retain and recruit teachers in areas where there are problems with housing.

What steps does my hon. Friend's Department propose to take to overcome teacher shortages in the 1990s in key subjects, such as mathematics, physics and the others outlined in the Select Committee last week? Will she note that some local authorities in London are failing to recruit teachers through sheer ineptitude? In Ealing, 44 steps have to be gone through before a teacher can be recruited into a classroom, because the local authority is so obsessed with equal opportunities and similar procedures.

I understand my hon. Friend's frustration at the bureaucratic nonsense that some education authorities impose on schools trying to recruit teachers in shortage subjects. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, and I hope that my right hon. Friend's proposal for licensed teachers will go some way to alleviate the problems faced by the teaching profession in that regard. My hon. Friend will be aware of the measures that the Department already has up and running for recruitment in shortage subjects. We are offering bursaries to graduates who enter and remain in shortage subjects—physics, mathematics, CDT and, as announced by my right hon. Friend only last Friday, chemistry—in an attempt to address some of the difficulties.

Is the Minister aware that in my borough of Waltham Forest primary school vacancies are running at 10 per cent. of the teacher establishment? Many worried school governors are asking what the Government propose to do about it. There is a crisis in London and the Government are held to blame for not training enough teachers, for the housing problem, which means that teachers cannot afford housing, and for demoralisation in the teaching force. When can parents in my borough expect their children to have teachers?

The fault must lie more with Waltham Forest than in the recruitment of teachers. We have more student entries into primary teaching than we have had for a considerable number of years, so there cannot possibly be any shortage of primary school teachers, although Waltham Forest may well have difficulties in recruiting teachers because of its policies.

As a former education officer in an outer London borough who had responsibility for recruiting supply staff, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that the quickest way of recruiting more teachers in London and other areas where there are shortages is to allow the market to play a part, first, by introducing differential pay rates for London and other shortage areas as well as in shortage subjects?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who speaks from great experience. I notice the derision from Opposition Members whenever market forces are mentioned in this context. It is very much a matter of whether teachers fancy working in particular authorities because of the opprobium that attends those authorities or whether good teachers prefer to go to authorities which are more stable in their policies and their administration of education generally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Local education authorities are aware of the high cost of underused capacity at schools with a substantial proportion of surplus places. It is, therefore, very much in their own financial interests to continue to come forward with proposals to rationalise their school provision where appropriate. The Government's public expenditure plans assume that authorities collectively will achieve the national targets for the removal of surplus places.

What extra help will be made available to local education authorities to deal with surplus capacity when their plans have been frustrated by opting-out procedures exacerbating surplus capacity in local education? In Staveley in my constituency, Staveley Netherthorpe school has opted out, thereby creating problems for two other schools in the area.

The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the raison d'être behind the Education Reform Act. The driving force behind decisions on which schools will remain open and which will close will increasingly be parental choice through open enrolment. As for the substantive part of his question, we shall consider each section 12 proposal on its merits. In parallel and together, we shall consider grant-maintained status applications on their merits.

Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Secretary of State's opinion that opting out should not be used as a lifeline by schools that face closure because of local authority proposals? Will he confirm that the majority of opting-out proposals so far have come from schools that face closure because of local authority reorganisation? How does that fit in with what he has just said about rationalisation and the proper use of resources?

We have said that opting out which will not be used as a bolt hole for schools that are not viable. We have said that many times, and we shall consider each application on its merit. However, there is increasing evidence, and it has been confirmed yet again, that municipal Socialism is a creature which turns vicious whenever its hold on its captive subjects is threatened. We believe in democracy and parental choice. The hon. Lady should look at the behaviour of certain Labour councils when parents try to exercise that democratic process.

I note my hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that surplus places take up scarce resources, spending money on empty desks rather than on children? Despite what he has heard from Opposition Members, does he agree that grant-maintained schools represent a cost-effective way of educating children? They are invariably oversubscribed and give parents a valuable yardstick against which they may judge schools in LEAs.

