asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her latest estimate of the income from school meal charges in 1977–78 after allowing for free meals and the administrative costs of collection and how this compares with the figure for 1976–77.

The income in cash terms for 1977–78 is estimated at £163 million, compared with £130 million in 1976–77.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that very small saving hardly justifies the hardship which the price increase has imposed on family budgets and the deprivation which it has caused to the many children who have been forced to give up school meals? In view of that, will she give the House an assurance that the Government have no intention of introducing further increases in the price of school meals, that, indeed, they will recognise the value of school meals in bringing direct help to children in the greatest need, and that they will work towards the elimination of charges?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the last assurance for which he asked, because it is the Government's policy to work towards the reduction of the subsidy on school meals. However, I can certainly give him an assurance that we recognise the value of the school meals system and intend to sustain it. The talk in the newspapers about further increases was purely speculative, based on the fact that it is known that it is the Government's policy to reduce the subsidy. I can assure my hon. Friend that no such decision has been taken.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is alarming that the cost of school meals should have been going up when the level of family support has been going down? Will she please convey to her right hon. Friend that we on the Labour Benches would consider it an outrage if there were to be a further increase in school meal charges offsetting any improvements that might be made in the level of family support through child benefits?

I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) that it is not our intention to increase the charge as has been suggested. We in fact made substantial improvements in the remission terms for school meals when we were forced to increase the charge, and it will always be our hope to protect the worst-off from the effects of such an increase.

Does my hon. Friend remember that the last time school meal prices were increased, from 15p to 25p, there was a fall-off of about 20 per cent. in the number of children taking school meals? If there is a further increase, this school welfare service, which has been built up over two generations, could well be destroyed. Will she accept from me that the introduction of a larger contingent qualifying for free meals is no answer, because the fact that children are poorer is revealed through their taking free meals, and many children simply will not have free meals in that way?

Immediately after an increase in the charge for school meals the number of children taking the meals always falls off, but as time elapses it normally rises again to the previous number. On this occasion there has been a substantial increase in the number actually taking free meals. My hon. Friend will know that we are most anxious to see that no system exists which stigmatises or singles out children, but I cannot accept that in the present circumstances that is a reason for not giving help to such children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy concerning the closure of village schools; and if she will make a statement.

My general policy on school closures, which was set out in my Department's Circular 5 /77—"Falling Numbers and School Closures"—is to approve proposals to cease to maintain under-used schools where there are educational and financial benefits in doing so.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern about and opposition to the proposals to close village schools in the Moorlands area of my constituency, particularly in Bradnop and Wetton? What does she intend to do about this?

The hon. Gentleman will know that these proposals were made by his local authority and were put to the Department in 1976, when, after a full inquiry and full considerations of objections, they were approved. It was expected then that most of the closures would take place in 1979, but the hon. Gentleman's authority decided that for these two schools the date could be brought forward to September 1978 on educational grounds.

Does the Secretary of State agree that as 500 village schools have closed over the past 10 years there is a danger that the village school will become as extinct as the dodo? Will the Secretary of State use her powers under Section 13 of the 1944 Act, therefore, to preserve as many good village schools as possible, as they have social and educational advantages and the economic advantages of closure are often exaggerated?

We always consider Section 13 proposals very carefully. We consider all objections, and in a number of cases in the past year we have disagreed with a local authority and kept village schools open. But, in the face of a decline of 1·2 million children by 1985 in the primary sector alone, it is clear that some schools will become educationally unviable, and it would be irresponsible to keep a school open when it could not offer children reasonable education opportunities.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if there were any truth in the idea that small village schools in rural areas are inefficient the cost of educating a primary school child in Cornwall, which has a higher proportion of old, small, village schools than any other English county, would be higher than elsewhere? Does she recognise that it is exactly the other way round, and that the cost of educating a primary school child in Cornwall is substantially lower than in any other county in England?

I am impressed to know that about Cornwall, where there may be a number of factors at work apart from the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree that that is not the universal situation, and that there are some areas where the village schools are extremely expensive. Nevertheless, we always suggest that educational as well as financial considerations should be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that if children between the ages of, say, 7 and 11 are in classes of only two or three children there may be educational grounds for giving them wider opportunities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will bring forward legislation to seek to improve services for young people in the community.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to legislate on this matter.

