asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects the Taylor Committee to complete its deliberations.

I hope to receive the Committee's report by next Easter.

Does the Secretary of State agree that when the report is published, if effect is to be given to the Government's new-found enthusiasm for the maintenance of standards in education it will be important to reject any suggestion that the rôle of governors and managers in the supervision of the curriculum should be diminished in any way?

The Government have been concerned about standards throughout their period in office. It would be unwise to anticipate my decision on the Taylor Committee's recommendations.

Does the Secretary of State not share the hope that the outcome will be a bigger rôle for parents in school management and government? Could it not result in being something of an answer to the concern expressed by the Prime Minister that if parents were more involved in education there would be more effective pressure for basic standards than can be provided from the centre?

I am anxious to involve parents. That is why the Government have made clear that for the first time parents will be involved in consultations about proposals for the curriculum.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many schools the managers and governors are parents?

That is true, but my hon. Friend will know that there are differences between local authorities. Increased parental participation is something which the Government wish to encourage.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the Prime Minister's recent speech on education, she will now answer questions on curricular matters.

I do not have detailed responsibility for curricula in maintained schools; the 1944 Education Act places this on local education authorities and school governors and managers. As I made clear in a speech at Rotherham on 22nd October, however, I have a close concern for the school curriculum in general, and intend to embark upon a series of consultations about this issue.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to introduce a policy of minimum standards of literacy and numeracy to be determined at the ages of 7, 11 and 14?

If the hon. Gentleman had read my speech at Rotherham—I do not blame him if he has not—he will be aware that we propose that there should be consultations in advance of any proposals to be made at the turn of the year. We propose to involve teachers' organisations, local authorities, the two sides of industry and—so far as we can involve them—interested parents. It would be most foolish of me to say now, in advance, what the Government's proposals are, since I intend to consult freely and honestly with those groups and to put forward proposals in the light of discussions.

Is it not illogical that hon. Members may ask questions about the training of teachers but not about the shortage of teachers in particular subjects? Is it not high time that some change was made, so that hon. Members can probe the situation in the schools to ensure that criticisms are not made of comprehensive education in principle when the grounds for criticism lie elsewhere?

I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. I intend that Parliament should be included in the discussions.

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box in her important new post and on being the third Minister appointed to shadow me. I hope that she will have more success and be more moderate than her predecessors.

I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is naturally cautious about committing herself, but does she agree that it would be inappropriate for her Department to behave as though we have a set centrally -controlled curriculum? Does she not think it would be appropriate and desirable for her Department to lay down national standards of attainment?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that shadowing a sun like himself is always very difficult. The sun moves round in 24-hour cycles, and here it has started up again.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed the Government's view that there is no question of State control of the curriculum. That would be a long step backwards. What we intend to do is to seek the achievement of basic school standards of the kind for which many parents have been pressing, but this must not involve any attempt at direct central control of the curriculum—something which none of us would want.

Will my right hon. Friend remind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there is a world of difference between education and training, and that he should not be lured into confusion by the advice of industrialists, who have tended to take a narrow view of education over the years?

There is much truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I think he would not disagree that over the last two years of schooling there is a need for links between the world of employment and the world of schooling. In my view this must be a two-way and not a one-way traffic.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has received any new evidence or comments on the rules relating to school transport from local education authorities in England since the beginning of the current academic year; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has completed consultations with local authorities on the subject of school transport.

Consultations on the proposals outlined in the Department's consultative document are complete and no new evidence or comments have come to hand since the beginning of the current academic year. My right hon. Friend is looking at the question of school transport generally but is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Is the hon. Lady aware that parents are becoming very concerned about the three-mile limit, especially where an education authority such as Bedfordshire is going comprehensive and over the academic year the catchment area of schools is changed? Is there not a case for introducing a shorter distance with a flat-rate charge for parents, not least because of the annual changes in the catchment areas affecting so many people in a growing county such as mine?

