asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce a scheme of mandatory training schemes for teachers after 15 years in service, whereby they have a year away from their posts in which they can have updating courses relevant to their subjects and techniques, and thereby free teaching posts for those teachers currently unemployed.

The Government's expenditure plans envisage that the number of teachers released for in-service education and induction programmes will rise from the full-time equivalent of 4,500 in 1977 to 18,500 in 1981. Replacement teachers will be needed, thus providing additional employment. I do not believe that mandatory training would be appropriate.

I thank the Minister for that answer. May I press him further and ask him to say whether teachers will be released on a voluntary basis so that all those who feel that they require further training will be given that opportunity? Does the Minister accept that, as a general principle, it is much better to give the opportunity for further training in this way and allow other teachers to be taken on in employment rather than have them unemployed or on job creation schemes that are totally irrelevant to their training?

My right hon. Friend and I set the highest possible store on effective in-service training. I hope that local authorities will take advantage of the money that the Government have put into the rate support grant for this purpose. Some local authorities have done this very well: others leave some things to be desired.

On the subject of teachers away from their posts, may I ask what advice the Government will give to any young male teacher who wants to run a football team but does not want to have a girl in the team? Does not my hon. Friend think that the recent decision of the court at Newark is absolutely farcical and a misuse of public funds on the part of the Equal Opportunities Commission?

I suppose that I ought to recommend in-service training in the Sex Discrimination Act.

Would my hon. Friend agree that, laudable though it may be to arrange for teachers to have a sabbatical year or something like that after 15 years, a much more practical way of easing the teachers' work would he to reduce the size of classes by devoting more funds to the educational budget?

My hon. Friend knows that, given the economic difficulties of the Government, we are doing the best we can. I agree with my hon. Friend that the suggested mandatory year would be a clumsy way of providing in-service training.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps to implement the Bullock Report on literacy will be taken in the the next 12 months.

The Bullock recommendations were addressed to the education service as a whole, and Her Majesty's inspectors continue to collaborate closely with authorities in initiatives of many kinds. In the next 12 months assistance will be given to 29 authorities to mount in-service courses for teachers and others. In addition, my Department's programme of short courses for serving teachers for 1978–79 includes 15 which will cover various aspects of the teaching of English.

Does the Minister recognise that every independent inquiry which has been held since Bullock reported four years ago shows that the position over the provision of books in schools has deteriorated? Why does the Minister refuse to implement the principal recommendation of the Bullock Committee, which was the establishment of a standing committee to ensure that there were adequate capitation allowances and that the provision of books in our schools was adequate?

We hope to have some fresh information about the provision of books in schools shortly when local authorities reply to our circular on the review of the curricular arrangements. We have, in the new rate support grant settlement, made provision for an increase of 2 per cent. in non-teaching costs which, we believe, will enable authorities to do better in the provision of books. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have not refused to implement the recommendation to which he refers. It is actively under consideration in my Department.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are making sufficient funds available to finance adult literacy programmes?

We hope that local authorities are making adequate funds available. Obviously some authorities do and others, perhaps, make less satisfactory provision. As my hon. Friend knows, all we can do is to advise, make some money available and hope that authorities will follow the policies of which we all approve.

Is the Minister aware that her answers so far have shown a remarkable degree of complacency bearing in mind that in this country we spend only 0·84 per cent. of total educational spending on books? When will the Government take steps to see that we at least begin to match the international standards set by countries as diverse as Trinidad and West Germany?

I accept that it would be pleasant to be able to spend more than we do on books. What the hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten is that not all the expenditure on books is simply that contained in this part of the rate support grant. For example, when a new school is established and a library is built there, the cost of filling that library with books comes under capital provision, so that the finance available is perhaps better than the hon. Gentleman imagines.

Is the Minister aware that while we welcome the Assessment of Performance Unit and sample testing with regard to literacy from next year onwards, there is also a need for blanket testing so that children who have fallen behind in literacy have resources switched to them and no child who does not have brain damage leaves school illiterate at the age of 16? Such children are deprived for the rest of their lives in regard both to their jobs and to fitting into society.

We do not approve of blanket testing totally across the whole spectrum of children. We believe that sample testing of the kind which the APU is producing will give us a better picture nationally. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is talking about an assessment of the progress of the individual child, of course we are in favour of that and have never disputed it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the general criteria which she adopts when deciding whether or not to approve a Section 13 notice to close a village school in a rural area.

