asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the light of the fact that throughout England and Wales the parents of children who require special tuition because of speaking difficulties are concerned at the lack of facilities in this educational field, if she will make a statement on what action she is taking or intends to take, to improve the present position.

I am well aware of the difficulties faced by children who have disorders of speech or language. The identification, assessment and placement of individual children are matters for the local education authority concerned, in consultation with the parents. In addition to the provision made in special schools, local education authorities are increasingly setting up classes and units for these children in ordinary schools. Her Majesty's Inspectorate is currently reviewing some of this provision.

Does my hon. Friend realise that thousands of parents are deeply disturbed about the future of their children who require special teaching facilities? The children are not being organised, and it is no good leaving it to the local education authorities. Will my hon. Friend therefore take into account the fact that these parents are deeply worried about what is to happen to their children when the parents pass away? In this very cold, inconsiderate and thoughtless society, we ought to offer special facilities for these children to be educated and trained.

We do our best to encourage local authorities to offer such special facilities in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend will know, legislation has placed the duty of carrying out such practices on local authorities rather than on us, but we seek to see that the right kind of provision is made.

Does not the Minister accept that it is necessary to provide not only special units but also the specialist teachers within them? Is she satisfied with the situation in relation to speech therapists, particularly in view of the drastic shortfall between the numbers now available and those recommended in the Quirk Report?

The provision of speech therapists is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, it is not my information that there is a shortfall below the figures recommended by the Quirk Report, in the sense that the Quirk Report recommended a certain level of provision but also recommended the speed with which that provision should be reached. It is my understanding that we are, in fact, doing better than the Quirk Report recommended in this connection.

Will my hon. Friend explain the association between her Department and the Department of Health and Social Security in this matter? Presumably the qualified teacher as distinct from a speech therapist, has to have a knowledge of teaching. Does she agree that this situation has lingered for many years and during many Governments? Is there a prospect of remedying it? It leads to great frustrations to the children and their parents.

I understand that there is very close co-operation between speech therapists and teachers in the provision of this work. Many speech therapists carry out a great deal of their work in schools or in particular classes in co-operation with the teachers, but we are always anxious to see this improved.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to receive the report of Committee B on university teachers' pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is now in a position to make a statement on the review by Committee B on the timing of the rectification of the anomaly regarding the salaries of university teachers.

As my right hon. Friend told the House on 5th May, agreement was reached in the negotiating committee that day that the anomaly in university teachers' pay would be rectified in two approximately equal stages on 1st October 1978 and 1st October 1979. I welcome this agreed solution to a long-standing and difficult problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable satisfaction in the universities that a long-standing problem is at last on the way to being resolved? Will he also recognise that the last few years of financial constraint on both staff and resources has damaged morale in the universities and that what is now needed is renewed evidence that the Government place a proper value on the contribution they are able to make?

I am aware of considerable satisfaction in the universities that a promise made was a promise kept by this Government in this matter. I am also aware that because of that difficulty there has been some lowering of morale. I hope that that will now pass away and that morale will be quickly restored to normal, as I am sure it will be.

Is the Minister aware that those of my constituents who are lecturers at the universities of Leicester, Loughborough and Nottingham will be glad that progress has been made in this way? But they will be well aware that a great deal of time elapsed before a settlement could be reached, and they deeply regret that dilemma.

Yes, some time elapsed because they were difficult negotiations. However, my right hon. Friend said in March of this year that a decision would be made before June of this year, and, indeed, it was made at the beginning of May.

Is not one of the main problems that bedevil pay settlements in higher education the fact that divisions exist between universities on the one hand and polytechnics and colleges of further education on the other? Is it not the case that we shall get some sanity at this level of education only if we have a common comprehensive system of further and higher education?

My hon. Friend has raised a very much wider question, but, as the whole House is aware, there has been an anomaly with university teachers' pay which has existed since 1975. Promises were made by two Secretaries of State that it would be remedied, and I am delighted that it has now been remedied.

How can the Minister of State say that when the Government, in keeping that promise, have drifted and dithered right up to the point at which university staff threaten not to mark finals examinations? Does he believe that that sort of treatment will keep people of brilliance and talent on £4,000 or £5,000 a year in British universities?

We did not drift and dither. There was a threat of this form of industrial action, but the university teachers won their case because of their lack of power of industrial action, which proves that the Government are fair to all sections of the community, whether they have industrial muscle or not.

Will the Minister of State accept that repentance of a sinner is always welcome, even if it is on a death bed?

We are far from dead.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she last met representatives of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers.

I attended the organisation's annual conference during the Easter Recess, as the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, and I hope to meet it at the opening of the new administrative building in Rednal on 23rd June.

As the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers is operating a ban on out-of-hours activities in all areas where members have not had a written undertaking from the local education authority that their duties are entirely voluntary, does not the Secretary of State now feel that it would be a good idea to set up a national forum to discuss not only teachers' pay but conditions of work?