The hon. Gentleman may not have fully realised that it is within the power of local authorities to make discretionary as well as mandatory payments. If in Bedfordshire the changing situation year by year gives rise to particular difficulty it is open to the hon. Gentleman's local authority to seek to make adjustments on either side.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in a county such as mine—Gloucestershire—in the county education office an inordinate amount of time is now spent dealing with problems related to school transport? Is she further aware that there is great concern in my constituency about the withdrawal of concessionary fares? Will she please introduce legislation rapidly to rationalise this chaotic situation?

I am only too well aware that the withdrawal of concessionary fares has exacerbated a situation already growing increasingly difficult year by year. The problems created for many parents are very grave. However, the fundamental difficulty that we face is not only that many parents are extremely disturbed about any proposed change but that local authorities are opposed to a change. We are trying to see a way through this difficult problem.

Does the hon. Lady realise that as bus fares increase parents who live just inside the statutory limit feel growing resentment against those who receive all the benefits and live outside the limit? In the light of the current economic situation and in order to be fairer to those people, would it not be more sensible now to introduce a standard fare for all?

This was part of the basis of the scheme put forward to local authorities and interested bodies some time ago. Revised versions of the proposals were circulated in an attempt to find something acceptable to all parties. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We are trying to make progress, but we are not getting much co-operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of the probable reduction in numbers of home and overseas postgraduate students in the universities that will result from the increase in fees to £750 per annum.

In the academic year 1977–78 the reduction in projected numbers might be between 3,000 and 7,000 for home students and between 1,000 and 3,000 for overseas students. However, both the proposals and their statistical consequences are still under review.

Will my hon. Friend and the Government consider overcoming the serious shortage of postgraduate students by allowing unemployed graduates to register for suitable postgraduate courses without loss of their social security benefit and with payment of fees by the State?

That is basically a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services. Under the present financial constraints I cannot see that it would be possible to put my hon. Friend's plan into operation.

Will the Minister confirm that raising an extra £48 million from fees by 1978–79 will involve a 50 per cent. increase on next year's levels of £650 and £750? Will he therefore explain the need for further restrictions on the flow of overseas students by the cumbersome and costly procedure that he and the Home Office are to announce in a circular?

The proposals and their statistical consequences are still under review. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Press speculation to which the hon. Gentleman alluded in the last part of his question bears no relation to the level of fee. Consultation documents issued to various bodies are now being presented to the Press as Government policy, whereas no break with the existing policy is suggested in those documents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the payment of fees by about 100 different public bodies to about 100 different academic institutions in respect of 300,000 students is a bureaucratic idiocy, as virtually all the money comes out of public funds anyway? The whole system is nonsensical.

It does not all come out of public funds. A considerable proportion for postgraduate students comes by way of grants from industry or from students who pay for themselves.

Well said.

Is the Minister aware that still up to one-third of the science postgraduates in many universities are foreign students? Does he agree that at a time of economic stringency charity should begin a little nearer home? In order to make up some of the shortfall that the increase in fees may cause in postgraduate numbers in scientific departments of universities, will the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of differential grants to encourage, in engineering and science, a bigger uptake of domestic places by United Kingdom graduates?

I should welcome a bigger uptake by domestic students. Unfortunately, although the position is now slightly better, we do not have that uptake. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is so easy and cut- and-dried a question. Charity does begin at home by the education that we can give to foreign students. Britain benefits to a considerable extent from the spin-off resulting from their being educated here.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have taken place with the local education authorities on truancy and related matters since June 1976.

No formal discussions have been held since the meeting in June with representatives of the local authority and teacher associations and other educational bodies concerned. The follow-up action has been planned and will be taken in association with local education authorities.

As truancy appears to be concentrated in the larger cities and in the age group between 15 and 16, has the hon. Lady any plans to reconsider her policy on the school leaving age? In particular, is she considering returning some discretion to the teacher on the question when a child is allowed to leave during the last year?