My right hon. Friend takes into account the educational and economic factors set out in the Department's circular 5/77, "Falling Numbers and School Closures". She also gives due weight to the social and, where appropriate, denominational arguments.

Following her very regrettable decision to close Grimston School in my constituency against the express wishes of both the parents and the managers, does the Minister agree that there is growing parental support for these small schools and that the general presumption in her Department on Section 13 notices should be towards keeping them open rather than closing them?

I would contest the hon. Gentleman's assumption that our general view is to close them rather than to keep them open. What we do is to examine each case as an individual case, as we did with regard to Grimston. We know that there is often support from parents for keeping such schools open, but we take considerable advice about the educational aspects of such decisions before we make them. They are often difficult to make, but we seek to make them in the interests of the welfare of the children.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend an additional criterion in deciding whether or not to close a school, which is that she should favour the closure of schools in the constituencies of those Tory Members who voted for cut-backs in public expenditure and should oppose the closing of schools in the constituencies of Labour Members who are in favour of public expenditure? In this connection, will she look particularly sympathetically at the representations of the people of Wall, in Lichfield, who are very concerned indeed about the possible closure of their school?

I look sympathetically at representations from all groups of parents, whoever they are fortunate or unfortunate enough to be represented by.

Does the Minister accept that financial economic criteria are the very worst reasons for closing small schools? Whatever is meant by a school being "financially viable" must be insane when one looks at the realistic benefits which a small school bestows on those who go to it.

I do not accept that finance should be totally ruled out, but I certainly accept that it should be very much a secondary consideration and that the educational experience which child- ren are having in a school should be the matter of prime concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reassessment of the student grant system is being made in the light of other Government schemes for tax-free payments to young workers involved in approved training, work experience and similar projects.

My right hon. Friend has now begun her discussions with local authorities about improved financial support arrangements for the 16–18 age group. Those will need to cover many aspects, including the availability of training allowances for young people.

In view of the far-reaching plans by the Manpower Services Commission, involving the payment of tax-free weekly sums to young people, is it not time that urgent consideration was given by my hon. Friend's Department to the position of boys and girls in schools, or undergoing further education, so that decisions about their future should be taken in the interests of the children on the advice of the parents and not simply on financial grounds?

My right hon. Friend has already had two meetings with local authorities to discuss this and other matters. There is another meeting to come. I would stress to my hon. Friend and to the House that the MSC courses, where money is being paid to young people in this age group, are for comparatively very short periods of time compared with someone staying in full-time education.

Is the Minister aware of the evaluation study of the MSC which shows that there is such poor quality in terms of literacy and the capacity to handle figures at a functional level that the MSC is calling for a tripling of the preparatory courses in literacy and numeracy? What does he think this shows about standards in some of the schools with regard to these basic things which are so crucial for people getting jobs?

Where youngsters have difficulty with reading or numbers, I am very delighted that the present MSC scheme has far more educational topping-up provision than did the previous schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she next intends to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors of the universities.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Committee of University Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

When the Secretary of State next meets the Vice-Chancellors, will she discuss with them ways of encouraging industry to make a greater financial contribution towards the universities? Does she agree that while industry for the most part accepts its responsibility for the training of unskilled or semi-skilled members of its work force, it makes very little contribution at the moment in the form of sponsored studentships to the highly-skilled engineers, physicists and scientists upon whom industry depends?

Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman may know that industry has recently entered into a joint system of industrial scholarships with my Department which are jointly funded between industry and the Government. Secondly, we have recently extended the amount which we permit to be paid to sponsored students before they become liable to a reduction in the normal mandatory award. Therefore, we are doing the best we can to encourage greater industrial interest in higher education.

What exactly are the criteria upon which these industrial scholarships are to be awarded?

In the first year the industrial scholarships will be awarded to young men and women who in their school records show leadership capacity and who intend to go into manufacturing industry. In the first year the awards will be tenable only for the specialised and enriched engineering courses with a strong management element in them, but beyond the first year they will be tenable with regard to any engineering course approved by the Council of Engineering Institutions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the position of the discussions on industrial democracy in the universities.

The report of the working party established by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in October 1976, to consider the implications of industrial democracy for the universities, was published in March. I hope to receive shortly the views of the University Grants Committee on the report's conclusions.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this kind of working party could be considered by us? Would it not have been better to have involved the trade unions directly in these talks so that at least an impartial report could have been prepared?