On the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I am not a party to teachers' conditions of service. That is a matter which, by law, lies between the teachers' employers—the local authorities—and the teachers' organisations. With regard to the possibility of a professional council, I have indicated to teachers' organisations that I would be willing to consider that suggestion if they can put forward agreed proposals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that her reception at the recent annual conference of the union was a great deal more cordial than that which would be afforded by any intelligent group of teachers to the primeval lunacies of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson)?

With reference to the NAS and UWT, can the right hon. Lady comment on the submissions from ACAS regarding teachers' representations in meetings with Her Majesty's Government?

I very much regret that ACAS has not been able to identify a basis upon which joint consultative meetings can take place. The matter will therefore be passed to me to discuss with the teachers' organisations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to bring forward proposals relating to parental choice of schools.

My proposals on school admissions were issued last October. I intend to introduce legislation drawn up in the light of my consultations on these proposals as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the drop in the birth rate makes it much easier for local education authorities to let parents have more say in the placing of their children in schools than has sometimes been the case in the past? Can she now give a date on which she will introduce legislation, rather than merely saying "as soon as possible", to promote and encourage wider choice by parents in where their children go to school?

The fall in the birth rate presents great difficulties as well as great opportunities to local authorities. It is extremely expensive to run a school persistently under capacity. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can give him no fairer or more honest answer than "when the parliamentary timetable permits".

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, in a perversion and sullying of the fair name of parental choice, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) seems to have committed the Conservative Party to a voucher system of admissions? However, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) does not seem to speak with the same voice. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the effects of using such a system?

I am delighted to notice that all those Conservative Members who care seriously about maintained education do not support the concept of the voucher system, which is a ludicrous waste of public money merely enhancing the power of the purse.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the slogan "parental choice" has been used by the Opposition to mean everybody, when we all know that they mean education for their own children and not for others? Does she agree that when Government supporters speak of parental choice we want the very best choice for all parents and children and that there is more parental choice now than there ever was before?

My own view is that parents should be able to express their wishes as between schools. I want to make it absolutely clear that under the old selective system 80 per cent. of parents had no choice at all. We are not interested in a choice that is for only a small minority.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that if the Prime Minister wishes to be taken seriously in his new-found concern for the family—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It is the truth—he will back up the right hon. Lady in her losing battle with Mrs. Caroline Benn and produce some legislation? Will she make it clear that in that legislation she will make it her first priority not to close anomalies in the law but to extend parental rights and influence?

With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has consistently, throughout his ministerial career, concerned himself with the interests of the family. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that horse will not run. As I have said to him on more than one occasion—and I say at the Dispatch Box today exactly word for word what I said in November 1977—we have always favoured the idea of parents being able to express their preferences within the comprehensive principle.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the Taylor Report on school governing and managing bodies.

We consulted more than 30 interested bodies immediately after the publication of the Taylor Report and received about 170 letters commenting on various aspects of the report's recommendations. I have had recent discussions with some of the bodies concerned and expect to have further meetings shortly.

Is the Minister confident that in the light of those representations there is now more widespread public understanding of Lord Taylor's commitment to a genuine partnership in the management and running of schools? Will the Minister confirm that the teaching profession has nothing to fear from a fuller and more equal partnership with parents?

I accept and endorse completely all that the hon. Gentleman said. I can only say to him, in the hope that it will not do him any harm, how nice it is to hear positive sentiments coming from the Conservative Benches.

Whatever the considerable merits of the recommendations of the Taylor Committee, their implementation will require additional resources for local education authorities. Will the hon. Lady give the House an assurance that it will be the Government who provide those resources?

We are a long way from implementing the recommendations of the Taylor Report. We are still at the stage of full discussions about the exact implications of the report. Only when those discussions are finished shall we have a clear idea about the resource implications.

As local authorities in some parts of the country are now embarked upon appointing their education committees in the absence of any change in the law, does not the hon. Lady think that the time is ripe to remind them that governing bodies should contain people who are genuinely representative of the interests involved in schools, and not simply political placemen?

Hear, hear.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am surprised to hear cheers coming from the Conservative Benches, because it is that party which has been instrumental in putting political placemen in public bodies and in removing governors of immense interest and experience. I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says. Local authorities are already free to implement many of the recommendations of the Taylor Report, and we hope that many of them will do so.

Is the Minister aware that, in view of the number of representations, many people fear that the Taylor Report—it is an important report, because it is vital to have more teacher and parent representation on the governing bodies—will be put in the "awaiting action" file, like the report on literacy from the Bullock Committee? Can the Minister assure us that, instead of its being put in the "awaiting action" file, the Taylor Report will be debated in this House so that the great debate on education, which is supposed to be going on round the country, may eventually arrive here?

It is not for me to say what will be debated in this House. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there are many aspects of the Taylor Report which do not need action in this House and which local authorities are perfectly free to carry out at present. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his part in encouraging the many Conservative education authorities to carry out those proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received on the subject of the statutory walking distances and school transport.