The school leaving age was raised some time ago, but it is a little soon to decide to make a change. Giving teachers discretion to say when a child should leave would require a change in legislation, and Opposition Members are always complaining about the pressures on our legislative time. In some areas the problem will be accentuated by the leaving age being raised to 16, but essentially it is much more a problem of individual cases, and these can be more easily dealt with by teachers and by individual authorities. There are not many recent figures, but figures from ILEA relating to surveys this year show a small but definite improvement in truancy rates. It is a welcome sign, and one for which we have been looking for a considerable time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill becomes Members of Parliament to lecture parents and education authorities and others about truancy when hon. Members, day in and day out, play truant from this House? Does she not also agree that last night's vote was another vindication of this theory?

My hon. Friend's observations are interesting, but I do not think that I should comment on them.

Will the hon. Lady ask her Department to require local authorities to publish truancy figures? Is not there a link between truancy among 15- and 16-year-old children and the enormous increase in juvenile crime?

Given that we do not have adequate statistics in regard to absences from school, I believe that it would be dangerous to draw conclusions from statistics that do not exist in great numbers. Local authorities are already free to publish truancy data if they choose to do so. We as a Government have not decided to collect those figures and draw them together, because they are difficult to interpret and are not always collected on the same basis from one local authority to another. It is open to local authorities to publish their own figures, and of course it is equally open to hon. Members to press their local authorities to do so.

We welcome the figures showing an ostensible decline in truancy rates in ILEA, but should we not be sure that the figures on the registers are correct? Was it not the case at one time for inspectors as well as chairmen of governors to check school registers? Now that inspectors are to visit schools in connection with curricula, why cannot they check the registers too—bearing in mind that publications such as Where?, which is by no means a Right-wing publication, have thrown doubt on the validity of many school registers?

Although there are problems connected with truancy and ways in which teachers and local authorities can try to bring about a decline in the figures, at present there are many other matters to which our over-worked inspectorate could turn its mind. I am willing to inquire into this matter if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, but he seems to be suggesting that because he does not accept the validity of such statistics, somebody else should produce some other results. A good deal of work would be involved in such an exercise and, as I have said, such efforts could perhaps be better directed.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the process of policy formulation in her Department is sufficiently open to public participation.

In its Tenth Report this Session the Expenditure Committee made some recommendations about public participation in policy making in my Department, to which the Government will respond shortly in their reply to the report. The Prime Minister and I have already proposed a major public debate on the curriculum.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that heartening reply, but will she accept that public debate will scarcely get oil the ground unless great efforts are made to improve public participation in fundamental planning decisions by the Department? Does she accept that it is necessary to define the word "shortly", as used in her reply, in the hope that responses to reports of the Expenditure Committee will be made in a sharper manner than precedents in the last 18 months to two years have illustrated?

In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope to give a reply this month, which will be a period of only three months after the Committee reported.

I hope that my hon. Friend will recall that I have already published not only my answer to the Schools Council's proposals for an examination at 16-plus and for the CEE but also a full appendix and my reasons, and have laid the papers before Parliament. I intend to continue this style of open government. It is much better to do that than to have government by "leak", especially an irresponsible leak, such as that in The Guardian this morning, suggesting that the Government are planning something in terms of a document that Ministers have not yet seen.

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that, ideally, consultations should go beyond professional bodies and embrace spokesmen for the great consuming public? Will she consider the Expenditure Committee's proposal that membership of the Schools Council should be opened up to include many more lay members?

The subject of the Schools Council composition was raised in the Expenditure Committee's Report, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await my considered reply. It would be unwise to give that reply in bits and pieces.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us regard the consultation procedure in the Department of Education and Science as a little better than some of the procedures adopted in other great Departments of State? Is she further aware that, however much one may deplore the "leak", as she calls it, in The Guardian today, it raises profound issues about the function of our educational institutions? Is she aware that many Labour Members would gravely deplore our educational institutions being brought into a policing role in regard to immigrants?

I share some of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend but, as I have already made clear, Ministers in the Department have not finally approved the document; nor, indeed, have they seen it. Therefore, I believe that the material published in The Guardian this morning is very misleading and could create a great deal of worry and alarm among those concerned. It will not be of assistance to good international relations or to good race relations in this country.