I would prefer not to comment in any detail at this stage. The University Grants Committee, in considering this, will shortly be submitting a report to me. I hope that it will consider this report not in isolation but in the context of the Prime Minister's statement about the White Paper on industrial democracy.

Is not this whole concept for discussion in universities absolute nonsense? Is not the purpose of universities to discuss true learning rather than ephemeral and fashionable political notions?

I am amazed that that view still prevails, even by the hon. Gentleman, in this House. Universities work as a team, with both the non-academic staff and the academic staff working together.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to publish her Department's revised proposals for school transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to bring forward her revised proposals for school transport.

My right hon. Friend will publish fresh proposals as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of fares to travel to school for schoolchildren imposes a very heavy burden on many parents and guardians, particularly when added to the other expenses of attending school? In these circumstances, is there not a very urgent case for introducing proposals to restore half fares for all schoolchildren who need to use transport to attend school?

I am well aware that this cost is often a heavy burden on many parents. I am afraid that the question of half fares is one not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Will my hon. Friend accept that too many local authorities rigidly apply the three-mile limit and that they could use a degree of moderation in this respect? Will she reconsider impressing upon the Secretary of State for Transport that all children who require school transport should have either free transport or at least an agreed concessionary fare, because I can assure her that this causes bitter disputes among the parents of children attending the same school?

I accept that entirely, and it is our hope that the proposals which we shall put before the House will contain the basis of a scheme which will enable all children to travel to school for a reasonable sum, and perhaps even for the same sum. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is within the power of local authorities at present to give assistance to parents but that many of them choose not to exercise those powers at the moment.

The hon. Lady said "as soon as possible". Can she be a little more explicit and definite about the time scale of this proposal?

I hope to lay these proposals before the House before the Summer Recess.

I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, but does she not accept that any introduction of a new system which penalised parents who at present get free transport would be un- desirable? Therefore, will she agree to consider introducing a phased system so that no parent will have to pay more in fares after the scheme is introduced?

This is one of the difficult matters that we are considering. We are anxious to find a low-cost solution which minimises the loss of benefit to those who are getting free transport at present. But, as my hon. Friend will recollect, it is the burden of protest from those at present getting free transport as well as the concern of local authorities which has made it difficult to introduce a solution so far. However, we hope that those at present enjoying free transport for their children will recognise the problems faced by others.

When the Minister referred just now to the possibility of all children paying the same or a similar fare, did she have it in mind that it would be quite unjust to expect parents whose children use school transport only because their local village schools have been closed to pay to send their children to schools in other villages?

Where free transport is being provided in circumstances like that, it introduces an additional difficult factor. However, we are concerned to establish a fair system for the country as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend agree that children in rural areas under the three-mile limit would find it dangerous to walk to school and that the cost to which one of my hon. Friends referred falls particularly heavily on low-paid workers in rural areas? Is there not an allocation in the rate support grant for school transport, and is my hon. Friend prepared to do anything about seeing that rural authorities apply that allocation to school transport?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have no power to direct local authorities about how to use their rate support grant. That is a matter for them. I take her point about the circumstances of travel to school for children in rural areas. It is one of the unfortunate features of the present system that authorities do not have to consider factors such as danger or suitability of available transport. These are matters which we hope to consider.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she intends to introduce legislation to implement the Taylor Report on school governing and managing bodies.

In the light of her consideration of the Taylor Report, my right hon. Friend intends to introduce legislation on some aspects of school management and government as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

In view of the concern by many peope about appointments to school governing and managing bodies, does not the hon. Lady think that this matter is rather more urgent? Is it not important to ensure that the people who get on to these bodies have a real interest in education and in the schools concerned rather than merely being political appointees?

I agree with the hon. Member. It is a source of much dismay to the Government that recently a number of Conservative authorities have thrown everyone off their governing bodies other than those who are prepared to support Tory Party policy. We feel that much action on the report can be taken, and, of course, it does not all need legislation. Therefore, it is within the power of those local authorities to introduce such changes now. But we hope to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to look at an apparent anomaly whereby a school manager or governor who is a councillor can get some form of remuneration or expenses whereas a school governor or manager who is not a councillor gets nothing? It would appear that this is at the discretion of the local authority. Will my hon. Friend look at and try to regularise the position?