My right hon. Friend has received about 100 letters since the beginning of the year on school transport issues from parents and from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The Minister will know that it is some three years—1975 to be exact—since her Department published proposals that would lead to the abolition of statutory walking distances. Bearing in mind the considerable delay, does the hon. Lady fully appreciate the arbitrary nature of statutory walking distances, particularly in rural areas. Does she appreciate also the various vested interests which undoubtedly are present when it comes to change? Will she please drive on with her proposals, produce some results and make a statement to the House before the Summer Recess?

I cannot guarantee to do that, although I shall attempt to do so. We quite accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the arbitrary and unsatisfactory nature of the present arrangements. For the past three years we have been trying to find a way in which some kind of arrangement could be reached to improve them.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the position in South Humberside, where the new Conservative-controlled council has gone back to the absolute minimum standard—we had a better standard under a Labour-controlled authority—to the consternation of everyone in my constituency, particularly in the rural villages? Will she make quite clear, because all sorts of rumours are going about, that there is no question of any Government directive but that it is a Conservative action taken by a Conservative-controlled council which could be doing something better?

Sadly, the example of Humberside is repeated right across the country. It is my understanding that in Humberside it is not only in transport that improvements carried out by the previous authority have been removed.

Would not the Minister agree that it would be fairer if the distance were related to the actual miles that have to be driven by a vehicle rather than the present basis of assessment, which appears to be the principle of "as the crow flies"?

I must agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are a variety of ways in which a fairer scheme could be devised. It is our hope that we shall be able to find a scheme which will meet with agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many vacancies currently exist for those who would like to take the special Government courses for retraining in teaching of mathematics and science in schools and if she will make a statement.

Some 270 qualified teachers are taking these retraining courses this year, and about 340 people are taking initial training courses with awards from the Manpower Services Commission. About 320 places will be available on retraining courses beginning next autumn, and initial training will again be available. Those now wishing to take such courses should apply as soon as possible.

As we now know the number of students taking these courses and the number of vacancies for those who can apply if they want to, can the Minister say what is the shortage of teachers of these subjects in schools and how long the Government think it will take to overcome that shortage?

I cannot give the precise figure now but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with that figure. It will take some years before the shortage of mathematics and science teachers is made up, but by these schemes the Government are doing their best to bridge the gap.

Will any of the teachers who are retraining in science be equally competent to take physics, biology and chemistry classes up to O-level? Does my hon. Friend agree that over-specialisation in teachers who are unable to teach these three subjects up to O-level has been one of the difficulties in the past?

They will be studying a variety of science courses and some of the teachers—I do not know the percentage—will be able to teach all three science subjects. Of course, some of the retrained teachers would not be able to do so.

Will the Minister ensure that teachers who are retrained to teach mathematics are able to teach traditional mathematics as well as that hotchpotch popularly known as modern mathematics?

I think that training colleges are aware of the concern expressed in the country, but there are different ways of teaching mathematics to different students and pupils. However, I think that training colleges will be aware of my hon. Friend's concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she is taking to persuade schools to include in the curriculum for 11 to 16-year-olds education for political competence, as suggested in the working papers recently prepared by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

While I have indicated my support for the study in schools of our political institutions, it is for local education authorities and schools themselves to decide whether to adopt the suggestions of the recent Her Majesty's Inspectorate working paper. Copies of the document have been sent to all LEAs and are available in the Library.

My Department's circular 14/77 sought information on the steps authorities have taken to help schools promote the development of pupils' understanding of contemporary economic, social and political life.

Does the Secretary of State agree that most schools are failing to give children an adequate political education and that, provided there is no political indoctrination, it is essential that there should be more political education if we are to have a well-informed and responsible democracy?

I could not agree more with the lion. Gentleman, but before the working paper was prepared by Her Majesty's Inspectorate there had been no working papers on the subject of political education. I very much hope that schools will look at that working paper. I hope, too, that the original agreement between the political parties made in 1973 under the aegis of the Hansard Society, which sets out some useful rules for the teaching of politics to children in schools, will be honoured.

What plans are being made to enable parents to receive the same information?

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the answer to that question even better than I do.

What is meant by "political competence", and would we all pass the test?

The hon. Lady tempts me, but I have never endeavoured to insult the House from this Dispatch Box.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to increase educational maintenance allowances and discretionary awards to students for the academic year 1978–79.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to his Question on 12th May, but I would point out that no new statutory system of awards which might result from my right hon. Friend's discussion with local authorities could possibly be introduced as early as the academic year 1978–79.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but does he not appreciate that if an increase is not introduced for this September there will be a temptation for people to defer going into the sixth form for a year and to join the dole queue or try to get a job and return to higher education the following year so as to take advantage of the grant? Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to try to persuade local authorities to increase the educational maintenance allowances now available from this September, possibly on the basis of reimbursement from the Government?

I do not think that any increase in the existing provision for EMAs would have a lot of effect, nor do I think that there is a grave risk of my hon. Friend's fears being realised in that people would defer going into higher education for a year. It is unreasonable in May to expect that negotiations with local authorities could be completed for what, in effect, would be September.