Has the Secretary of State not revealed a grave situation in her Department if documents of this importance can be obtained by the Press before Ministers have even seen them? Will she instigate an inquiry within her Department to see how this situation came about? It is clear that not only the Home Office is concerned; her Department is, too.

The hon. Gentleman is barking slightly up the wrong tree. The document was first issued for consultation in 1973, and consultations have been taking place since that time. What has now appeared is an updated version of the 1973 draft circular—which, as I said, was never issued—without any fresh policy decisions contained within it. It will have to come before Ministers—as, indeed do all circulars—before it is finally issued. Before that happens, it is normally the case with updated documents that we engage in a round of consultations with those concerned. I wish to make it clear that the Government have made no decision, though no objective person who read The Guardian report would have come to that conclusion. I think that he or she would have come to the conclusion that a decision had been made by the Government on the circular. That is not so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will alter the regulations to enable local authorities to help in cases of parental financial need for school games kit since evidence suggests truancy to avoid humiliation by children whose circumstances do not enable them to have the proper kit.

Local education authorities already have discretionary powers to help in such cases by providing kit free on loan, and if matters are handled sympathetically these powers are sufficiently wide to avoid this kind of problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an anomaly in the situation under which local authorities have discretionary powers in regard to school uniforms but appear to have no discretionary powers in regard to other equipment and in certain cases have to use subterfuges? Would it not be better if there were a directive to local authorities giving them a power of discretion?

There is a power of discretion, but it is only to provide kit to be given on loan to children. Local authorities do not have discretion to provide kit directly to children that will then become their property. I am afraid that it is not possible to change the situation, even though it is a difficult one, by issuing directives. The matter would involve amending legislation, and could be discussed only in the context of the subject of school uniforms, PE kit, and all the rest of it. It could not, therefore, be undertaken in a hurry.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet had discussions with the Chairman of the Science Research Council.

Yes Sir, on 1st November.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that I am grateful that that meeting has taken place? Is she not seriously concerned at the cut-backs forced upon the Science Research Council which may well prevent it from sustaining the necessary standard of education and research in universities? Can she give the House an assurance that after giving science a low priority for two and a half years the Government will provide new initiatives and encouragement?

It is true that the science budget has suffered from a limited reduction in the current year. However, the much more serious factor which has affected the budget has been the effect on international subscriptions of the fall in the value of the pound, since international subscriptions are expressed in currency units and not in national currencies. We are consulting about this matter. As a result of my discussions with the Chairman of the Science Research Council and also with the Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils I have concluded that a good deal of new and important work will, nevertheless, be able to go ahead.

Will the right hon. Lady say whether she has had discussions with the SRC about the progress of the teaching companies experiment which is being carried out in conjunction with the Department of Industry? Does she feel that this experiment is doing anything more than paying lip service to the need for a greater degree of technology transfer and for a better relationship between universities and industry? Will she consider extending the scheme to far more companies than the present limited number, which tend to be in the higher echelon of industrial performance and are consequently not open to a large number of postgraduate students?

The "teaching company" concept is an interesting one. We have to see how the experiment works out before extending it. It would be disastrous to extend it and then to discover that it was a failure. What we should do is to see whether the experiment works out and whether it can be extended not only to universities but to polytechnics, so that far more students of engineering technologies can gain direct and first-hand experience in industry while studying.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has now met the Schools Council to discuss its proposal to replace the GCE and the CSE with a single examination.

I met the Chairman of the Schools Council on Monday 25th October, and look forward to further discussions.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that she deserves our congratulations for her answer to Sir Alex Smith and his proposals? Can she ever envisage a common examination standard for all 16- to 19-year-olds which will not tend to impair examination standards and thus harm the employment chances of young people?