There is much at present which is at the discretion of the local authority, and we shall have to look at all these matters when we consider our legislative proposals.

Does not the hon. Lady think that the role of parents in the running of schools and in serving on managing and governing bodies is of the utmost importance? Does she not agree also that in the main the local authorities, especially the parish councils, play a vital role in the running of these schools? Will she assure the House that the relationship between local councils and governing and managing bodies will continue in any legislation that her right hon. Friend introduces?

I accept what the hon. Member says about the role of parents. As I have said several times, we hope that local authorities will take steps, which they are free to take at present, to involve parents more in the management and governing of schools. As for the hon. Member's comments about minor authorities such as parish councils, we are still in the process of consultation, but we have indicated already that we are not convinced that the suggestion in the Taylor Report that the right of minor authorities to nominate to governing bodies should be withdrawn is the right approach, and we shall also be considering that.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated overall cost to public funds within which her discussions with the local authorities on grants for 16-yearolds are taking place.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his Question on 25th May.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the concern in all parts of the House at the pitifully small scope of discretionary awards at a time when the age group is expanding? Is she quite certain that her priority is right in launching this new scheme of awards rather than coping with the lottery of discretionary awards in these vocational areas, which would help young people to get jobs?

I notice that on 10th June the hon. Member attacked my proposals as being "a useless bribe". He went on to say that he would give himself the priority of straightening out the lottery with regard to further education awards. However, I think that the hon. Member sounded off without studying what was proposed. What is proposed is specifically help for those staying on in further education to pursue vocational courses as well as those staying on at school. I advise the hon. Member to study my proposals before condemning them.

Take 100 lines.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Conservative Party merely talks about these matters but that this Government are the first Government to do something about them? Is she aware that from many Government supporters there is a great welcome for her extension of this scheme to sixth formers?

That is the point.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the city of Sheffield, a Labour-controlled city, is one of the first to get on with it? We in this House do not want to see our sixth forms become a sort of class institution, and this is one of the very best ways of making sure that everyone has the chance to take advantage of sixth form education.

I agree wholly with my hon. Friend, and for two reasons. The first is that we have one of the lowest staying-on rates in Western Europe, and that seems to me to be appalling. One reason for it is the lack of financial support for young people after the age of 16. The second is that what has been described by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) as "a useless bribe", when applied to students in higher education, is normally welcomed in all quarters of the country. We are simply proposing to extend what is available in higher education to further education, where we desperately need more trained and skilled people.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is still a crime to allow children to leave school at the age of 16 without jobs to go to? Therefore, whatever grants are made to children, will she make certain that they are high enough to encourage them to continue at school until we can find jobs for them?

The rate is under discussion between me and the local education authorities. I hope to bring about a position where a young person can make a free choice between further education and leaving school rather than being forced to make that choice because of financial considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what requests she has received from local education authorities for permission to introduce experimental education voucher schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent consultations he has had concerning the educational voucher scheme.

I have received no requests and had no consultations about the introduction of voucher schemes.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the decision by the Kent education committee to go ahead with this ludicrous waste of educational resources. Does she not regard it as a strange sense of priorities that an authority with one of the worst teacher-pupil ratios in the country and an abysmal record in nursery education, and an authority which cannot afford to reintroduce free school milk in junior schools, can afford to go ahead with schemes such as this?

I find the position amazing. Kent is third from the bottom in nursery provision in the country as a whole, it has a lower average of pupil-teacher ratios than the average of counties, let alone the average in the country as a whole, and it has refused to provide free school milk for primary school children. Yet that county now seems to be able to consider bringing in a ludicrous voucher scheme which would produce nothing but a waste of money.

Has the right hon. Lady received any clear indication at all from the Conservative Front Bench that it wishes her to embark on this public expenditure?

I have received a most enjoyable cacophony from the Conservative Front Bench. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), true to his normal backing of all reactionary ideas, has indicated that voucher schemes are a first-rate proposal for turning the clock back in education. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who has a rather more balanced approach to education, indicated in a recent "Panorama" programme that he was far from enthusiastic about the voucher scheme and used language with which I could not more agree, that

"We cannot turn the education system upside down. We cannot take risks with children's education."

Why is my right hon. Friend so gentle with the Conservatives? Does she not recognise that this is yet another political gimmick by the Friedman centre of the Conservative Party, which is trying to introduce the cash nexus into British education? Will it not be rejected at the forthcoming General Election in common with the rest of Conservative policies?