Does not the Secretary of State's recent announcement add yet one further form of support for 16-year-old to 18-year-old students, some of whom are not under her control? Does not this require us to look at the totality of this support? Is there not a fear that such support is now so separated as to be defeating some of its original purpose?

It is true that there are many different schemes at different levels. The fact that the Government are operating these schemes, which have been asked for by various Members of the House for years, is a major breakthrough. I pay tribute to all those who have put pressure on the Government, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who has had a Question on this matter on the Order Paper every month since I have been a Minister.

Is not my hon. Friend concerned about the reluctance of Tory-controlled authorities to offer many of these discretionary awards? Does he not consider that we should now be moving towards the stage when the discretionary nature of awards should be abolished and when awards for the majority of courses should become mandatory?

The principle has been decided, but the nature and type of the awards are still under discussion. The object of this exercise—and I hope that every local authority, whether Tory-controlled or Labour-controlled, will be of this opinion—is to increase the participation rate to well above the present 30 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition have repeatedly called for an inquiry into the anomalies that exist in this matter as a result of the involvement of the Manpower Services Commission and the local authorities, as well as the social security system, but that the commitment announced on Friday was of a very generalised kind, with conceivably wide-ranging cost implications? Will he say when the House will have further details and when the Secretary of State intends to have the commitment implemented? As the means test for the educational maintenance allowances is much stricter than that, for example, for school meals, what sort of means test will be implied in this case?

I am not convinced that an inquiry will achieve more than can be accomplished through the initiatives that we have currently in hand. Indeed, we have acted, not set up an inquiry, on educational maintenance awards. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, this will require discussions with the local education authorities on a number of matters, and I cannot therefore now give a date or a time when firm proposals can be given. The whole question of the means tests will also be discussed with the local authorities. I can say, however, that those discussions will begin immediately.

Will my hon. Friend accept, for himself and his right hon. Friend, the congratulations of this side of the House on the fact that at last we have made progress on this vital matter? Will he also accept that the net cost of such a scheme is not nearly as great as the gross cost when one deducts supplementary benefit for those who would otherwise be in the dole queue? Will he accept, too, that many of us hope that, whatever restrictions are placed upon the initial scheme, it will prove to be the thin end of the wedge in securing adequate support for all in this age group?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. It is, of course, a red letter day for him too after his work on this matter both as a Minister and as a Back Bencher.

I accept the Minister's argument that there is something to be said for these sixth-form allowances, but is not my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) right in saying that, by introducing yet another benefit into a competing field, we are making a confused situation even more chaotic? Is there not now a strong case for a rational policy based on clear principles to deal with the educational and employment problems of the 16 to 19-year-olds?

There is a need for a rational approach, but in the meantime I think that the Government are right to establish the principle that they have. It is money that is wanted, not inquiries. I greatly welcome what the Government have done in ensuring that some youngsters who at present are denied higher education because they are poor will be able to achieve it in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to provide for equality of educational opportunity by incorporating the public schools into the comprehensive system.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) on 18th April, my right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so but remains firmly committed to the long-term aim in our manifesto of phasing out fee paying in schools.

Since 62 out of the 74 High Court judges and the overwhelming majority of leading industrialists, civil servants, diplomats, newspaper men and military men—not to mention 211 out of 282 Tory Members of Parliament—are public school-educated, is it not high time that we scrapped the system and gave all our children an equal chance?

I accept what I am sure is my hon. Friend's underlying contention—that the quality of all these gentlemen would be greatly improved had they attended comprehensive schools.

Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Grocott) wants to abolish everything which is good in England? Is she further aware that what the country needs is the spirit of leadership and service which the public schools so amply provide?

I had no idea that my hon. Friend's ambitions were so widespread. I certainly accept that the country needs leadership and service. That is what it is getting and will always get from this party.

Will my hon. Friend convey to her right hon. Friend that, whatever the difficulties may be about the integration of public schools into the State sector, there is a real anomaly in relation to the registration as charities of schools such as Eton College and others in my constituency? Will she therefore do something about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems very reluctant to take any action in relation to this question?

I do not accept that my right hon. Friend is reluctant to take action, but I believe that the difficulties are more substantial than one would at first imagine.

Is the Minister not aware that many thousands of parents, including, for example, myself, are nearly bankrupting themselves in order to take advantage of the United Nations Charter and provide the education of their choice for their children? Is it not a fact that people do this because they believe that there are advantages to be gained for their families? If the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends are interested in good education, would they not seriously be better employed in trying to understand what it is about the public schools that provides the sort of education that appears to be so advantageous, according to her hon. Friend the Member for Lich-field and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott), and trying to learn from them rather than trying to abolish them?

I accept that there are many parents who mistakenly believe that by paying extra money for their children's education they will automatically give them a better standard of education. However, the questions of monetary difficulties and salaries of Members of Parliament are not for me.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that this became a short-term rather than a long-term objective? Is it not really a question of political will and a real desire to incorporate these private schools into the comprehensive system?

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as a matter of political will. We have taken many steps in that direction—for example, by reducing the number of places that local education authorities have previously taken up in the independent sector. We are making progress.

