asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research was conducted into the effects of sex education on children under 10 years of age before his Department gave advice regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation's television programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the advice his Department gave to the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding its sex education programmes for children.

There were no such consultations.

While I do not disagree with the principle of engaging in this sort of education, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the B.B.C. did not see fit either to consult with or to take the advice of the Department before deciding to put on these programmes?

It is not usual for the B.B.C. to seek our advice in this sort of matter, although, as my hon. Friend may know, representatives of the Department sit on the Schools Broadcasting Council. I believe that the B.B.C. has been very good about this and has at all stages consulted parents in the pilot areas where the films have been shown.

Would the right hon. Lady disregard a lot of the ill-informed criticism that has been made both of these broadcasts and of some of the other excellent sex education that is being given to primary school children in our schools and try to work more closely with the B.B.C. in future to coordinate the work?

Accompanied by other Ministers, my right hon. Friend and I saw these films a short time ago and we felt that they did a very good job indeed. I believe that this view was shared by hon. Members who also saw the films. There is a good working arrangement with the B.B.C., but, strictly speaking, neither were we consulted nor are we ever called on to approve films made by the B.B.C.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that some people, including myself, do not approve of the idea of the B.B.C. showing films of this type? Should not the Government take an attitude on this issue and express their feelings, as I did, about whether this is the correct kind of film to be shown on television to children aged under 10?

The B.B.C. has undertaken to seek parents' consent in every case before the films are shown, and this occurred in the pilot areas. Thus, no child is forced to see these films, which are available for children whose parents wish them to see them.

Is my right hon Friend aware that there is great opposition from many parents to the idea of putting on television something which the individual teacher would be reluctant to teach?

I appreciate that there are differences of opinion, but I believe it is right that where schools wish to show these films to children as part of their general education, they should first ask parents to see the films and then obtain their consent.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that local education authorities are using consistent criteria for the award of grants to mature students at the adult residential colleges.

I hope that all local education authorities will be prepared, in accordance with the advice given in a circular dated April, 1966, to make awards, at uniform rates, to suitable students undertaking courses of a year or more at adult residential colleges. My right hon. Friend, however, has no power to override the exercise of their discretion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present situation is chaotic, with one local authority giving awards only to those over 30 while a neighbouring authority is giving awards only to those under 25? Is he further aware that some local authorities are demanding G.C.Es., a policy which is entirely opposite to that declared when the residential colleges were established?

I agree that there are variations in policy, and this situation is to be deplored. This matter has been drawn to the attention of local authorities. I will certainly consider whether it would be helpful to issue a revised circular.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now increase the grant to the districts of the Workers' Educational Association, in view of the increasing burden of the association's costs caused by the growth of its programme of classes.

Grants to W.E.A. districts increased from £111,000 in 1959–60 to £252,000 in 1967–68. Figures for 1968–69 and 1969–70, when available, are likely to show further increases.

Most of this increase is for teaching costs, but my point is that of the funds available the proportions for administrative and organising costs have decreased severely with the increased teaching burden? Would my hon. Friend look at that aspect?

We will certainly look at that aspect, but my right hon. Friend would want to await the outcome of the Russell Committee inquiry before deciding whether any major alteration is required in the scale of support made to responsible bodies.

As one who has been associated with the W.E.A. for 35 years, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would not agree that this organisation has made a profound contribution to democratic development? It has been the inspiration of extramural departments and the Open University. Is it not time that this perpetual fight for financial survival ceased?

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. We are all particularly aware of the contribution that has been made to adult education by the W.E.A. I do not want to repeat what I have already said about the Russell Committee's inquiry, except to say that until its results are known any application for grant will be considered sympathetically by the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money is currently being spent by the Agricultural Research Council on research into chemical additives which will minimise the stench arising from the disposal of waste products from intensive poultry units; and what success has so far been obtained with this research.

The council is at present considering the possible extension of the research it is supporting on various aspects of the disposal of farm wastes, and I have no doubt that the possibilities of mitigating odours by additives will not be overlooked.

Is the Minister of State aware that the problem referred in the Question is of acute, even if localised, consideration in rural communities, particularly in Shropshire? Why is he unable to indicate the amount of money currently being spent? Are we to understand from that lack of indication that no money is currently being spent on this important problem? As the budget now runs at upwards of £15 million, does not the Minister think that it would be a sensible reallocation of priorities if the Agricultural Research Council did spend some money on these projects?