What amazes me about the voucher scheme is that the very study that was undertaken in Kent indicated that as a way of meeting parents' wishes this was a foolish and administratively inefficient way of proceeding. Therefore, even on the arguments advanced by the Opposition, this is an absurd aberration and an absurd experiment. Anybody who studies the scheme, as I have done, will see that as a recipe for overcrowding some schools, overstraining them and leading to wasteful expenditure on temporary accommodation, while other schools are under-used, it is a totally irresponsible proposal and no sensible education spokesman would dream of advocating it.

Before the right hon. Lady is overcome by her eloquence in criticism of Kent, will she reflect on one very important statistic contained in what more fair-minded observers would regard as a very interesting experimental study by Kent? It is to the effect that 90 per cent. of parents among those questioned in the survey wanted the greater freedom of choice which an educational voucher system might provide. Even if there are administrative difficulties, should there not be a rather more constructive approach to an experiment along the lines suggested by Kent?

What the hon. Gentleman does not appear to appreciate is that the study undertaken for Kent indicated that, as a way of meeting parental choice, this was neither an efficient nor a sensible system for undertaking such a scheme. If the hon. Gentleman had read the survey, I am sure that he would not follow that particular route.

Will my right hon. Friend make clearly known in advance to authorities which might take up this experiment the tremendous cost involved, as she illustrated in an answer she gave to me last Friday?

Yes, indeed. It is difficult to make any clear estimate, but the estimate that Kent made for a single division of a county with 14 education divisions within it was the sum of £600,000. That is for one division of one county out of 100-plus education authorities. That would give no advance at all. That is the basic administrative overload cost of running a voucher system. If the system were to be extended to independent schools, because the voucher would be payable to every parent with a child in an independent school the cost could be as much as £400 million. That seems to be a very strange way of spending scarce education resources.

Instead of worrying about the mote in my eye, would not the right hon. Lady be better occupied in thinking about the Benn in her own? If she is so strongly against the voucher, on which apparently she has a totally closed mind, why does she not put forward proposals of her own for extending parental choice and influence, since the overwhelming majority of parents interviewed in the survey declared that the policies of the present Government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science were denying them the freedom of choice which they wanted?

On the first matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I noticed that in a recent "Panorama" programme he said:

"An experiment is going to be quite expensive, and if it was introduced generally it would cost a lot of money, and that creates great difficulties."

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate her Department has of the number of young people over 16 years of age who will be undertaking full-time secondary education in the academic year 1978–79.

My Department expects about 309,000 pupils over school leaving age to be attending maintained secondary schools in January 1979. In 1978–79 there are expected to be 226,000 boys and girls on full-time or sandwich non-advanced further education courses.

Of the 390,000 pupils, what number does the Minister estimate will be staying on at school as a result of the proposal to support them out of public funds? Does this proposal imply that he and his Department realise that there will be a serious increase in youth unemployment?

The figure I quoted was 309,000. That figure relates to pupils who are expected to stay on at school under the present arrangements. We hope that when the grant system comes into operation there will be a considerable increase in the participation rate of those staying on at school.

Has my hon. Friend any evidence that some children are being denied the opportunity to stay on at school because of the economic burden that this represents on families? In these circumstances, what further steps does he envisage taking in addition to those already taken to make it possible for all children above the age of 16 who desire to undertake further education to take advantage of that opportunity?

The main weapon in the hands of the Government to persuade children to stay on at school is the financial one. In 1973–74 the percentage staying on at school was 24 per cent., in 1976–77 it was 28 per cent., and it is estimated to reach 29 per cent. next year, even without the student support system.

Will the Minister break down the figure of 309,000 as between boys and girls? Does he agree with me that one of the most tragic aspects of the position is the poverty of ambition among all too many girls in this country?

I do not have in my possession the proportion as between boys and girls. If the figure is available, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what obligations are imposed in the Education Act 1944 on the governors of secondary schools to provide an O-level syllabus.

My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member to explain that no specific obligations are imposed by the Education Acts on schools to provide O-level courses and that the question whether such an obligation was implicit in the provisions of the Acts, if raised, would be one for the courts to decide. I understand that Nottinghamshire has now decided as a matter of policy that comprehensive schools in the county should offer both O-level and CSE courses.