Does the Minister agree that it is part of a free society that people are allowed to dispose of their remaining income as they wish after they have paid their dues to the State? Would not a desire for a proper education for their children be part of that? Would there be any moral claim on a State which outlawed three things—hard drugs, hard pornography and private education?

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman. Do I take it that he is saying that hard drugs, hard pornography and private schools are all equally desirable?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the current year's school leavers will have received all of their secondary school education in a comprehensive school.

I am afraid that the information requested is not available, because the information we collect on pupils leaving school includes only the school last attended and not any other secondary schools pupils may have attended in the course of their secondary education.

I am grateful for that answer. Does it not point to the fact that the various wild comments made by Conservatives about the effect of comprehensive education are based on ignorance and emanate from bigotry?

In 1973, of those leaving school 51 per cent. had attended comprehensive schools, and the figure has now risen to over 80 per cent. That seems to be a development in the right direction. It is interesting that the Conservative Party is almost wholly schizophrenic on the subject of comprehensive schools. We should like to know its true opinion.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the eldest daughter of the hon. Member for Cambridge is leaving a comprehensive school this year, that we are delighted with her progress and that we believe in the comprehensive system, but as our own free choice?

I am delighted to hear that the comprehensive school has pleased the hon. Gentleman so much. I do not know what party that leaves his children to become members of.

Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear to those Tory county councils, such as my own in Nottinghamshire, which are deliberately stalling and determined not to bring comprehensive education into the area that she will not stand for it? Is she aware that when Clay Cross took on the Tory Government in 1973 and defied the law, the Tory Government leaned on it very hard indeed? Can she now do the same to those Tory county councils which are refusing to bring in comprehensive education?

My hon. Friend will know that we have made absolutely clear to those authorities which have not yet submitted schemes, or submitted revised schemes, that the law must take its course in this case, as under all other Acts of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost to public funds involved in the legal expenses incurred by her Department in the Tameside litigation in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 21st November 1977.

When does the Minister expect that the total cost to public funds of this disgraceful exercise by the former Secretary of State will be known? Does the Minister recollect that the judge in the case found that the Minister has misdirected himself fundamentally about his duties? In those circumstances, may we look to a contribution from the present Secretary of State for Defence and from his successor?

I think it extremely unlikely. As for when we shall know the answer, unfortunately we are awaiting the views of the local authority on its costs before any decision can be reached.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tameside affair cannot be measured in financial terms alone but should be measured in terms of the deprivation suffered by many people, particularly the children who were forced into a selective system? As regards the late lamented Councillor Thorpe, who was chairman of the education committee and who was removed by the electorate at Tameside, would my hon. Friend care to comment on the reasons for his failure to achieve re-election?

I am not sure that I would say that Councillor Thorpe is lamented. As for the reasons for his defeat, I understand that most ungallantly he blames his defeat on the immigration policies of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition—in which, of course, he may be correct. But, in fairness to the right hon. Lady, it is only right to point out that since Councillor Thorpe claimed, when he was last elected, that the electorate had chosen grammar schools, we can deduce that perhaps now they have chosen comprehensives.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions she has had with representatives of Cheshire County Council concerning the reorganisation of secondary education in Cheshire.

My right hon. Friend has had none, but I have recently had a meeting with representatives of Cheshire County Council concerning the reorganisation of secondary education in Crewe.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that reply. Is she aware that many of my constituents whose children go to Crewe Grammar School for Boys are very pleased that she has turned down the county's proposals to establish a tertiary college in Crewe, which would have meant that at the age of 16 pupils would have had to transfer from a grammar school, interrupt their education and go to a tertiary college?

Will the hon. Lady accept that uncertainty still exists about what will happen in the future in Crewe, and will she give an assurance to the House that the children who start selective education at Crewe Grammar School for Boys will be enabled to go through until the age of 18 to complete their education at that school?

The hon. Gentleman will know the implications of the decision we have taken on the scheme in Crewe, and it is my understanding that all local opinion in Crewe was united in wishing for the original scheme put forward by Cheshire County Council rather than this new scheme put forward at such a late day.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me that, where anyone's constituents have the chance to send their children to a grammar school, far more of those constituents do not have the chance to send theirs to a grammar school? Will she accept, therefore, that the sooner we do not have Crewe Grammar School and other grammar schools, and the sooner we have comprehensive education all over the country, the more democratic will education be for every child?

I entirely accept that, and we are working towards that end.

On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, may I ask the hon. Lady whether the activities of herself, her Department and the Secretary of State would not be better directed to improving existing comprehensive schools rather than destroying grammar schools of proven worth?

We are spending our time not only on seeing good comprehensive schemes brought into being but on improving all schools that currently exist.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to visit Teheran in the near future.

I have at present no plans to visit Iran.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Arab Emirates have tripled their expenditure on armaments during the last year and that this has taken place in response to what they regard as the rapid military build-up of Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of which are being heavily supplied with armaments by the United Kingdom? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend try to find a way of conveying to the Shah of Iran—and to this House—that there must be some limit to the quantity of arms that we are prepared to supply to both Iran and Saudi Arabia because we wish to avoid the repetition in the Gulf of the shambles that we and other great Powers have created in the Eastern Mediterranean?