The council is supporting research into various aspects of waste disposal at many of its own institutes. I am sure that it is well aware of the importance, not least in Shropshire, of research into the precise problem which the hon. Gentleman describes, but the principal objective must be to dispose of waste in a manner that renders it innocuous rather than concentrating on simply making it inoffensive.

Should not the responsibility of keeping their own factory farms clean and wholesome lie with the farmers themselves?

Responsibility does rest, of course, on the individual farmer; nevertheless it is the duty of the Government and the research councils, as well as of other bodies, to give what help can be given in terms of finding more effective ways of dealing with the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have now submitted schemes for the reorganisation of comprehensive education; and how many have declined to do so.

A total of 152 local education authorities have submitted schemes, of which 129 have so far been approved. The plans of 11 authorities have been referred back; three of these have declined to submit revised proposals. A further five have declined to submit any scheme.

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I congratulate her Department on the contribution which it has made to eliminating the barbarities of the 11-plus examination. Can my right hon. Friend say what plans are in hand to try to overcome the myopia of those backward authorities which cannot see the light of day and sense?

As has already been announced in the Queen's Speech, my right hon. Friend is to introduce this Session a Bill to ensure that all local authorities submit plans for comprehensive reorganisation to get rid of the 11-plus examination.

If that Bill comes forward, can the right hon. Lady say how much her right hon. Friend is prepared to make available in money terms to enable the necessary changes in buildings to be made?

The present school building programme is exactly twice what it was in 1963–64. In addition to that, £105 million have been allocated over the next two or three years for the raising of the school-leaving age. Those local authorities which already have a scheme of reorganisation approved are spending most of this money to help secondary reorganisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many existing comprehensive schools, and in how many that are approved or planned for the future, pupils are situated in buildings over a quarter of a mile apart; and in how many of these comprehensive schools at present or in the midst of being approved will there be two, three or four locations, respectively, more than a quarter of a mile apart.

This information is not available.

Does the Minister agree that there are many comprehensive schools situated in buildings not only a quarter of a mile apart but sometimes two or three miles apart? Is it not important that she should have this information, because when school buildings are so far apart it is quite impossible for the teaching staff to get round them? Sometimes they use taxis. This matter must be corrected.

When I consider schemes of secondary reorganisation I also consider very carefully schools where the buildings are separated. I am certain that none has been approved where the distance between the buildings would make it difficult to run the school. The hon. Member's original Question not only refers to those which have been set up and approved but includes comprehensive schools set up some years ago under the previous Administration. It would be very difficult, without circularising all the local authorities, to get this precise information.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of our most famous public schools exist in buildings which are very widely scattered over an area? I used to teach in a school which functioned happily in buildings which were a mile apart. Is it not a fact that those who object are not objecting because of the separation of buildings but are objecting to the principle?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many, and in what proportion, of the total of comprehensive schools there are facilities for holding morning assembly for the whole school in one hall, in two halls, and in three or more halls, respectively; and in how many assembly has to be duplicated in the same hall because of inadequate accommodation.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is rather unlucky. This information is not available.

Does this not underline the inability of the Ministry to come to any judgment, because where the school is unable to be gathered in one place—and I can give the right hon. Lady information if she does not know it—it is impossible to have a comprehensive school and an assembly without duplicating in more than one building? This is where there are one, two or three halls.

In the Standards of School Premises Regulations, 1959, a separate assembly hall is not a requirement. The hon. Member is quite wrong in thinking that it is a requirement laid down in the regulations which were approved in 1959, but it is open to the local education authority to make such arrangements for the morning assembly as it wishes.

If my right hon. Friend continues her investigations into accommodation, will she inquire how many private schools in the country are not purpose-built and how many of them fail to come up to required standards?

I agree that of course it is not necessary always to have a new purpose-built building to have a very good school. If the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) loked at some of the schools approved at the time when his party was in power, he would find that this was so. I agree with my hon. Friends when they suggest that this is not so much an attack on schools whose buildings are separated as an attack on the whole comprehensive system.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the actual and percentage increase in the cost of the school meal, excluding capital expenditure, over the last five years; and how this compares with the actual and percentage increase in the index of retail prices over the same period.

Over the last five complete financial years the actual increase in the cost of the school meal has been 6·4d., or 25·7 per cent. These figures are not strictly comparable with the index of retail prices—which does not include wages—over the same period, and other factors, such as the improved nutritional value of the meal, have to be taken into account. When weight is given to the wages movement affecting school meals employees over the period, and also to Retail Price Index movements appropriate both to the Index and to school dinners, the increase is of the order of 27 per cent.