I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that until recently the Sutton Centre comprehensive school in Sutton-in-Ashfield did not offer an O-level syllabus to its pupils? Was not this a grave dereliction of duty, and is not the decision of the newly elected Conservative education committee, to which the Minister has referred, most welcome?

My right hon. Friend has recently made clear that she regrets that some comprehensive schools, such as the Sutton Centre, have chosen not to offer O-level courses. She is grateful that the decision has been changed.

Does not my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that a Conservative Member should be so ignorant of the extent to which the selective system of education, which the Conservatives have purported to support for the last 25 or 30 years, created precisely the situation in which only a small number of schools had the opportunity of providing O- and A-level syllabuses? Is it not one of the greatest features of the development of comprehensive education that this sort of question can be asked by Conservative Members?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I was careful to say that we regretted that such courses were not offered in comprehensive schools. We are all too well aware that in the selective system these courses were frequently not offered to many children who could have benefited from them.

Does the Minister appreciate the strength of the point that many people supported comprehensive schools because they wanted their children to go to schools that could offer GCE courses? Is it not ironic that certain comprehensive schools taking children of all abilities do not offer O-levels, which are necessary for professional and higher education. How many comprehensive schools follow the example of the school in my hon. Friend's constituency and do not offer O-levels?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an accurate figure, but I can tell him that it is a very small number indeed, and it has been made more than clear that we do not believe that this is a satisfactory policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her estimate of the number of cases where mathematics and science subjects are being taught by inadequately qualified teachers, or teachers who are not trained in these subjects at all; and if she will make a statement.

This information will be available by the end of the year.

Does the Minister agree that as there is such an urgent need for skilled people in industry, which requires the good and effective teaching of mathematics in schools, it is vital that this information is obtained by the Government, otherwise their expensive retraining schemes for teachers from arts subjects into mathematics will be ineffective?

We are aware of the problem and are doing something about it. In 1974 there was a considerable shortage of mathematics and science teachers, and when the Conservative Party was in power nothing was done about it. We have set up the courses, but it will be some time before the products of those courses are available to the schools.

Is the Minister aware that there is an inadequate supply of properly trained teachers of religious subjects, just as there is in science and mathematics? What steps are the Government taking to make this a more important subject within teaching and to ensure that there are sufficient fully qualified teachers trained in this vital area of moral and religious education in schools?

I agree that there is a shortage of graduate teachers, but there is not the overwhelming shortage of non-graduate teachers in religious subjects that there is in mathematics and science. We have sent a circular to local authorities and we should know by the summer of this year how many people who are qualified to teach religious education are teaching it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is prepared to agree to the request made in the letter she has received from the Redbridge Education Committee asking for further time to consider the reorganisation of secondary education.

I received proposals from the Redbridge authority on 1st June for the elimination of selection within its area. Officers of the authority will shortly be invited 10 discuss these proposals in detail with officials of my Department.

Will the Minister please explain why she chose 1st June as the date on which the proposals had to be put to her and why she found it necessary to send her letter by special messenger?

I did not choose 1st June. The authority had to explain its position by 22nd May. It asked for an extension of time, and before an extension could be refused or granted, it had sent us a fresh letter dated 1st June with new proposals. It is the authority which has overtaken its earlier request.

What about the second part of the question concerning the special messenger?

Does not my right hon. Friend regard as unsatisfactory the reply that she received, which was cobbled up at the last moment by the chairman of the committee without any reference to the committee? Is it not unsatisfactory that that reply extends selection until 1986 and that the authority, which has had at least 10 years to make up its mind, now complains that it has not had enough time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is simply procrastination by the authority, which is awaiting the unlikely event of a Tory Government in the near future?

If the authority's intentions are genuine, it will have every possible opportunity to make that clear to my officials. If they are not, my officials will advise me to take the appropriate action

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

I have at present no plans to visit Northfleet.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he could find time to visit my constituents in the coming months he would soon find how much they welcome the Government's success in bringing down inflation to the lowest level for five years? Would he not find it refreshing if, just for once, the Leader of the Opposition would stop carping and would give a similar welcome to the country's success in overcoming its economic problems?