Is it not apparent that with the present number of unemployed young people more services are required? Does not experience teach us that without legislation local authorities will not make the necessary allocation within their education budgets?

Much of this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I can say that at the present stage legislation is not the answer. Local authorities have powers which they can use without the need for legislation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some of the best services in many communities are in the schools themselves and that many young people are denied opportunities to use those services, particularly during holiday periods? Notwithstanding the difficulties of supervision, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the efforts being made to make schools and their services more available to young people during holiday periods?

I am never satisfied. We keep pressing local authorities about community use of school buildings, playing fields, and so on, and we shall continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the polytechnics are fulfilling the functions for which they were created; and if she will make a statement.

The polytechnics have, in their relatively short existence, made excellent progress in establishing themselves as comprehensive academic institutions catering for students in all types of higher education. I expect them to make the major contribution towards the expansion of about 39 per cent. envisaged for higher education other than teacher training in the non-university sector by 1981–82.

Is it not true that, far from being comprehensive institutions of higher education, the polytechnics are increasingly concentrating on full-time degree courses to the exclusion of part-time and day-release students? Now that we are moving towards a comprehensive secondary system of education, is it not time that we did something about the chaotic state of higher education and moved to a genuinely comprehensive system at 18-plus?

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think he will be pleased to know that the number of part-time courses in the polytechnics increased by 41 per cent. between 1971 and 1976. Although the number has not increased proportionately, this is largely because of a very rapid expansion in sandwich courses which many hon. Members believe to be a good form of higher education.

Is it not vital to get the polytechnics to do more to increase their share of part-time education? Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done in her Department to that end?

Yes. A great deal of attention is being given to the whole question of keeping open part-time routes to qualifications. This is one of the matters which both the Technician Education Council and the Business Education Council are carefully considering.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Paddington Comprehensive School, Liverpool is to be linked with the Liverpool Institute Boys' and Girls' School under a reorganisation plan covering Liverpool inner city area schools; and whether she will make a statement.

I understand that the Liverpool Education Authority is at present considering schemes for the reorganisation of Liverpool Institute Boys' and Girls' schools, but no formal proposals have yet been submitted.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that she appreciates that these schools are in a highly socially deprived area. Is she prepared to hear representations and to meet local people who have a direct interest in the problem that she now faces?

Yes, Sir. I am always prepared to receive such deputations. There is a procedure under the Act whereby people are able to make their views known, particularly in opposition to proposals that are put forward. We are always anxious to get the fullest possible information about such views.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to introduce the Jubilee scholarship scheme for students on special high-level engineering courses.

These scholarships will be awarded to young people attending a variety of engineering courses. I expect the first scholarships to be awarded for the academic year 1978–79. Details of the scheme will be worked out by a small committee which my right hon. Friend is setting up.

Why has there been such a long delay in implementing this scheme? What proportion of these scholarships will be financed by industry, and how much money will be involved?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a long time has elapsed. The meetings with industry were held only in the late summer and autumn of last year and already the contributions coming in from industry are quite satisfactory. It is hoped that the courses will be in being this autumn. I do not think that something set up and put into operation within 12 months is bad going, particularly as the Opposition did nothing about it in three and a half years.

Surely the Minister is aware that I raised this matter with him last January and he promised to announce these scholarships at Easter last year? Is not the time getting perilously short for these things to have an impact on next year's school leavers? Will the Minister make quite clear that what he is saying is that the scholarships will not be tenable just in respect of the new four-year elite courses which are now being offered?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. These scholarships will be tenable not only on those courses; they will be available for a wide range of engineering courses. I do not see any difficulty for the committee, which will be composed largely of industrialists, in attracting funds for the scheme and disseminating opinions on it to enable it to get going by this autumn.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she remains satisfied with the method by which county councillors have a dominant role in the appointment of school governors within their wards.