Will not the Secretary of State agree that he was somewhat in error when he told the House on 17th November that the cost of school meals had increased much less than had retail prices generally?

I do not think that I was in error at all. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in the summer term of 1966 we considerably increased the nutritional standards of school meals and abandoned the 1955 standards. If that fact, as well as wage increases, is taken into account, what I said is strictly correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by the working party set up in 1967 to review the arrangements for free school meals to ensure that children could receive them without embarrassment either to themselves or to their parents.

Local education authorities carried out a review of their procedures. The results of this review were considered by a working party which included representatives of local education authorities and of the Department. It was evident that great pains were being taken to protect children and their parents from embarrassment, and the working party considered that it was not necessary to add to the guidance already given in the Department's Circular 12/67. My right hon. Friend is, however, reviewing this matter again.

In view of the recent increases, which are since the recommendations of that working party, and as it is clear that there may well be further increases in the price of school meals under the present Government, would it not be appropriate to try to find a method by which the charge is made, not obviously against the child, but quietly against the parent?

I am sure that all local authorities are doing this. Since this review the number of children taking free school meals has risen from 404,000 in the autumn of 1967, to 594,000 in the autumn of 1969.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that I had an Adjournment debate on this important subject about 21 months ago. Has she seen the rather disturbing reports from Manchester about the segregation of children receiving free school meals? Will the Department look into this matter urgently?

Yes, I have seen these reports. I have taken steps to inquire into the matter. I am told that this was done, without the headmaster's knowledge, by a school meals supervisory assistant, and as soon as it was known what was hap- pening the system was changed. The local authority's attention has been drawn to this. I have been on the telephone only this morning to ascertain the details.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the progress made in devising arrangements to ensure that children from low-income families have free school meals and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children, under the new regulations, now qualify for free school dinners but do not claim them.

This term, on a census date, 594,000 children in England and Wales were taking free school meals, compared with 404,000 in the autumn of 1967 and 330,000 in the autumn of 1966. No records are available of children whose parents do not claim free meals.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those figures, but will she consider sending another circular to parents, as the previous Secretary of State did in 1967, and will she direct it particularly to the parents of infant children? Also, will she consider raising the income level at which entitlement to free school meals begins?

I shall consider issuing another circular. The income level was raised on 3rd November this year and the new level is now in operation. A man with four children who has a net income of £16 2s.—there are certain disregards which may amount to £2 or £3 a week—receives free school meals for all four children now.

Following the recent increases, I support my hon. Friend's plea that the Minister should send a letter to all parents through the schools telling them of the availability of free meals and how to obtain them without embarrassment.

I shall consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue advice to local education authorities to ensure that proper consultation with parents is carried out by them when secondary reorganisation is proposed.

Circular 10/65 asked local education authorities to keep parents fully and authoritatively informed from an early stage, and I attach great importance to their doing so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some areas, particularly those areas in which the local authorities are not prepared to carry out comprehensive reorganisation, these consultations with parents are not taking place? Does he not think that he ought to get in touch with those authorities again, and request them—indeed, instruct them—to carry out parent meetings so that those parents who are overwhelmingly in favour of comprehensive education can express their point of view?

The Question is about consultation where the local authority is carrying out reorganisation. I do not hesitate to take it up with a local authority if I find that the consultation is not adequate. But in the Bill to which my right hon. Friend has just referred there will be a Clause dealing with this point.

Is not the most important point that there should be consultation with parents before a scheme takes place? I am told that in many cases this consultation is not taking place. Many people who are opposed to comprehensive education are not getting the opportunity to putting forward their views to the local authority.

If the hon. Gentleman knows of any authority where adequate consultation is not taking place before plans are finalised, I hope that he will let me know.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take following the representations made by parents in the Wolverhampton Local Education Authority's area about the changes being made in the Smestow and Regis comprehensive schools.

If my hon. Friend will supply me with details, I will look into the matter.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many meetings of parents have been held in the area of these two comprehensive schools to protest at the decomprehensivisation, if I may use such a word, of those schools? Does he not think it high time that comprehensive schools which are now established and extremely successful should be protected by his Department?

Yes, Sir. But, as my hon. Friend knows, this matter is within the discretion of the local authority. However, if she will send particulars, I will certainly look into the matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will commission an inquiry into the career structure of the teaching profession.