The hon. Gentleman may not have understood what was proposed by the Schools Council. It was not a common examination standard or even, for that matter, after the first stages, a common examination. What the Council recommended ultimately was a common examination system. I want to make it clear that, for obvious reasons, with small groupings of a specialised kind, there would be great advantages in a common examination system. I believe that we have first to satisfy ourselves on two points, the first being that a common examination system can be applied across what is now nearly 80 per cent. of the school population taking some formal examination at 16 and, secondly, that the administrative and financial complications, which are quite considerable, can be satisfactorily resolved. If these two criteria can be met I, for one, would welcome a common system of examination. I remain to be persuaded that they can be met.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if there were two or three separate examinations at 16-plus, many of the qualities which are required could not be examined? Does she also agree that having a universal system of examination would take some of the responsibility from future employers for making their assessment of these other qualities, which at the moment they are sometimes not anxious to do?

I see my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that examinations should be asked to do what they cannot do. Where we have, as at present, a fair amount of employer and industrial confidence in the CSE and GCE system, it is important to establish that there would be equal confidence in any successor system. I am talking just about examinations.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that if more parents and industrialists were members of the Schools Council, instead of just teachers, these ridiculous proposals of the Council would never have emerged?

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed my reply to one of his hon. Friend's earlier questions on the subject of the Select Committee's recommendations. I must ask the House to await my considered reply to its report.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of us are dubious about a common examination at the age of 16? We are worried that the attempt to have such an examination may throw doubt on the credibility of academic standards in examinations at the very time when education is in turmoil—

Order. May I say that both sides of the House today are altering Question Time and making speeches? It is not on one side; it is on both sides. It has been happening all afternoon.

The point was made by the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Minister aware that 40 per cent. of the least academic children currently take no examination? Would it not be practical to have a vocational examination for these people, so that they are not put into CSE classes, where most of them fail, to the disadvantage of themselves, the schools, and the country?

I have already said that there are great advantages in a common system of examination, because it would enable considerable teaching economies to be made. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I would point out that whereas only three out of five children in our secondary schools passed some public examination of any kind in 1972, by 1974 the figure had risen to four out of five. Many of the criticisms that educational standards are falling are utterly beside the point.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places in science and technological subjects, other than medicine or dentistry, but including mathematics, remained unfilled in October 1976 in the universities and polytechnics of the United Kingdom.

In terms of physical capacity in science and technology departments, there are something like 27,000 such places, which would allow for an increase in annual entry of about 9,000 in universities in Great Britain and polytechnics in England and Wales. These figures take no account of the availability of staff, and other resources, which also determine the number of students that may be accepted in particular disciplines.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the critical decision is made by boys and girls about their higher education not at 18 but at 16? Does he further agree that we shall be lumbered with this problem of a shortage of technologists and scientists until we do something about excessive specialisation in the sixth form? Will he address his mind to that?

I do address my mind to that. I disagree with my hon. Friend that a decision is necessarily taken as late as 16. Sometimes decisions to drop mathematics or science are taken at 12 or 13 as the Prime Minister made clear in his speech at Ruskin College.

Does the Minister of State accept that the shortages of scientists and technologists in industry are a result not only of the education that they receive but of the education received by managers in industry who often do not know how to use people of high qualification, which leads to people being frustrated and deters others from entering upon such a career?

It is true to say that industry needs to improve its image and that that image must conform to reality. It is a two-way process. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has encouraged this national debate on education, so that the two sides can talk to each other.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has yet received proposals from the Kent County Council concerning comprehensive reorganisation throughout that authority's area.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware of the recent decision of the Kent Education Committee to continue a "Tame-side" system throughout parts of the county? Is she further aware that that system merely replaces selection at 11 by selection at 13? Will she make it clear to the Kent County Council that when the Education Bill becomes law it is her intention to make sure that the system I have described is replaced by a fully comprehensive system?

When the Education Bill becomes law it is our intention to see a fully comprehensive system of education in Kent, as in every other part of the country.

Will the hon. Lady confirm that if she receives any proposals from the Kent County Council she will take into account any discussions that she has had with the Hertfordshire County Council, where over 22 children are not at school, due to the dissatisfaction of the parents with the process of secondary transfer that is taking place in that county council, directly resulting from the reorganisation of education within the county?