Current practice varies a great deal betwen one local education authority and another, but the Taylor Committee has recently made recommendations about the composition and method of apointment of school governing bodies on which my right hon. and learned friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are at present consulting widely. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said on this subject during the debate on the Address.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, following last May's county council elections, there is evidence of some newly elected county councillors disposing of existing school governors, against the wishes of headmasters and the local community, for purely party political reasons? Will she bear that evidence in mind when she considers the Taylor Report?

I am well aware that that has happened on some occasions. The Government have already indicated their support for a larger parental and teacher representation on governing bodies, although we still have to give our detailed recommendations on the Taylor Report.

What action will my right hon. Friend take to stop authorities such as Kent taking account of political considerations when deciding on the suitability of parent governors?

I have said on more than one occasion that I think that local education authorities should consider very seriously the contribution that governors can make, and that this should be regarded as the overwhelming consideration in making appointments. But the House will know that changes cannot be made in the present circumstances of local authority appointment until there is legislation about a different composition of governing bodies.

I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is consulting the Taylor Report. Do not these exchanges show that it is about time the House had an opportunity to debate it? Will the right hon. Lady press her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide time for us to discuss it?

I shall be happy for representations to be made to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to that effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, following the publication of the Gulbenkian Foundation report, she will make a statement on the future of music colleges.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the recent report made to her by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation on the training of professional musicians.

The report is the result of an independent inquiry sponsored by the Gulbenkian Foundation and, while there is no commitment on my right hon. Friend to adopt any of its recommendations, it is being carefully studied by my Department, and my right hon. Friend has undertaken to write to the chairman of the inquiry about matters which are her direct concern.

As Britain is one of the capitals of the music world, and as we ought to concentrate on the things that we do well, will the Government con tinue to give careful thought to this well-reasoned and well-argued report, which highlights the extraordinary situation of music colleges in this country? In particular, will they give urgent attention to the question of payments to professors of music, who are paid scandalously low salaries compared with other teachers in higher education, to the question whether music students should have mandatory grants, and to the main theme of the report, that there should be better and more intensive training for a smaller number of music students?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an excellent report, which merits careful consideration by my Department. I agree, too, that Britain is a music capital of the world. This has been a neglected area of education in this country for many years.

What view does the Minister take of the recommendations in the report about the future of the music colleges in London and the question whether they should become part of the colleges of London University? Secondly, can the Government take any action to help over the desperate lack of accommodation which faces some of the students of music at the London colleges?

All I can say is that the proposal that the London music colleges should be funded in future through incorporation with London University or by a local education authority raises complex issues, which are being studied in my Department. The colleges are at present aided by direct grant from my Department, but are independent institutions.

Does the Minister recognise that the vitality of our music colleges is fundamentally dependent upon the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of musical education in our schools, that at present, in all too many schools the teaching of music is, to say the least, perfunctory, and that the ability of the schools to offer music education is being throttled by the cuts imposed on education? Those cuts make it impossible for schools to employ an adequate number of professionally equipped music teachers.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many, there has been a considerable improvement in music education in our schools in recent years. It is vital that that improvement should continue. I admit that there has been a rather persistent shortage of music teachers, but the last survey of 1976 reveals that although there is still a shortage of graduate teachers there is a slight surplus of certificated teachers.

Is the Minister aware that the Purcell Music School, in my constituency, which provides a very useful service not only to Harrow but to the whole area around, has considerable financial difficulties and looks to the Gulbekian report with considerable hope? Will he indicate when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science may come to some decision on what can be done to help schools such as the Purcell Music School?

I cannot give any indication of time, but we are losing no time in looking at this report. The Purcell Music School, in Harrow, is, of course, an excellent school.

What action do the Government propose to take to implement the central recommendation of the report, namely, that these music colleges should concentrate more on the training of performers and of instrumental teachers than on academics? Does the Minister of State agree that it is more important to be able to play an instrument—the harp, for example—than to write a thesis on it?

I should not be as exclusive as the hon. Gentleman. It is important to advance academic knowledege of music and, in particular, teacher training in music subjects. However, I admit that, as the hon. Gentleman said, in a country that is a music capital of the world, we must look at the question of grants for students who are performers as distinct from teachers or academics.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has issued any recent guidelines to local authorities concerning the integration of gifted children and other minority groups into the comprehensive schools; and what minimum size of school is required to make this educationally and economically feasible.