This mini debate has shown yet again that the Labour party is about 15 years out of date. There are something like 620,000 primary places and some 800,000 secondary places surplus to capacity. That represents a cost in premises-related expenditure of something like £240 million a year. There is no incompatibility between grant-maintained schools and the need to tackle that problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not all schools applying to opt out are, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggests, those due for closure? Heckmondwike grammar school in my constituency is certainly not due for closure; it is due, if the Labour party gets its own way, to be changed considerably. However, the parents have decided that they do not wish to have those Labour party changes, so they will seek to opt out.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has had to live alongside some of the worst aspects of that municipal Socialism to which I referred earlier. It is our policy to enhance parental choice, whether through grant-maintained schools or otherwise. We shall safeguard the interests of parents who wish, in a fair and free manner to exercise that choice if they recognise that their school is excellent and worth retaining.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that he shows the same ignorance and ineptitude on this subject as he used to show at the Department of Trade and Industry? Is he aware that well over half the schools that have sought to opt out have been in Conservative-controlled areas? If, as he says, opting out is not a bolt hole for schools under threat of closure, why is the Secretary of State's front organisation, the Grant Maintained Schools Trust, actively encouraging any school under the threat of closure to seek to opt out? Do not he and the Secretary of State understand that their opting-out policy is completely paralysing any sensible rationalisation of school provision by local authorities? How can local authorities propose schools for closure when the effect of such a proposal may be that the Secretary of State says that that school shall remain open for ever and outside local education authority control so that the LEA then has to propose for closure schools that it would otherwise have kept open?

We shall be entirely fair and open-minded on grant-maintained status applications, whether they come from Conservative or Labour-controlled LEAs. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not believe in his own arguments and that is why he has had to play the man and not the ball.

When my hon. Friend is rightly encouraging LEAs to reduce surplus places, will he also make it clear to LEAs such as that in Leeds, which rules over a large and diverse area, that there is no reason for political dogma in imposing blanket solutions on diverse local communities, and, in particular, that the Government regard village schools as an important part of village life and rural communities?

My hon. Friend is saying what I have tried to confirm over the past few moments, which is that Conservative Members believe in pluralism while the Opposition believe in incorporatism.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional resources available to schools in Leicestershire to pay for defects and repairs that are deemed necessary; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's expenditure plans for 1989–90 provide for local authorities as a whole to spend £114 million, or approaching 30 per cent., more in cash on repairing and maintaining their school building stock than was actually spent in 1986–87. That is an increase of 9 per cent. in real terms. The Government distribute rate support grant to local authorities on the basis of those expenditure plans. However, it is for each authority to decide how to spend the resources available to it.

Is the Minister aware that during the Christmas recess I conducted a survey of the 29 schools in my constituency and 24 of them were found to be in a state of serious disrepair? One was a fire hazard and three were in a dangerous condition. They have had to wait a total of 175 years for decoration and repair. Yesterday, the director of education informed me that it will cost £1 million to effect the repairs needed in my constituency alone. Does the Minister agree that it is a mark of a civilised society to give our children the best possible environment in which to learn and grow? In view of the information that I have kindly given him today, will he reconsider his answer and allocate more resources to the county council?

Leicestershire spends just below the national average on repairs and maintenance per capita in the primary sector and just above the national average per capita in the secondary sector. Overall, we have increased in real terms the allocations for repairs and maintenance, and, indeed, capital expenditure, but it is for LEAs to exercise their choice and mix the money that they receive in grant from the centre with capital receipts to tackle just the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Is the Minister aware that St. Clare's Roman Catholic school in Coalville in my constituency is an excellent school but that it is bursting at the seams? It requires not maintenance but an extension to provide further excellent education for the Roman Catholics in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend see that that money is available for that school?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to make a decision on that school at this moment. If he wishes to make more detailed representations to me, I shall be glad to entertain him and, if need be, a delegation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to monitor the impact of the transfer of education responsibilities from the Inner London education authority to inner London boroughs.

As a matter of course, the Government evaluate the effectiveness of the policies they introduce. The performance of the inner London councils as LEAs will be monitored through the collection of data on educational and financial performance, and through inspection by HMI.

Is the Minister aware that many people in inner London are concerned about what will happen when education is transferred to the boroughs? Is she further aware that the long-term predictions by her Department show that education spending in inner London will fall by 30 per cent. in real terms in the first five years of transfer to the boroughs? Will she reconsider those figures and enable proper expenditure on education to take place in inner London to take account of the problems of deprivation, the higher costs of providing education in the area and, for example, the fact that 50 per cent. of the children in my borough fall within the special needs category? Those needs must be met by central Government. They cannot be met out of local resources.