As I told the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 2nd December, I am prepared to consider an examination of the structure of teachers' salary scales.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that unless such action is taken and unless the root causes of the present regrettable situation are removed, teaching may cease to be a profession worthy of the name?

I certainly hope that agreement can be reached between the local authorities and the teachers' organisations on a radical review of the structure of teachers' salaries.

These differences of opinion illustrate the need for a review of the whole structure. I am quite sure that the structure of salary scales has become distorted because there have been too many across-the-board increases.

What kind of review has the right hon. Gentleman in mind—an internal departmental review, or a more public review?

I have nothing in mind at all about this yet. All I am trying to do is to interest both parties—and I do not employ the teachers; the local authorities employ them—to interest local authorities and teachers' organisations in some sort of radical review of the salary scales.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he takes to secure the maximum economy in his Department's use of official stationery.

My procedures for controlling the issue and use of official stationery ensure that the Department is able to function efficiently but as economically as possible. My officials are alive to the need for sensible economies. All demands are subject to stock control and to a counter-signature procedure, and it is standard practice for all demands to be scrutinised before stock is issued to ensure that no avoidable waste occurs. All forms used in the Department are devised or approved by the Organisation and Methods Unit.

That is all very encouraging, but will the Secretary of State make sure that pieces of paper 8¼ ins. by 6 ins. are not sent out in envelopes 12¾ ins. by 9 ins.?

The hon. Member asked precisely the same question in May and he was told that the piece of paper was sent in that sized envelope because another document was sent with it and that was a bigger document. I should point out that it has cost about £25 to answer this Question

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take following the Science Policy study, which he authorised, in attempting to quantify the benefits of scientific research.

Further studies are being commissioned at the University of Manchester to test the method of attempting to quantify benefits which was suggested in the published study.

While I recognise that it is a very valuable document which was published in April, would it not be wise to do more work in this field? What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to observe recommendations made by some of the studies which have already been carried out?

A great deal of work is going on in this field, not only in my Department or through the Council for Scientific Policy, but also in the Ministry of Technology. It is very important, and I am keen that we should find reliable methods of quantifying the benefits of scientific research. I do not think it would be easy or necessary to check these policies in the very near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in devising better machinery for the negotiation of university teachers' salaries.

A number of suggestions have been examined, and I am today having another meeting with the parties most concerned.

Now that the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy is about to be published, as it has been delaying this matter hitherto and in view of the great dependence on university teachers for the development of higher education is the 'seventies, can the hon. Gentleman undertake that higher priority will be given by the Department to seeking a solution to this problem than has been given in the last few months?

I think the hon. Member is misinformed. The Department has always given priority to this. I certainly give it very high prority. On the other hand, I also recognise that it is a very difficult problem. It will be difficult to find a solution which will be acceptable to all parties, but we shall certainly try.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will amend the University and Other Awards Regulations in respect of married women students under 21 years of age to take account of the lowering of the age of majority to 18 years from January, 1970.

Under these regulations, women who are over 21 and married before the beginning of their course are deemed to be independent of their parents. The corresponding age for men and single women is 25. It would be inequitable to make changes in favour of married women students without revising the entire system of parental contributions.

Does the Minister not appreciate the anomaly of this position? A married woman student under 21 with a parent who has considerable wealth is deemed to be dependent on that parent and may get no grant from the State, but, because she is married, she may get no grant from the parent. There is an anomaly here; will the hon. Gentleman not look at it again?

Not now. The present system of student grants is largely based on the Report of the Anderson Committee, which was issued in 1960. If it were possible to abolish parental contributions there would be stronger claims than that of a married woman under 21, such as a married man student over 21 with children.

Will my hon. Friend look at the question of married men students under 21 in colleges of education who receive a single man's grant which is subject to parental contribution?

Yes, but my hon. Friend is attacking the whole principle of parental contributions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid he is. There is no easy way out of this. The cost of abolishing parental contributions in the present academic year would be between £35million and £40 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of graduate teachers in mathematics, physics and chemistry entered maintained secondary schools in each of the last five years.

The numbers of graduate teachers in mathematics and science who entered maintained secondary schools in England and Wales in the years 1963–64 to 1967–68 respectively were:

• 1,626
• 1,648
• 1,907
• 1,947
• 2,109

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on having some statistics available in reply to this Question. Does she not share the concern of the House at this very small increase over this quinquennial period? What is she doing to increase the supply of these teachers at a time when the schools are beginning to bulge and the pressure on sixth forms is increasing?