No, Sir. All comprehensive schools contain children with a wide range of abilities and needs, and the minimum viable size for a school will vary with local circumstances.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that both parents and teachers feel that the large comprehensive school may not be able to cope adequately with gifted and other children in minority groups? Does she not feel that each local education authority should have a special adviser on gifted children and other minority groups, so that not only can they be identified at an early age, but that adequate education provision may be made for them?

I understand that many parents and teachers feel that schools of all types have always had difficulty in both identifying and helping truly gifted children. Indeed, I understand that in a comprehensive school, whether large or small, which, of its nature, is devoted to nurturing the talents of the individual child, there is far more chance that such a child will be helped than in a school which relies, for example, on rather old-fashioned methods, such as rigid setting, which do not help such children. The question of special advisers is for the local authorities involved, but I know that many have advisers considering these aspects of the matter.

I commiserate with my hon. Friend in her having to answer such a loaded anti-comprehensive question from the Conservative Party, which recently espoused the cause of comprehensive education. Is it not a fact that there are splendid large and small comprehensive schools and that this matter is largely an irrelevancy? Is it not also a fact that the integration of all children in those schools is going on at an accelerated rate and that gifted children have far greater opportunities, due to the increases in staff, than ever they did, for instance, in the elitist chosen grammar schools?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for both his sympathy and his assistance. He is, of course, quite correct. There are many superb comprehensive schools of varying sizes. Indeed, that message emerged most clearly from the conference recently held at York University to discuss successful patterns of education in comprehensive schools. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's remarks on greater opportunities for children in those schools.

May I attract the Minister away from the rotter of the Lower Fourth to the rather more serious problem of the tyranny of the age range for gifted children who are forced to stay with their chronological age group rather than being able to move up? Has the Department any views on mixed ability teaching and the very gifted?

If I may answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question first, I think it is generally accepted that the really gifted and exceptional child is often best helped on an individual basis, or perhaps with another small group of similar gifted children. Therefore, the question of mixed ability teaching does not particularly arise. There are difficulties in any kind of group which is composed of children of high academic ability, in the sense of the average spread of ability. The question of age range is undoubtedly a difficult one, and one of the reasons why people seek to deal with such children on an individual basis is the question whether they may suffer socially, as individuals, from being removed from their age groups as opposed to the benefit they may gain academically. It is the policy of schools and of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to try to deal with such children as individual cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she is taking to encourage improved standards of discipline in schools.

I am concerned to promote good standards of behaviour in schools, as I am sure both teachers and local education authorities are also. Her Majesty's Inspectorate has recently been engaged in a survey of a number of schools which are considered to have been particularly successful in dealing with problems of truancy and indiscipline, and I hope that, on the basis of this, it will be possible to publish advice on good practice.

Why do the Government pay comparatively little attention to the problem of discipline in schools? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that in the London borough of Bexley we wish that rather less Government attention was paid to the structure of our education system and rather more interest was taken in the general problems of discipline in schools throughout the country?

One of the three sessions at the conference on comprehensive education at York was given up to the whole question of pastoral care and discipline, and from that many good suggestions came. I say strongly to the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to divorce the question of discipline, first, from the relationship between schools and parents, with which the Taylor Committee, for one, concerned itself, and, second, from the commercial pressures on children, which are now extremely strong and to which the Responsible Society referred only yesterday in one of its reports.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable that any framework of discipline in school should be obvious, fair and understood by all? Does she agree that one of the difficulties of those who constantly ask questions on this subject is that they have experienced or know of discipline in selective schools, where it is easier to enforce because there is always the possibility of expulsion, which does not apply in most other schools in this country?