The hon. Gentleman should remember that ILEA has overspent, and spent inefficiently, on London's education for years. The authority's abolition provides a new framework within which the boroughs can move to provide more efficient services. That certainly can be done and many outer London boroughs already manage it. The inner London boroughs will have the support of the safety net arrangements for four years from April 1990 and, following that, the new needs assessment will take into account the factors that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the commissars of the people's republic of Islington have said that when they are responsible for education in the area, it will be based on numeracy and literacy? Does she agree that if ILEA had adopted a similar approach, the case for abolition would have been much less strong? Will she also agree that the record of the London borough of Barnet—where a pupil is three times as likely to leave with two A-levels as in the ILEA—shows that the London boroughs are more than capable of looking after the children's education?

The short answer to those questions is yes.

Does the Minister recall the words used by the Secretary of State when he praised the London boroughs for their efforts to deal with the administrative chaos that was likely to arise as a result of his proposals to abolish ILEA? Those words of praise having been given, will the Minister now guarantee that the London boroughs will be given the necessary resources to provide good-quality education? Or do the words she used in her main answer mean that she is determined to carry out a financial vendetta against the children of inner London and starve them and the boroughs of the resources that they desperately need to have good education and good opportunities?

There is absolutely no question of a vendetta against the children in the new inner London education authorities. From the draft development plans that are coming to the Department now and the discussions that are being held with the inner London boroughs, it is clear that the interests of the children are being taken care of. There will be safety netting with the introduction of education as one of the responsibilities of those boroughs and as that is phased out, a key determinant in the boroughs' financial position will be the new needs assessment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to review the effectiveness of legislation concerning the appointment of school governors.

The reform of governing bodies is a key element in our strategy for raising standards in schools. Our legislation has ensured that governing bodies are now much better balanced and more effective.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of the legislation was, among other things, to achieve a broad spectrum of representation on boards of governors? Is she aware, however, that the outcome appears to be a substantial preponderance of teaching profession representatives, who are also parents of pupils at the schools? In the light of the activities of the National Union of Teachers in encouraging its members to become governors wherever possible, does she agree that this could lead to a conflict of interests? Will she therefore keep the matter under close review and take whatever immediate action may be appropriate if it becomes apparent that the interests of pupils are not paramount?

Governors, especially parent governors, should be chosen for the values that they bring to the governing body as consumers, not because they have vested interests either politically or professionally in the management of schools. It remains for the parents at each school to decide which candidates to elect, having studied the curriculum vitae of those coming forward.

Is the Minister aware of the dire consequences of her Department's failure to legislate to prevent local authorities from appointing single party state slates of school governors? Has she seen the letter from two parent governors of Charlotte Sharman primary and nursery school, in my constituency, who have been unable to take in a governing body meeting with a quorum since its constitution in September because of the failure to attend of the three ILEA Labour members and the Southwark Labour member? Although opposition members have been willing to attend, and be nominated and co-opted, the two authorites in question have insisted that only their own people should be put forward to sit on school boards. Will there be legislation to deal with this, or shall we be able to amend the Housing and Local Government Bill to be introduced tomorrow?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have at times made our views very plain about the placing of political one-party governors on school boards. We deplore this activity in local authorities of whatever political control where it is blatant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We would much prefer the system that has always prevailed, whereby authorities allocate ward-by-ward representation on governing bodies. Where there is a balance on the local authority of, say, Labour and Conservative, or SLD representatives the ward schools will have some representatives from those elected for those wards. I hope that that kind of best practice will continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the likely balance between arts subjects and other subjects for study in higher education during the next 10 years.

The balance of subjects will be determined largely by institutions and students. We believe that there should be a further shift towards science, engineering and vocational courses to provide the balance of skills that the economy needs. But this is entirely consistent with retaining high levels of scholarships in all the arts, humanities and social sciences.

Would my hon. Friend encourage students who are nervous about top-up loans to choose to study useful subjects that are in demand so they can be confident about getting good jobs and have no trouble repaying their debts to society?

I would urge students to consider very carefully the courses that they undertake in the light of what they think is right for them and their future employment prospects. I certainly believe that the top-up loan proposals, which the Government have made and will introduce in due course, will help to encourage a greater sense of economic realism among students, which would be a desirable development.

In trying to achieve his objective, will the hon. Gentleman attempt not to reduce the choice of arts subjects in schools? In particular, will he take note of and clarify the role of the Training Commission, which is still trying to impose a school curriculum in advance of the national curriculum agreed by the Secretary of State?

This is not a matter particularly for me, but I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints of an attempt to squeeze out arts subjects. That is not happening.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's emphasis on the need for a balance of subjects in the national interest. Does that mean that he and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reject the extraordinary proposals of the University Grants Committee to close the outstanding veterinary schools in Glasgow and in Cambridge?