Every year in every local authority there are always a number of parents who are unhappy with the selection procedures for their children. Within the strict limits that we are allowed we do our best, as do local authorities, to ensure that these problems are solved as amicably as possible in the interests of the children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will establish an inquiry into all aspects of the teaching of mathematics in schools.

The question of mathematics teaching is bound to arise in the forthcoming consultations about the curriculum and standards. I intend to await the results of that consultation before considering whether an inquiry on these lines would be the best way of proceeding.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that 11 months ago, in a speech at Sheffield, her predecessor called for a strong attack on mathematical illiteracy, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends entirely agreed? Is she aware that it has been our policy to have a Bullock-type inquiry into mathematics in all its aspects? Why has a year been wasted?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like everything to happen yesterday, but it is not like that in education. In 1977 work is expected to be completed on an assessment of ways of monitoring standards for mathematics. In 1978 there will be a major national sample survey of mathematics. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that to go ahead with ill-thought-out and ill-proven materials would be wholly self-defeating.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many former mathematics teachers like myself would very much welcome an inquiry into the teaching of mathematics? Is she further aware that the so-called modern mathematics, while they may be the right media for producing mathematics graduates, are not necessarily the right type of teaching for the mass of children who leave school at 16? If my right hon. Friend sets up an inquiry of any kind, will she ensure that there are not too many university people on it, as they are largely responsible for the change that has taken place in the past 10 years?

The problem that arises from an inquiry, as my hon. Friend will know better than most people in the House, is that it usually takes a very long time to report—probably between two years and three years from being established. I do not believe that we have as long as that. Therefore, I am already proposing to take certain actions that are likely to give us a picture of what is happening in mathematics a good deal more quickly than would be the case with an inquiry. As I have already said, I remain agnostic about whether we should have an inquiry. That will have to await a later decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now reconsider the decision not to commission an independent full-scale investigation of teaching methods in British schools.

I do not rule this out, but in general I am opposed to inquiries with terms of reference so widely drawn.

In view of the somewhat lofty manner in which my right hon. Friend's Department set aside as partial the evidence of Dr. Neville Bennett about teaching in primary schools, does my right hon. Friend accept that only her Department has the resources to institute a truly wide-ranging investigation into this subject, which worries parents almost as much as questions of curricula?

I must say straight away that it was Dr. Bennett who congratulated my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State upon the way in which she interpreted his evidence to the House and deplored the way in which certain other hon. Members interpreted his findings. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I refer him to the answer that I have just given. There is always endless pressure for further inquiries in the education world. Sometimes it seems that we should take a little action.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is a considerable amount of disquiet about teaching in primary schools, especially when this so often leads to the necessity for secondary schools to establish remedial classes to deal with children who cannot write or read properly? Will she reconsider her decision not to carry out an investigation into teaching methods, particularly in primary schools?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been an inquiry into precisely this matter—namely, the Bullock inquiry, which continued for nearly three years. It concerned itself precisely with reading standards in primary schools. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman's point makes my point for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is concerned that poorer children are being deterred from undertaking handicraft courses because of the substantial increase in the cost of materials, including wood and metal, which some secondary schools cannot afford to purchase in sufficient quantity for their pupils and which pupils often cannot afford to purchase.

Although the provision of materials for courses in maintained schools is primarily a matter for local authorities and the schools themselves, I should certainly be concerned if I received evidence of arrangements which deterred poorer children in this way.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a situation in which schools seem unable to provide all the materials that are required, and in which a number of children are penalised because they cannot afford to purchase the required materials, and although they would like to enter such courses they cannot? Does she agree that in borderline cases the quality of materials used can determine whether an entrant passes or fails a handicraft examination?