It is the case that, thanks to some moderation in wage settlements during the last 12 months and to other factors, the inflation rate has gone down, with benefit to our exports and our living standards. I hope that we can maintain that. Our rate of inflation is now lower than that of a number of our major competitors. On the other hand, it is still higher than the rate in Japan, West Germany and the United States. I should like to see it comparable with those countries as well.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have repeatedly said that if wage rises were 10 per cent. or more inflation would soon be back into double figures. Now that the figures are showing that wages are rising at the rate of 15 per cent. or more, what is the Prime Minister's forecast of the annual rate of inflation?

I am too wary about the inaccuracy of forecasts to start a competition of that sort, but I have no reason to withdraw from my consistent position on this, which I uttered as recently as a fortnight ago to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) when I said to him that we need a substantially lower rate of increase in earnings next year if we are to maintain inflation at its present level. It is far better to get the major basic lesson home than to indulge in battles of forecasting statistics.

In that case, why did the Prime Minister say a fortnight ago that he did not see why inflation should ever rise above single figures again?

I hope that some time I will get the right hon. Lady to understand the simple point—

Do not be so patronising.

I would not need to be patronising if the right hon. Lady were not artificially slow. I know that really she is intelligent, but she tries to misunderstand this point.

Be your age.

There is no reason for inflation to rise into double figures if we adhere to our policies and keep increases in incomes in single figures. If I have said that once, I have said it 20 times, and perhaps some day it will dawn into the heads of the Opposition.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is an admirable situation, according to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, when inflation is coming down and wages are going up? That is a wonderful society.

Yes, but we must ensure that productivity and increased production keep level with the wages that are being paid. As my right hon. Friend knows, that is the major point. Certainly, when I reflect on all the questions that I have been asked about special cases and all the people who should be allowed to escape, I must say that we have not had very much help from the Opposition in trying to keep earnings at a reasonable level.

As earnings are rising at an annual rate of 15 per cent., and in view of the Prime Minister's misleading attempts to grapple with that fact a moment ago, does it not show that his answer of a fortnight ago was as complacent as it was characteristic?

What I think it shows, and what I hope everyone on the Opposition side will grasp, is that it is necessary to carry the consent of the people of this country. I do not believe that either side of the House stands for a statutory incomes policy. Therefore, the people of the country can decide to take decisions out of the Government's hands where the Government are not the direct controller. Where we are, as in the case of public servants, we have stood firm, without any help from the Opposition. I was pressed by the CBI and others to do that. We have played our part as a Government in trying to keep inflation down. I hope some day to have some help from the Opposition.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20th June.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to think about the problem of Rhodesia? Does he not think that it is time to heed the views of people of such divergent opinions as Mr. Smith and Mr. Sithole and start to support the internal settlement? Does he not agree that the pursuit of a vendetta against Mr. Ian Smith is no substitute for a positive policy by a Government who ought to be but are not seeking peace in Central Africa?

The answer to those questions is "No, Sir".

Will the Prime Minister, on the contrary., make it absolutely clear that the House of Commons has always stood by the principle that sanctions will be lifted only when majority rule acceptable to the people as a whole has been achieved? Does he agree that the fact that some Members of the House have reneged on the commitments of their own previous Government is no reason for changing the view of the House of Commons?

I understand that that has been the view of both sides of the House, and, therefore, I assume that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is not speaking for the Opposition on this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the still unacceptable level of unemployment? What plans are there, in view of the present rate of inflation, to begin to expand the economy in order to provide employment in the areas which at the moment have high levels of unemployment?

The figures for unemployment, as my hon. Friend may have seen, although in gross total they are higher, reflect the number of school leavers last month. Excluding school leavers, the level is down. More important, perhaps, the number of vacancies in employment exchanges has risen, and I always regard that as a good sign. The unemployment level is still too high, but my hon. Friend will know of the steps taken by the Government through the temporary employment subsidy and of the international measures that we are trying to secure in co-operation with other major industrial countries. That is the best way, as well as keeping inflation down, to overcome unemployment.

May I ask the Prime Minister to come back to the question of Rhodesia? Is he not aware that the issue of a solution in Rhodesia transcends the whole question of party relationships? Is he aware that at the moment we are in the course of losing perhaps the single greatest opportunity of achieving a solution to this problem? Can he not, please, bring his influence to bear to try to ensure that the grave suspicion which is harboured against his Government by those who have signed the internal settlement is removed, to enable a proper peaceful solution to take place?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the significance of this issue transcending the parties. He is quite right. I can assure him in return that hardly a day goes by without the Foreign Secretary or myself being involved in some exchange or other in an attempt to get all the parties to this dispute together. There is no doubt that the attitude of some of the parties—I shall not particularise this afternoon—is making it difficult for them to co-operate. As far as I can sec, there is no prospect of this Government or the American Government being able to enforce a settlement. However, we are constantly making moves with all the individual parties concerned to try to get them to discuss this issue and secure a settlement as quickly as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend say how many jobs would be lost if the Opposition's proposals to cut public expenditure were introduced, and how many kidney patients would suffer if the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition when she was in the United States that we should not spend any more money on kidney machines were carried out?

indicated dissent.