As a result of the review committee, a proposal has been made to the University Grants Committee. The UGC, and the Universities Funding Council after 1 April, will have to consider it. It is a matter for them to consider in the first instance.

Further to his previous reply, what estimate has the Minister made of the effects of the top-up loan proposals on the balance of subjects? In particular, does he agree that medical students, by virtue of the length and nature of their courses, would be especially badly hit and could face outstanding debts of some £19,000 at the end of their courses? What study has he made of that and why does not the loans White Paper refer to medical students?

On behalf of the Treasury Bench I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his august responsibilities. Of course, the Government have considered the impact of top-up loans on student choice of subjects. The conclusion that we have reached is that the consequences are unpredictable. Certainly the scare stories that the hon. Gentleman may be about to launch bear no relation to the position in other countries that have loans schemes for their students on a scale considerably more demanding than the proposals that we are making.

Will it not be essential in the next decade for management education to be extended so that as many young women and men as possible go out into the world without feeling ignorant about the way in which business works?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government strongly support the development of management education and are very pleased at the progress being made. We hope that it will be faster.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to increase the supply of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

I have outlined my proposals for future teacher supply in a memorandum provided to the Select Committee on which the hon. Member sits. I also announced last Friday radical changes in teacher training to make entry into the teaching profession more flexible.

The reason for the question is that the memorandum supplied to the Select Committee was pathetically inadequate. In a speech to the Society of Education Officers the Secretary of State said that he intended to keep in touch with teachers who leave the profession. As seven out of 10 do so within the first five years, how does the Secretary of State propose to keep in touch with them? Would not the best way of keeping them be to give them a salary and a status commensurate with the job that they do instead of rubbishing them as has been done for the past 10 years?

About half the teachers who take up appointments each year—roughly 16,000—are former teachers returning to the profession. I was urging local authorities to keep in touch with teachers who leave—mainly women leaving to have families—so that they may attract them back. That is an important way of increasing the number of teachers. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the speech that I made on Friday I mentioned two other important initiatives. One is the concept of licensed teachers, to encourage mature people in their 30s and 40s to come into teaching. The other is a new method whereby a student, after graduating in another subject, would go straight into a school and be trained as a teacher on the job.

In considering the supply of teachers will my right hon. Friend also pay attention to the movement of teachers from one authority to another? In particular, will he give thought to the significance of the fact that many teachers move from inner London and from Brent to work in areas such as Gravesham? Will he bear in mind that although property prices are similar we do not have the benefit of inner London or any form of London weighting?

The problem of housing costs in the employment of teachers has already been raised at Question Time, and as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said I have asked the interim advisory committee for its advice. Many authorities are now putting together separate and individual packages, often involving housing support, to attract teachers.

Does the Secretary of State realise that many young people who would make excellent teachers will not have the opportunity to go to college if the student loan system comes in? Does he appreciate that in Wales the proposal is entirely unacceptable, and will he give an assurance that if students and educationists appear to be reacting against the scheme it will be abandoned?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the proposal that I made last Friday, that someone who has graduated in another subject should in future be allowed to be employed by a local education authority immediately after his graduation without having to spend another year in college. I believe that that will be very attractive to many students—they will be trained as teachers on the job and will receive salaries while they are training.

Has my right hon. Friend considered whether it will be possible to develop a viable scheme to harness the talents of people recently retired from industry to supplement the regular teaching force, particularly in the shortage subjects?

The licensed teacher approach is intended to encourage people in their 30s and 40s who want a career change. It has been pioneered by several local authorities, and later this year we shall regularise it with new regulations. It provides an important input into teaching.

Has the Secretary of State no idea of the scale of the teaching crisis over which he presides? Does he realise that three in 10 newly qualified teachers fail to go into teaching the next year, four in 10 new teachers leave the profession within five years and the measures that he announced last Friday are wholly inadequate to the task? Is he aware that good teachers will continue to leave in droves for better-paid jobs outside unless their pay is raised and their conditions improved, and the Secretary of State starts to provide leadership to raise the morale of the profession instead of continually undermining it?

The year before last there was an increase of 3,000 in teacher training; last year there was an increase of 1,000. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the evidence that I submitted to the Select Committee, or my speech last Friday. I am not complacent, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not defeatist either.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present procedure for the balloting of parents on schools opting out of the control of local authorities.