The expenditure on arms in almost every country is too high at present, and especially in the developing countries. That is one reason why I hope that the United Nations disarmament conference will be able to take steps to reverse that trend. I would point out to my hon. Friend that Iran has on her northern border a most powerful and heavily armed neighbour and that there has been a recent uprising in her Eastern neighbour. She is, therefore, properly concerned with her own security. However, I assure the House that we shall consider on its merits every proposal made for the sale of arms.

Should the Prime Minister have the opportunity of visiting Iran, will he point out how much we and the Western world appreciate the important part that that country is playing in maintaining stability in the area? Will he also point out how much we value its important trade relations with Britain?

The policies of the Shah of Iran are intended to produce greater stability in the area in which it is such a powerful component. Of course, Iran is the most important trading partner we have in Asia, and we must also take that factor into account, too. But I hope that we shall be able to have good discussions with the Shah about a number of matters that are of concern, I know, to him in his process of liberalisation which has gone so far and which, I believe, he wishes to carry further. I should like also to express my appreciation of the help that he has given us in our policies in relation, for example, to the Middle East and Rhodesia.

But in view of the flagrant abuses of human rights and the denials of elementary democracy in Iran, how can my right hon. Friend justify the continuation of the supply of huge quantities of arms to that country which are to be used primarily in suppressing the attempts of the people of Iran to obtain similar rights to those which we demand for ourselves in this country?

I do not accept my hon. Friend's analysis. The arms that we are supplying are certainly not intended to work for internal suppression. They are intended for the reasons I gave in reply to the first supplementary question.

On human rights there is concern, as is well known, and that concern is felt inside Iran as well as outside. But it is a difficult process for a ruler such as the Shah, who has immense power, gradually to release that power and to encourage more liberalisation while at the same time maintaining a degree of order. I hope that he will be able to do so. Certainly, we would support him in both efforts—namely, to secure greater liberalisation but at the same time to secure continual progress in that country.

asked the Prime Minister if there is a copy of Queen's Regulations for the Army in the library of No. 10 Downing Street paid for out of public funds.

No.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Queen's Regulations do not forbid the wives of Service personnel protesting about the low level of pay, and was it not rather shabby of him to try to stop them doing so? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman stop trying to pay decent wages to public service personnel by post-dated cheques drawn on the next Tory Government?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that Queen's Regulations do not forbid Service wives making protests about the levels of pay or, indeed, other matters. Far from discouraging them or forbidding them to do so, when I went to Plymouth I met a deputation of Service wives from the Royal Navy and had a very full discussion with them about the whole matter. Therefore, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that imputation. As regards post-dated cheques, I can promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall be here to redeem all the cheques that are issued.

Will the Prime Minister consider allowing members of Her Majesty's Forces to join their appropriate trade union, so that they may then have opinions different from the one recently expressed in cold-war terms in China by a senior officer?

My experience over the last few weeks convinces me that the Services are extremely well served in the matter of knowledge of their conditions and pay being made public and the pressures that are applied upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that their obligations are met in full.

When this subject was last raised with the right hon. Gentleman, he assured the House that the Forces would get a square deal. Why has he not fulfilled that promise?

Clearly, that must remain a matter of opinion, but in relation to all civilian employees, both in the Government service and generally, I think it true to say that the Services have been given an equivalent deal, together with a firm promise that where their conditions have fallen behind they will be brought up to date during the next two years. Despite our great success in the battle against inflation, we must not forget that there is still a continuing battle to be fought and won on that front, and every section of the community has to play its part.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public engagements for Tuesday 16th May.

This morning I greeted President Khama of Botswana on his arrival for an official visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening, subject to parliamentary business, I hope to address the annual dinner of the CBI.

If the Prime Minister has time during the rest of the day, will he reconsider two speeches he made over the weekend? In the first of them he said that his Government had plenty of time. As for the second, will he reconsider what he said in terms of the family—that he would have a special family policy, the Government's family policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the impact of every Government policy so far has done nothing but damage families in this country? Unemployment is now higher than ever before, we have a poorer education system than we have ever had before, and we have a flagging National Health Service. Had not his Government better forget bringing in that kind of policy?

I am glad to say that both speeches I made at the weekend were extremely well received and that I derived very great encouragement from them. I do not recall—I wish that I could pick the audience here; it would be a lot better than the one I have got—the first reference that the hon. Gentleman made. As regards family policy, however, I do not really see how he can make that charge when we consider the proposed and actual increases in child benefit, when we recall that the present Budget introduces a new reduced rate band which certainly helps every working wife to a greater extent than it helps where there is one income coming in, and when we recall a number of other measures of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware.

What I feel is clear is that the policy of the Government—like that of others—has not been totally co-ordinated. As there is now a larger number of women going out to work than ever before, a number of changes are needed if we are to preserve and enhance the family's dimension and the family circle, which I believe to be a very precious asset in our national life.