I am unable to give such figures, but it is time that we had a clear statement from the Opposition about whether they wish to decrease or increase public expenditure. I have here a clear list of additional expenditure that the Opposition want to undertake, but they go on pretending to the country that they wish to cut public expenditure. Which is it?

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20th June.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).

May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of inflation, because two weeks ago he clearly informed the House that there was no reason why single-figure inflation could not continue indefinitely if he were able to continue his policies? Does he now agree, since he now knows the facts, that wage rates are running at 15 rather than 10 per cent., that unemployment is up and that the matter is far more complicated? Will he tell the whole truth to the House and to the country as to the prospects of phase 4 when phase 3 has already failed?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's gleeful gloom when he thinks that phase 3 has failed. It is understandable that he should want it to fail. If it fails, he, with others, will have helped to make it fail. But I do not think that we should accept one month's figures annualised as being necessarily the true reflection of the situation. For example, 800,000 building workers have today settled for 9·75 per cent. That is a most significant addition to the present statistics. Although, as I have said on a number of occasions, I believe, with regret, that the figure will be above 10 per cent., it may well not reach the annualised total suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I still have considerable hopes for phase 4, but whether or not my hopes are justified makes no difference to the need for the Government to state their position. I promise the hon. Gentleman that that will be done clearly, truthfully and without regard to any of the consequences.

Will my right hon. Friend try to find time today to contact President Carter? If he finds that most inconvenient, will he endeavour to do so at least before 13th and 14th July, when President Carter is to visit Germany? Will he impress upon the President that it is time that the United States, Germany and France helped this country by reflating their economies so that there could be an improvement in the standards of the Western world?

I shall not be contacting President Carter today, but I shall be visiting New York, with the permission of my colleagues, next Monday in order to receive the Hubert Humphrey Memorial Award. I hope to have conversations with President Carter then. I trust that we shall be able before 13th and 14th July to work out a mutually agreeable package on growth and the other issues that are now facing us.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services in Harrogate on 5th June 1978 about the Health Service represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will regret that the Secretary of State is in hospital and wishes him a speedy recovery? Was it not extraordinary that the Secretary of State made such a complacent and inadequate speech to the nurses on that occasion that he had to send a telegram of apology three days later?

That is not my understanding. I have read the speech and the telegram. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has done both or either. My right hon. Friend said that he wished that there had been more time for questioning and that his speech therefore should have been cut a little shorter. That is a very different matter from what the hon. Gentleman suggested. I dare say there is none of us in the House who has not at times regretted that one's speech was overlong. Certainly I have.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from a Conservative Government increasing their expenditure on the National Health Service, thus strengthening the Service, they would actually reduce such expenditure by, according to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), setting up two Health Services, one privately financed for those who could afford it and with a residual and inferior State service for the rest? Is not this question another example of Tory hypocrisy?

Yes. My right hon. Friend would not expect me to agree with that extreme language. It is true that the Opposition were given the chance to spell out their policy on 20th April. However, the questions were never answered. Perhaps we shall get an answer now. Does the Conservative Party, if it is ever elected to govern, propose to bring in new charges for those who go to see a doctor? Does it propose to bring in new charges for being in hospital? Does the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—stand by his exact words, which naturally I read when I quote:

"We have to live within"

"and there is no possibility of extra money"?

As Prime Minister's Question Time is the time for the Prime Minister to answer questions, is he able to answer the question whether the National Health Service cash limits will have to bear the employers' national insurance surcharge of £100 million? If that is so, is not that £50 million up last month and £100 million down this month? If that is not so, why on earth cannot the Government answer the question and make that clear?

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about these matters. The cost to the National Health Service this year will be about £44 million. The increase will not affect the finances of health authorities until mid-November. Therefore, there is no need at this stage to inject any additional money or to amend the cash limits.