The Education Reform Act 1988 provides a framework for such ballots, and the Electoral Reform Society conducts them on behalf of the governing bodies. Secret postal ballots have been held among parents at 21 schools.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that a ballot to decide whether a school is to opt out should be free from all outside influences? Has the case involving the Small Heath school in Birmingham been brought to his notice? All kinds of shenanigans have been taking place, orchestrated largely by the local authority, one of whose chairmen has branded the head teacher a racist, and the local authority has spent £5,000 on presenting in newspapers the case for not opting out. Is it not time for a strict code for ballots of this nature?

I am of course aware of the case of Small Heath school—two attempts in the courts to hold up the ballot have failed—and I deplore the campaigns of misinformation about grant-maintained school policy. I think that those involved in them will be the losers, because parents will be able to sort out fact from fiction. We shall look carefully at the procedures as I want to ensure that they are conducted in an open way that is fair to all parties.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the shenanigans to which his hon. Friend referred, and the mis-statements that he has just made about Mr. Justice Popplewell refusing to stop the ballot, are totally misleading? Last Friday in the High Court the judge granted an expedited judicial review of the case in view of the disgraceful fact that the head teacher had taken the children out of classes 40 minutes early, told them to go home and tell their parents to vote "yes" and distributed leaflets to which the parents objected. The judge clearly agreed that nothing could be more contemptible than to use school children as part of an election campaign.

It is no good attacking the principle of grant-maintained schools, because it is on the statute book and it is a popular policy. Many parents in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—his electors and supporters—find it popular. They are fans of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman is behaving like Brian Clough and attacking the fans.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to introduce a new system for the negotiation of teachers' pay and conditions.

The Government hope to introduce new permanent machinery in time for the 1990 settlement.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the vast majority in the teaching profession have reacted well to these radical reforms and are working the system. Will he give hope to teachers of good will who wish negotiating rights to be restored and say when he hopes to announce progress?

I have set out the Government's proposals for a teachers' negotiating group and I have met the unions and the TUC. I expect to meet them again after Easter to conduct further discussions. A wide range of views has so far been expressed and it may be difficult to reach agreement and unanimity on the matter.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Prime Minister explain how Trident can possibly be a credible deterrent when the Prime Minister will not have control and command of the launching of the weapon, which will be left to the discretion of individual submarine commanders? Does she agree that it would have been better not to spend £9 billion updating Trident but to provide an effective command and control system for Polaris?

A nuclear deterrent has kept the peace for 40 years. History has shown that conventional weapons could not and did not keep the peace. We should be most rash to discard a weapon that has kept the peace until something better is found, and I see no such prospect at present.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that statements made by Mr. Viraj Mendis since he returned to his real homeland confirm how right the Home Secretary was to deport him? Does that not mean that many Opposition Members have egg on their faces?

Yes, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right. He allowed every chance for an appeal and then took what has turned out to be precisely the right action.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious concern in Northern Ireland relating to the conviction for murder of four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Is she further aware that it has come to light that significant evidence was not taken into account during the trial and appeal? Will the Prime Minister study the article in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph and seek the advice of her Law Officers on the matter?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter he knows that the right channels are my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that traditionally it has always been agreed that a certain confidentiality needs to be maintained in the workings of Government? Will she take this opportunity roundly to condemn the grossly irresponsible behaviour of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in receiving stolen documents and thereby aiding and abetting a criminal offence?

Yes, I believe that it is absolutely vital that confidentiality should be maintained. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I should point out that when the Labour party was last in power that was the view taken by the then Labour Prime Minister, and he was supported by the then Leader of the Opposition. It appears that the Labour party is so bankrupt of argument that it has appointed an official receiver.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the last Member of Parliament responsible for a major leak was given a knighthood and made a European Commissioner?

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question was about receiving—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to reply.

—documents that can only have been stolen. We on this side of the House resent deeply the strictures on my distinguished right hon. and learned Friend.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the people of Gibraltar on the progress that they have made towards economic self-sufficiency? Will she confirm that the decision to redeploy some of our troops elsewhere in no way weakens our guarantee to the people of Gibraltar that the colony will remain British so long as the people there desire it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The reduction of our forces in Gibraltar does not affect at all our commitment to Gibraltar, which is enshrined in the preamble to the 1969 constitution, which says that we will not alter the status of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

Will the right hon. Lady accept yesterday's verdict by the House of Lords, when it passed an amendment enabling shareholders to block the funding of political parties? Will she prevent members of her party from defeating that amendment in this House? In view of the syphoning off of company funds through British United Industrialists, will she ensure that that amendment stays in place?