I agree with what my hon. Friend said, and I add two points. It has emerged more clearly that in cases where schools have good relationships with parents it is much easier to adopt a sensible system of discipline. Second, in the case of very difficult children, the separate units that give them intensive care with experienced teachers are already proving to be a much more effective method than some of the more lurid methods that are often peddled in the Sunday newspapers and elsewhere.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one cannot divorce discipline from moral and religious education in schools? Will she take this opportunity to deny the report in the Daily Telegraph which said that the Government intend to introduce legislation to alter the religious education provisions in the 1944 Act?

On the first part of his question, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that it would be wiser if he did not use such phrases as "trench warfare", which seem to be sensationalising the situation of a small minority of pupils. [Interruption.] I am sorry; it did not come across like that. The hon. Gentleman will therefore be free to say that if he was given misleading reports from the Press, so was I. If he reads Hansard, he will find that I answered a Written Question precisely on this issue last Friday.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to receive the report of the committee considering the management of public sector higher education under the chairmanship of the Minister of State.

In the next few weeks.

So far as it lies within the Minister's authority, will he try to ensure that consideration of the report by the House, mentioned by his right hon. Friend in answer to Question No. 4, will include consideration of it on the Floor? Does he appreciate that many of us, while sympathetic to what he is trying to do, will want to look critically at the recommendations of the report in so far as they affect the effective involvement of local education authorities, particularly in the polytechnics?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House but I have no doubt that his representations will be taken into account. With regard to other matters likely to be contained in the report, the committee decided that its deliberations would be confidential until the issue of the report. Therefore, I am in some difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's second point.

Since the Minister of State is the chairman of this committee, does it mean that he is obliged to accept its report? Second, in considering the way to proceed, will he bear in mind that both the central institutions in Scotland and the voluntary colleges in England provide a model for a direct Exchequer grant institution still tied in locally and serving local requirements?

The report, when it comes, will, I hope, be unanimous. It will be a report of the working group.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have applied to continue their assistance to pupils at independent schools.

Twenty-seven, Sir.

Does the hon. Lady agree that, short of Draconian powers—to which she is not likely to agree—the independent schools will not go away, and, therefore any scheme that can be devised to encourage exchange between the two systems would be desirable?

No, Sir. In our view, the duty of local authorities is to provide suitable places in maintained schools for the children in their areas, and there should be no need to take up places in other establishments.

Will my hon. Friend accept the warm appreciation of the people of Cambridgeshire for her firm decision to revoke the arrangement whereby ratepayers' money was used to fund children at Kimbolton, Stamford and The Perse independent schools? Will she assure the House that, if there is any prevarication by Cambridgeshire County Council, she will not hesitate to use other legal powers to ensure that such a blatant misuse of public resources is not continued?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We have communicated our decision to Cambridgeshire County Council, and it has made representations to us, which we are considering. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that under the 1976 Act the authority has a duty to cease taking up such places, since my Department has now forbidden it.

Can the Minister explain why, only a few days before examinations were to take place, her right hon. Friend suddenly and arbitrarily made a decision that affected nearly 70 children in the Cambridge area? Is that the way to engage the support of local authorities in the progress of education in the county?

I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks the decision was either sudden or arbitrary, since it was authorised by Parliament in the 1976 Education Act. Authorities have known ever since that they might lose those powers. Indeed, in last October's Cambridgeshire County Council guide to parents on secondary education it was pointed out that my Department might refuse permission to take up such places.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in pursuance of her policy of secondary reorganisation, she is satisfied with the rate of development of sixth forms in comprehensive schools.

Yes, where numbers of sixth forms are concerned. Twenty years ago only one secondary school in five had a sixth form. Today, the proportion is one in two. However, I am less satisfied with numbers in sixth forms and staying-on rates. I am concerned that very small sixth forms—and 40 per cent. of sixth forms in comprehensive schools contain fewer than 50 pupils—may not be able to offer an acceptable choice of courses and subjects.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to establish a sixth form in a comprehensive school it is necessary to retain brighter pupils? Is she aware that at comprehensive schools such as Speke, in my constituency, for instance, parental choice is making that difficult, if not impossible? Does she now think that it is time to look at the matter in the interests of the pupils rather than of the parents, who are inclined to snobbery about education?