We cannot win with hon. Members opposite. If we have not got figures, they grumble. If we have figures and they look rather good, hon. Members opposite say that they are not good enough. The figures I have given show that the annual intake increased by over 8 per cent. in the last year I quoted. With growing numbers in the schools we need even more of these teachers, and we are trying, by advertisement and other means, to improve recruitment. I do not accept that the increase has not been a good one.

Can my right hon. Friend give us the figures for honours graduates in those subjects?

I could not do that without notice.

To enable us to judge how good the figures are, can the right hon. Lady also tell us the number of pupils and the number of science graduates leaving in the same year, because what is important is the teacher-pupil ratio?

That is another question. If the hon. Lady cares to table a Question seeking that information, I shall be happy to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for getting rid of every primary school class of over 40 by 1971.

The improved supply of teachers and large school building programmes give us the opportunity virtually to solve this problem by the end of the present school year. In a recent circular—16/69—I asked local education authorities to make a special effort during this school year to eliminate oversize primary classes, by adopting the most appropriate measures in each case.

Is the expected growth in the rate support grant sufficient to justify the right hon. Gentleman's optimism? Is it not a question of adequate buildings? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient in the improvement part of the building programme to bring all the existing primary schools up to the required standard to enable the classes to be reduced to this size?

As was pointed out earlier, we have doubled the building programme during the five years this Government have been in office. In the negotiations for the present two-year period for the rate support grant we did not reduce by one teacher the number of teachers the local authorities said they wished to employ. As a result, virtually every teacher who came out of college this year has obtained employment.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's original answer, but does he agree that it is time he reconsidered the figure of 40, which is too high a maximum?

Perhaps it has escaped my hon. Friend's notice that I have abolished the regulation which laid down 40 for primary schools and 30 for secondary schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of primary school classes over 30, and the percentage of primary school pupils in classes over 30, respectively, at the latest available date.

In January, 1969, 99,943, and 76·6 per cent., respectively.

Does the right hon. Lady regard those figures as satisfactory? What plans has she to reduce the size of classes further, and by when?

The hon. Gentleman's Question refers to classes of 30. My right hon. Friend has been doing everything possible to get rid of classes of over 40. At the time when the hon. Gentleman asked for the information, 9·5 per cent. of primary classes were of over 40, as compared with 10·8 per cent. a year before, which is a more rapid fall than in any other recent year.

As additional teachers are required, and these would probably follow a betterment of the salary structure for teachers, would it not be a good idea if the Secretary of State resigned, so that he could then demonstrate that he was as in favour of helping teachers as I am, thus showing that the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the nigger in the woodpile? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman have his own strike?

My right hon. Friend will not resign, and none of us would wish his to resign because he is doing such a good job.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average length of service in primary and secondary schools of young men and women teachers after completing their initial training.

This precise information is not available, but figures of wastage are printed in Volume 4 of Statistics of Education 1967. I am sending the hon. Member extracts from the relevant tables.

Do not the figures reveal a very alarming situation and indicate that there must urgently be a betterment in the salary structure after the first three to five years, particularly for male teachers?

It must not be assumed that those who leave employment in schools are lost to the education service, because many of them transfer to special schools, to institutes of further education, and to administration. This must æ borne in mind when studying the figures.

Will my right hon. Friend look again at the question of the long salary scale? Does this mirror the advantages of teaching for those who have this length of service? It is not found in a number of other countries.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said this afternoon, he would like there to be an investigation into this whole matter. I cannot go further than that in answering this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance and information services about careers are available in colleges of further education.

Although arrangements vary, students at further education establishments normally look to college teaching staff for careers guidance and advice. The Youth Employment Service, in cooperation with the teaching staff, is available to students up to the age of 18. For older students, the Occupational Guidance Service and the employment, information and placement facilities of the Department of Employment and Productivity are available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to one estimate, up to 20,000 students leave these colleges without advice on their careers? Should not the Department urgently give some instruction and guidance to these colleges to encourage the development of information services about careers?

This is a matter in which my Department, the D.E.P., and the L.E.A.s are taking a positive and continued interest. In July of this year my Department sent a circular letter to L.E.A.s and colleges drawing attention to the service offered by the occupational guidance units of the D.E.P.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total of school building in 1963–64; and what is the estimated total for 1971–72.

£89·5 million and £175·5 million, at current prices.

Can my right hon. Friend as a former headmaster help me with my mental arithmetic? Is not that almost double? Does not this news, coming on top of today's magnificent trading returns, provide convincing evidence that Labour government works? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of that most satisfactory Answer, I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give his Department a half holiday?