My right hon. Friend should not be worried, because most of us thought that the speeches were jolly good. [AN. HON. MEMBER: "What is your majority, Bob?"] Unlike some hon. Gentlemen, I do not worry about majorities. When the Prime Minister meets the CBI tonight, will he be good enough to revert to what is properly called his "Buy British" campaign and in this instance strongly urge British manufacturers to ensure that they buy British raw materials rather than buy from abroad? This is one of the worst features of our import problem.

The accent on our import propensity is very considerable. I believe that the CBI is a very useful instrument for trying to bring suppliers and customers much more closely together. It is at the manufacturing stage that I believe "Buy British" can have most effect. It is "Buy British make British and sell British".

If the Prime Minister has always had a natural wish to help the family, why have his Government pursued a policy of heavy income tax on families, as on everyone else in society? Why have successive Labour Administrations taken so much away from families in income tax that they have left them with too little to keep themselves and then compelled them to apply for means-tested benefits in order to get some of their own money back?

Milk snatcher.

The right hon. Lady's comment seems to be more an expression of opinion than a question asking for information, but I must tell her that, in addition to the benefits that I have already mentioned in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), we have, as she will remember, kept the price of school meals steady during the course of the current year. I am particularly glad that we were able to increase the provision of free school milk. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sure that the right hon. Lady will join me in thanking the Chancellor for doing that.

Generally, it seems to me that the burden that the family has had to carry has been part of the national burden borne over the last few years in order to get our situation right. I am glad to say that living standards are now going ahead faster than they have done for some years.

Will the Prime Minister address himself to the supplementary question which I asked? Is it not better to leave the family with enough of its own money to keep its own children rather than first to take it away in income tax and then to compel the family to suffer the indignity of applying for means-tested benefit such as school meals?

The right hon. Lady obviously does not want to listen to the answers that I give, because it is quite clear from what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in fact income tax is being reduced in this Budget for the family. This was in every sense a family Budget when one takes into account school meals, school milk, the reduction in income tax and the increase in children's benefits. It is the right hon. Lady and her friends who have distorted the Budget by giving relief to those who are best off in the country—to those, indeed, who are getting the highest incomes. How that can be construed as helping the average family is more than I can understand.

Will my right hon. Friend have opportunity today to consider newspaper reports about the future production programme of British Aerospace and whether the future partners of British Aerospace will be European or American? Will he confirm those reports, which suggested that a Cabinet decision is forthcoming on this matter? This is most urgent and important to many workers in my constituency whose jobs depend upon it and also in view of the pressure of British Airways in trying to buy American aircraft at this time.

My hon. Friend introduces one of the complications in what is undoubtedly a natural instinct to buy British, because the conflicting interests of British Airways, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce do not all run in the same direction. I can promise my hon. Friend that the Government are giving the most careful consideration to these matters. We shall try to produce an answer in due course that will best meet the national needs and, I hope, safeguard a great many jobs.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to inquire why no decision has been reached about the removal of the hulk of the "Eleni V" from just off my constituency? Is he aware that the delay has caused grave misgivings among my constituents and that there has been a lack of decisive action? Will he further state that the Government will now hold a full inquiry into all the events of this ghastly accident in order that we can learn from the experience of what has happened so that we try not to make the same mistakes again?

Without accepting that mistakes have been made in this matter, I understand fully the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents, as I believe we all do, especially taking recent events into account. I made inquiries before coming into the House and I understand that the immediate objectives of attaching tow lines securely to the wreck have largely been achieved. There is adequate buoyancy, and representatives of two leading salvage firms are now meeting in order to reach an early decision on the best course of action. If there are any lessons to be learned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that will be so, but after every one of these disasters the local arrangements are reviewed very completely indeed in order to ensure the least possible damage to the coast.

Is it not extraordinary that this ship—

Oh, not again.

Order. I have always tried to help hon. Members from both sides. If they have constituency interests, Members know that I try to help.

What seems extraordinary is that the hulk has been lying off the coast for 10 days, it has been known that it would have to be raised, it has now been raised and still no decision has been taken as to what to do with it. It really is a terrible situation for my constituency, and I believe that the Government ought by now to have decided what to do.

I do not complain about the right hon. Gentleman using this opportunity to raise what clearly is a very serious matter for him, but I think he will excuse me from knowing all the details of these matters. I shall certainly make inquiries of the appropriate Ministries about the situation, but I understand that eight spraying vessels, together with a naval minesweeper, were on the scene within 24 hours, that the numbers have progressively been increased and that the local authorities were prepared when the first oil reached the beaches, but I also understand that they are still having great difficulty in deciding about the future of the vessel. That, however, does not necessarily lie wholly in the hands of the Government. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and especially the people who live on that part of the coast, that the Government will make sure that there is no delay in reaching decisions on this matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to give further consideration to the pattern which Prime Minister's Questions seem to take time after time, when hon. Members flit from one subject to another which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Question? I believe that I am correct in saying that some time ago it was agreed that the Prime Minister would answer a great many more Questions of substance instead of merely dealing with the general Questions which come forward.