We try to do so, and have recommended either that schools should work together to offer a sufficiently wide range of sixth form courses or that authorities should consider the possibility of sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges where the alternative is a very small sixth form. We have received no proposals along these lines from Liverpool, but we shall certainly look forward to doing so.

Where there is a comprehensive school in a rural area, with a school population of about 1,000, which is rising, does the right hon. Lady not think that it should have a sixth form to make it a whole school rather than a half-school?

At every stage in this matter, we must bear in mind whether boys and girls will stay at school, if, because of transport difficulties, there is no sixth form. However, a sixth form of 70-plus is roughly the minimum for offering a viable range of courses, so that in rural areas part of the answer lies in closer links between schools and further education colleges.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in some rural areas it is virtually impossible to share pupils at sixth-form level and that it is highly desirable that we have firm guidance on the development of 16–19 education, preferably indicating a sixth-form college or, even better, a tertiary college solution where that is practicable?

On this extremely difficult issue I said that we hope that authorities will consider one of the three possibilities that I have outlined. It is essential that authorities bear in mind the need to offer a viable range of courses and do not skim the rest of a school by having all the teachers taken into small sixth forms.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we believe, with her, that the sixth-form college system may be a very good one in some areas, we expect her to uphold the comprehensive principle in the discussions she has with local authorities about small areas within which there may be a school with a sixth form and a school without a sixth form? Is she aware that in that situation we run the risk of bringing back the secondary modern school, in which case the staying-on rate may be affected in the school in which there is no sixth form?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not misunderstand me. I do not believe that mixed 11–16 and 11–18 schools are a good answer to this problem. In such areas I think that either a consortium of sixth forms or a sixth form college is much more appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the strongly held views in the Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley educational areas that her policies of closing down teacher training colleges will gravely affect the supply of teachers over the next 10 years, she will now re-examine the decisions that have been taken in closing down these teacher training colleges.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of local feeling but she is not prepared to renew past uncertainties within the national system by reviewing final decisions taken only after careful consideration of all the representations received. South Yorkshire will still be served by 1,000 teacher training places in 1981 provided for the Sheffield City Polytechnic as enlarged by amalgamation with the Lady Mabel College, Rotherham: she has taken no decision to end initial training at Rotherham.

Does my hon. Friend realise that we shall never accept that decision? We shall be definitely opposed to it. Although we are grateful that Wentworth Castle teacher training college is now to become the Ruskin of the North, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the Doncaster, Barn- sley and Rotherham education area there is no teacher training college? How does he expect us to attract people to that area? Finally, is he aware that we are disappointed that he will not reconsider what has been decided?

I am well aware of the doughty fight that has been conducted, not only by my hon. Friend but also by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and Don Valley (Mr. Kelley), who were the first to lead a powerful delegation to see me. Many other areas sent similar delegations. The Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole will still have more teacher training places in 1981–5,340—than would have been produced by a strict allocation in proportion to its estimated school population of 4,890. I cannot, therefore, give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall reconsider this matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of vital importance to retain the valuable premises and equipment of all training colleges within the State system of higher education and not to be tempted to hive them off to various specialised interests, as apparently is being done at Culham?

It is our policy to persuade local education authorities to use these disused premises for education purposes where possible, but the premises are theirs. A good example of that, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred, is Wentworth Castle, which will be an excellent institution in that area. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) with regard to Culham. We are considering proposals for using the building at Culham for school purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the Government's most recent conference on comprehensive education.

I hope to publish in the spring a full report of the conference in York on 16th and 17th December. All of us there—local authority officers, Her Majesty's inspectors, officials from my Department, and Ministers—learned much from experienced teachers in comprehensive schools from a variety of areas about methods and approaches that have been particularly successful. Observers from abroad were also present, as was the Press, which attended the plenary sessions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is fair to say that the two major problems arising at that conference were the prospect of falling school rolls and the difficulties of mixed ability teaching? There may be some remedies that would alleviate those problems, such as more in-service training, but does she none the less accept that there is still a need for a wide-ranging inquiry into the whole future of comprehensive education to achieve agreed and lasting solutions?