My hon. Friend could well write to me about this matter. We have no knowledge of areas where this is a particularly significant problem. It may be that my hon. Friend is not making a distinction between the arrangements where materials are supplied free of charge and where there is a charge if the pupil wishes to keep the finished article. However, if he is talking—as he appears to be—about the supplying of materials, I should like to hear from him about the matter.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 2nd November.

In addition to meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, this evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will the Prime Minister make time today to reread the broadcast that he made to the nation on 5th April, when he said that there could be no lasting improvement in our living standards unless we stopped going deeper and deeper into debt? How does he reconcile that statement with the reality that during the past seven months the Chancellor of the Exchequer has added to the national debt by more than £6,000 million?

It shows that the recovery of a country that has declined over the past 20 years takes longer than six months, and that industrial regeneration, upon which the fortunes of this country are based and which has received the approval of the CBI, the TUC and the Government, is the best way in which we can make Britain fully competitive again. Until that time we shall have to continue slowly in the right direction.

Were any of the ministerial meetings to which the right hon. Gentleman referred related to the progress of the talks at Geneva on the Rhodesian settlement? Will he give the House an assurance that although Mr. Ivor Richard is clearly doing a splendid job as chairman, the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to send the Foreign Secretary if that should prove necessary to maintain the momentum of British initiative towards a settlement?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Ivor Richard, whose experience is well known and who is proving, as I think he has done at the United Nations, to be an excellent chairman in gaining the confidence of everyone at the talks. As for the attendance of my right hon. Friend, who is now on a visit to Yugoslavia, he has indicated that if necessary he would go to Geneva. However, it seems to us at present that in this period of delicate negotiations Mr. Richard is well able to conduct the talks. I hope that there will be some progress.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very sorry that his programme for today will not allow him to make a visit to my constituency, especially to Skelmersdale? Is he aware of the black despair that has settled over the town following the announcement by Courtaulds that it is shortly to close? If we say in the Labour Party that Socialism is the language of priorities, when my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am making a most serious point. If we say that Socialism is the language of priorities, will my right hon. Friend assure my people in Skelmersdale that they will be given the highest priority by the Labour Government, even if that means rescheduling some of the Government Departments that are to be transferred to places that are not in half as much need as is Skelmersdale?

My hon. Friend and I visited Skelmersdale together only two months ago. I am bound to say that I formed a much better impression both of the attributes of the town and of the labour force than I gained from the Press and by reading. I was under the strong impression then that Courtaulds intended to continue with the factory. I understand that today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has been meeting Sir Arthur Knight, the Chairman of Courtaulds, and I think that a statement is expected shortly. Certainly it is important that every step should be taken to restore employment in Skelmersdale—a town that has a considerable future if those who are there can bring themselves, as I am sure they can, to work productively and competitively.

May I refer back to the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? As the right hon. Gentleman said in that original broadcast that we cannot go on borrowing indefinitely, and as he will not reduce Government expenditure, is he expecting to increase taxation in order to get the IMF loan?

The right hon. Lady really must wait upon the discussions that are taking place at this moment—[Interruption.]—but I can assure her that if there are any announcements to be made they will be made in this House in due course, and at the time that the Government choose and not as a result of shouting from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that in his broadcast on "Panorama" he gave two broad hints which he refused to give the House? He said that there was scope for increased taxation and that there was a margin for increased taxation. Do I understand that he has now ruled out increased taxation?

The right hon. Lady can draw any deduction she likes. In that broadcast on "Panorama" I was giving to a semi-philosophical question a wholly philosophical reply—that is to say, I was comparing the general levels of taxation in response to the question that had been asked. The right hon. Lady should not draw any more deductions from it than the weight of the answer will bear.

Will the Prime Minister take time off his official engagements today and reflect on the very serious unemployment and investment situation in Scotland? Does he agree that the only way in which unemployment and inflation can be brought down and investment increased in Scotland is by the establishment of a strong Scots pound and the lower rates of interest that will follow from the marriage between self-government and Scotland's inherently stable balance of payments situation?

I have read the concoction that is apparently intended to prescribe financial and economic policy for Scotland. If I were an elector there, I would not be very attracted by it.