Therefore, would it not be timely for us to ask that some further consideration be given to this matter in order to ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have a better opportunity to follow through themes which are developed during Question Time? I also believe that many members of the public who listen to what is going on here are completely bemused by the way in which we conduct our affairs and that we ought to do something about it.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising that very serious question. I have no doubt that the usual channels will have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As regards the last two questions put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), I should like to ask what exactly is the position. There are many hon. Members on the Government side who are not Members of the Front Bench and who may well have constituency problems, too. Is it not right that right hon. Members should either put down a Private Notice Question or raise the matter with the appropriate Minister and not use their Front-Bench position in the way in which it was used?

As I said to the House, I have tried to help many hon. Members on both sides of the House when I know that they have anxieties about their constituencies.

Abuse.

Order. I must say that both sides of the House benefit from time to time from the efforts on my part to be fair and, above all, that is what I try to be.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While it may be of benefit to the House, I hope that you will also appreciate in your consideration that it is sometimes an embarrassment to me when I am asked detailed questions on any of the thousands of matters that pass in front of the Government, when it is only by coincidence or good fortune that I may happen to have the information.

I suggest, with all due deference to hon. Members, that it would be better if we reverted in some ways to the earlier practice of addressing far fewer detailed Questions to the Prime Minister, but addressing individual Ministers on the subjects on which hon. Members want replies. This would enable me to give far better consideration to what is addressed to me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that, during the period when the Prime Minister said that he would welcome more Questions on more specific matters to avoid the difficulty of the typical Question about his engagements for the day—a visit to Chingford or something of the sort—he fell into the habit of transferring all those Questions, and that hon. Members who imagined that they had a Question in the first three which were to be reached too often found that that Question had been transferred?

If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter for you and the Chair. It is a matter primarily for the Prime Minister—whose office decides which Questions he will keep and which he will transfer—to sort out the business of how Prime Minister's Question Time proceeds.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has touched on a very important matter. I think he will find, when he looks at the Answer which I gave him earlier, that I transferred very few Questions during that period. The truth is—I shall offend the hon. Gentleman by saying this—that Question Time was abused by him and some of his hon. Friends. They were putting down Questions in an attempt to get me to take over ministerial responsibilities, to prove party points in the House, and not genuinely seeking information at Question Time. I know that that statement offends Opposition Members, but I want to try o give reasonable Answers o sensible and well-designed Questions. That was not, however, what the hon. Gentleman tried to do when he put his Questions down.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was trying to make that, while we understand your desire to help hon. Members in constituency matters, all hon. Members other than Front Benchers do not have that opportunity, since Front Benchers are called automatically, whereas it is very seldom—and I appreciate that it can only be very seldom—that Back Benchers are called? Was not that the point that my hon. Friend was making?

I understand the difficulty, if I may refer to the general problem first. The House knows that I now keep a register of every hon. Member who is called to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, because the facts of life are that in recent days far more hon. Members want to be called—and I understand that they want to be called—then it is possible for me to call. In order to ensure justice, I am trying to keep a register.

With regard to the Opposition Front Bench today, it is within the memory of the House that it is a considerable time since I called anyone from that Front Bench other than the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Questions, as it so happens. That is a fact to be borne in mind.

With regard to the open Question, this has become a problem in this Parliament for the first time. It used not to be. We used to be able to get down Questions to the Prime Minister. We have always had a full Question period to the Prime Minister. But the House itself has to look to that, not me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the Prime Minister is very keen that nobody should make party political points in this House of Commons. He does his best to avoid doing that himself, I am sure. But the point is that if he maintains that Questions about specific matters should be transferred to the Ministers concerned and that we should not ask general Questions of him, it will be difficult to find anything at all that we can ask the Prime Minister. I repeat that it is in his hands to improve the standard in Prime Minister's Question Time if he so wishes, because it is he who has the opportunity to pick the Questions that he wants to answer. That is what he has been doing.

rose—

I will, of course, call any hon. Member who wishes to raise a point of order, but I suggest that the House would like to move on to the Private Notice Question.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong these exchanges, but is it not a fact that since the House has been broadcasting Prime Minister's Question Time live, the number of Questions put down has doubled and that this had never occurred before the past few weeks?

Not only that, but our own normal Question Time has slowed down by nearly 30 per cent. I understand the reasons, and if I were sitting on the Back Benches, I should probably also want to be heard. But the truth is that we have to adjust to a new dimension in our affairs.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the open Question, as you so rightly call it, presents the Prime Minister with extremely great difficulties because he does not know which supplementary questions he will be asked, which is why we have had such an abysmally low level of answers from the Prime Minister? Would it not be for the convenience of the Prime Minister himself if he undertook to accept more specific Questions, because in my own experience, during the period to which he referred, every Question that I put down on a specific topic was transferred, but all the open Questions were kept? He has only himself to blame if he is always being bowled out.