Undoubtedly falling school rolls emerged as a serious problem. That cannot be denied. There were differing views about the question of mixed ability versus other forms of teaching and there was a united view against selection out of comprehensive schools at later stages of secondary education.

Will the Secretary of State clarify her views on the size of school, since she first supported large comprehensive schools, then she was against them, and at the conference she went back in favour of them again?

No, that is not quite right. I never favoured very large comprehensive schools. What I said at the conference was that in the light of experience it was not the case that large comprehensive schools show a higher rate of failure than do any other types of school. We must take that into account.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 17th January.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

No doubt the Prime Minister will be devoting more thought to the steel situation. Does he agree that the refusal of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to supply all the available information to the Select Committee was not in accord with the Prime Minister's policy speech, made on 6th April 1976, when he talked about trusting the people?

I heard the exchanges in the House yesterday and I thought that my right hon. Friend put his point very fairly. He has offered to go back to the Select Committee and answer such questions as it may wish to put to him. That appears to be a perfectly proper thing to do.

Will my right hon. Friend, on a very busy day, spare a thought for the massive sums of money that the Government are doling out to private industry—almost £11 million per day—and arrange for the House to have an early debate to show how, without public enterprise and public support, the capitalist system in Britain would have collapsed long ago?

I think that it is pretty generally accepted, except when party passions are roused, that a mixed economy demands public support for private industry and that there is a growing number of areas in which, unless Government support is given and Government initiative is taken, the nation State is incapable of doing certain things that used to be done in the nineteenth century. I can think of a number of illustrations of that sort. It is important that we should look at the issue along those lines.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider his attitude towards the steel industry? Is it not scandalous that that industry should be losing £520 million a year and that action which needs to be taken is being deferred because so many steel mills are situated in marginal Labour seats?

It is, of course, true that the steel industry is losing a very large sum of money every year. So, indeed, are the steel companies in almost any country that the hon. Gentleman may care to enumerate—France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the United States. All of these are countries in which substantial losses are being made. It is interesting to note, and this should be put down to the credit of the British Steel Corporation, that according to the figures that I have been given, the loss per ton of the British Steel Corporation is lower than the loss per ton in some of the steel industries in those other countries.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Gwynedd.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Gwynedd are extremely disappointed that, after four years, the Labour Government have failed to come forward with any proposals to help quarry workers who are suffering from silicosis? Since the Pearson Commission has now finished its report, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Labour Government will act to help these people who have so far been left out in the cold?

I shall certainly look into this matter again. I can give some assurances. The Welsh National School of Medicine and the Gwynedd Health Authority have just finished their researches into it. Although their final report has not been published, I have been told that in the course of the survey 69 men who are sufferers were advised that they could make a claim to the Department of Health and Social Security for industrial injuries benefit for pneumoconiosis. Thirty did so, and 28, I am glad to say, were successful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will study the final report, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there are others who can be included after he has studied it, they will be so advised.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the reply given by the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday that he had received only two letters supporting the establishment of a Welsh Assembly? When he makes his regular visit to Wales, will he describe the tremendous financial recovery that, with the Government's efforts, has been made in our country in recent years, and outline proposals to deal with unemployment, which is the main issue concerning Welsh people today?

I accept that, but the Wales Bill to set up an Assembly will be debated in the House and I think it important that we should have those discussions at that time. Certainly, I find in Wales a considerable understanding of the need for the mixed economy and of the need for considerable Government intervention in order to secure lower levels of unemployment.

When the Prime Minister is next fortunate enough to visit the de-delightful land of Gwynedd, will he visit Caergybi or Holyhead and, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), assist the creation of a sea link between Anglesey and Northern Ireland, to the mutual benefit of the workers in both parts of the kingdom?

I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's important and interesting suggestion. I should certainly need to take into account the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), whose father-in-law was a sea captain who used to operate on this route.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the annual dinner of the Labour Economic, Finance and Taxation Association in London on 12th December on the future programme of the Government represents Government policy.

My right hon. Friend's speech was not concerned with current issues of Government policy.