We shall naturally consider the views expressed. I refer the hon. Gentleman to those of my right hon. Friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I believe had it absolutely right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole House should welcome the visit in April of President Gorbachev, which underscores yet again the importance of the British role in delicate negotiations? Notwithstanding the Warsaw Pact's attempts to exaggerate the western statistics and to understate its own, the pace of world disarmament and arms reduction talks continues without hesitation.

Yes, we are glad that the visit has been reinstated after it had to be postponed for reasons which we fully understood. We hope that disarmament talks will continue. With regard to recent statements, I believe that it is far better for disarmament talks to take place at the negotiating table rather than through speeches, when it is very difficult to agree precisely what the figures are, bearing in mind that for 15 years in Vienna we were not able to get precise figures.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

This afternoon every potential patient in Britain, including children, will have a price tag put on their heads. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state unequivocally that there is only one appropriate treatment for a chronically sick child—the best available treatment, not the cheapest?

It is purely because we believe that that matters very much indeed that we have increased the resources available for the entire Health Service from £8 billion to £24 billion and increased the pay of a nursing sister from what it would have been under Labour or if we had increased it by inflation, from just £7,000 to nearly £13,000 a year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Department of Transport is assessing the true cost to the nation of investment in road versus rail, all the costs should be taken into account? Would she agree with me that, for example, the amount of time that the police force spends on administering the law and dealing with endless problems in the courts and in administration is a major cost to the taxpayer? Will she therefore instruct the Department of Transport that from now on these and other appropriate costs must be taken into account when the various comparative costs are assessed?

Obviously, I agree that all relevant costs should be taken into account, but very many more people and goods go by road than go by rail. My hon. Friend may wish that many more would go by rail, and indeed we are trying to improve the rail service so that that is so. But I accept that all relevant costs should be taken into account, although we may not agree on precisely what the relevant costs are.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations secretary-general has been compelled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, including Britain, to propose a reduction in the number of United Nations troops in Namibia from 7,500 to 4,650 during the transition to independence? Has she heard the views of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who has stated that the five permanent members of the Security Council have been fiddling with the moralities of resolution 435? As she will shortly be visiting Zimbabwe and as South Africa continues to support armed bandits and assassination gangs, will she review Britain's position in this matter and insist that the original numbers of troops be maintained?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wish to uphold a decision of the five permanent members of the Security Council. We shall honour it. The agreement was an excellent one and was obtained by the co-operation of those five members plus the co-operation of South Africa and Angola. I believe that we should do everything in our power to see that it is fulfilled. As far as this country is concerned, we pay our full subscription to United Nations peace-maintaining forces everywhere.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent Israeli raids on Palestinian camps in the Lebanon dogs with explosives tied to their bodies were used and that those dogs and their explosive charges were set off, resulting in the death of the dogs and of many Palestinians? Will she make representations to the Israeli Government deploring this practice?

I am not responsible in any way for what happened there. I have heard of no such incidents as those to which my hon. Friend refers. The first thing to do is to find the facts.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is because she cannot bring herself to use the National Health Service that she does not understand the NHS and that the National Health Service is not safe in her hands because there is no place in her heart for it? Will she stop poisoning the moral and ethical basis of the National Health Service and the whole sense of vocation that doctors and nurses in that service have?

I could have expected that the right hon. Gentleman might take a totally different view, one taken by many people far to the left of him—[Interruption.]— who believe that those who can afford to pay for themselves should not take beds from others.

Irrespective of the fate of the Protection of Privacy Bill last Friday, is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter commands a great deal of public concern not only in this House but in the country at large, that it is a matter that the press itself must put right, and that if it does not do so the House will have to do so?

I believe that last Friday's Bill was very well debated, and I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that a similar measure will be debated either this coming Friday or the Friday after that. I am sure that the observations that were made will have been noted in the relevant quarters.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time out of her busy day to examine her shoes and, in so doing, will she reflect on the current state of the British footwear industry, which in the last 10 years of her reign has shown a dramatic increase in imports, resulting in many British firms being closed and employees being put on the dole, including Percival's in Leicester? Bearing in mind that there is a penetration rate of 75 per cent. in terms of imports of ladies footwear, will she confirm that she supports the British footwear industry and is wearing shoes manufactured in Britain? Will she also outline her plans for protecting the industry against unfair competition?

In fact, the footwear industry is doing far better than it was a few years ago, because its designs are very much better, its prices are highly competitive, and right now, if the hon. Gentleman could see, I am wearing shoes from Marks and Spencer.