Does the Prime Minister realise that his failure to dissociate himself in any way from the Secretary of State's very Left-wing speech on that occasion has ensured that at the next General Election the decisive issue will be whether the Secretary of State and those who think like him can be entrusted with the oil revenues of this country?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman concerns himself more with our present economic recovery than with the phantasmagorial notions that he has about a forthcoming General Election.

Has the Prime Minister seen the full-page article that appeared in Sunday's Observer, based on the work of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics, which showed that the effect of most new investment is to reduce employment and that unless the Government adopt radical, social and economic policies we shall face staggering unemployment in the early 1980s?

I did not see that article, but it would not be foreign to the thinking that I find is prevalent on this matter, that, especially in large-scale organisations, rationalisation and new investment frequently lead to a reduction in jobs. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now engaged quite successfully in work on encouraging the growth of small firms that can provide additional employment.

But is the Prime Minister aware that in that speech his right hon. Friend referred to the dole queues being back again under the present Government? How does the Prime Minister account for the fact that unemployment is now worse in Britain than in the countries of all our main industrial competitors?

I should want to check the right hon. Lady's figures before answering. However, that does not remove the point that unemployment in this country is far too high, and far higher than I ever expected or wanted to see it. That is why we have taken a large number of measures—such as the temporary employment subsidy—the total impact of which, I am told, has been to safeguard over 600,000 jobs during the period in which they have been operating. We must continue to take measures of this sort and to stimulate the recovery that is now beginning s was shown in the December retail figures. But with all these it will be very difficult indeed to achieve a substantial reduction.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he will find the figures, from his own Department of Employment, at the end of Hansard for 11th January? Will he now answer the question why, as a result of some of his policies, unemployment is worse in Great Britain than in our industrial competitor countries?

I shall check the figures, as the right hon. Lady has now given her source. I can say that manufacturing employment is better this year. There is a 1·6 per cent. increase in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry compared with a year ago. That is in itself encouraging. Indeed, total employment is up slightly. The number of people who have come on to the register has increased the number of unemployed, but let us not neglect the fact that more jobs are being created.

In relation to oil revenues, will my right hon. Friend ignore the advice from the Opposition Benches that there should be wholesale tax reductions, particularly for the higher income groups, and concern himself and the Government with the regeneration of British industry and the development of public expenditure, to ensure that we get our people back to work?

The Government are considering their policy on these matters and will publish a statement in due course. I have no doubt that a combination of such measures is needed. One that my hon. Friend did not mention, but with which I am sure he would agree, is the need to provide out of the oil revenues for a replacement for oil as a source of energy when the oil runs out. This, too, must have a high priority in anything that we do.

With regard to Government policy in general, will the Prime Minister reply emphatically to the recent remarks of the Eire Prime Minister, telling him in no uncertain terms to take note of the utter determination of the Ulster people in no circumstances to be encompassed within an Irish Republic. and that if Britain should ever withdraw from Northern Ireland the Ulster people are resolutely determined to stand on their own?

This matter does not arise from, and is very far indeed from, the original Question. On important matters like this I would sooner have notice and be able to answer them properly. However, I can say, on this issue—men's and women's lives are affected, and therefore I wish to choose my words carefully—that there will be no departure from the Government's policy, which I believe has received support on both sides of the House, that the people of Northern Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is their desire to do so.

May I revert to the original Question? Can my right hon. Friend say how much better off this country is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy renegotiated the licences with the oil companies, and how much more revenue and royalties we have received as a consequence of those negotiations compared with the sell-out by the Conservatives?

I think it fair to say that in this matter the Labour Government proved a much better custodian of the national interest than did our predecessors, who were willing to give away the oil revenues not only to British companies but to overseas multinational companies.

I welcome the figures which the Prime Minister gave for increased employment in manufacturing. The House will be aware that this has made little dent on unemployment as a whole. What are the Prime Minister and his Government doing to improve employment in the service industries, which earn so much of our foreign currency?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be considering this matter, too. Increasing employment in the service industries in the public services would require additional public expenditure, and we have been limited on this. We shall have to turn more and more to this area, because I do not believe that manufacturing industry, as such, will be able to provide the jobs that are necessary if we are to return to the levels of employment that I want to see.