Following a recent precedent in the education world, I should be entitled to take 14 days off.

What proportion of the increase has gone to providing roofs over heads for more pupils and what proportion for the replacement of old buildings?

I cannot answer that offhand. If the hon. Lady cares to table a Question I will give her the information. If the Conservative Government had had a bigger education building programme, we should certainly have been able to do more replacement. She will have noticed that I have recently asked the local authorities for bids for a £15 million replacement programme, which is three times as great as any previous programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the numbers of school-leavers with two or more General Certificate of Education A levels in 1970, 1975 and 1980; what is his estimate of the proportion of the age group obtaining these qualifications; and how these estimates compare with those made in the Robbins Report on Higher Education.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do not the figures show that many more young people will be qualifying for university education than was previously supposed? Does the Secretary of State plan to increase the n umber of places at universities and other institutions of higher education accordingly?

The hon. Gentleman is right in his reference to an increase. This is one of the results of reorganising our secondary schools. For example, for 1980 the Robbins estimate was 12·1 per cent. of the age group attaining two or more A levels, and it now looks as though the proportion will be 20·2 per cent. This is a direct result of reorganising our schools. The Labour Government in the middle of the 1970s will provide places for all of them.

Does my right hon. Friend expect the G.C.E. A level to be in existence in 1975, in the light of recent reports?

The report to which my hon. Friend refers, which was published yesterday, is a report not to me but to the Schools Council. We shall all have to study it during the next few months.

Before the Secretary of State waxes too glibe in taking the credit, would it not be as well to recall that this is the result of the work of the teaching profession? When does he expect to receive replies to his circular to the universities designed to deal with the situation raised in my hon. Friend's Question?

The party opposite has had a lot of bad news, what with the trade figures and the announcements which I have made. Of course, it is the result of the work of the teachers in the reorganised secondary schools. On the second point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give the facts correctly. He knows that the circular was not a Government circular; it was drawn up and sent out by the vice-chancellors themselves, not by me.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the amount being spent on the arts in 1963–64; and what is the figure for 1969–70.

Government spending on the arts has risen from £9½43 million in 1963–64 to £21½3 million in 1969–70. These figures include £3½79 million capital expenditure on the national museums and galleries, which is borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Public Building and Works.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a question of precept and practice, and that, whereas the Opposition always talked about these things, the Labour Government have practised them.

We must take it for granted that a Labour Government will he concerned with the quality of life to an exceptional extent.

asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the representatives of the National Economic Development Council on prospects for exports, industry by industry, in 1970 to 1972; and if he will make a statement.

I shall be taking the chair at the next meeting of the Council on 16th December. On the discussions on export prospects for various industries, I would refer to my reply last Tuesday to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory), for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy).—[Vol. 793, c. 104–5.]

As the Department of Economic Affairs has now been abandoned, has the National Plan also been abandoned, or, if not, is it the Prime Minister who is responsible for it as chairman of the N.E.D.C., and also for the check lists in it?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of what the meeting is about, despite my answer last week. It is to look at the forward figures in "The Task Ahead" in respect of exports and imports, industry by industry, following the survey by the little "Neddies". As regards Ministerial responsibility, the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, remember what I told the House on 13th October.

Do not today's magnificent trade figures, while not giving room for complacency, vindicate the Government's economic planning strategy? If the present favourable trend continues, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of increasing the rate of economic growth somewhat?

We never base our views on a single month's trade figures, but we have now had a surplus in four successive months. Taking the last three months ending at November, we have had a visible trade balance of an average of plus £15 million per month, as against minus £7 million in the previous three months. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—[AN HON. MEMBER: "He is not listening."]—he is now—who so sourly greeted the second quarter's balance of payments figures and said that we must wait for the third quarter, will wish to express his unfeigned delight at the fact that the figures published this week, which will be before the N.E.D.C.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "TOO long."]—not too long, too high for the right hon. Gentleman—showed a surplus of £214 million seasonally adjusted, in the third quarter as against £72 million in the second quarter—those are plus figures—compared with a minus figure of £147 million when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Trade, a turn-round of £361 million in a single quarter.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, although we thoroughly welcome any improvement in the export figures, we believe that these results are achieved by our businessmen and not by Cabinet Ministers? They are achieved not because of this Government but in spite of them?

I have heard that argument before. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have said for the last four years that it could not be achieved with this Government. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has such strictures about the miserable performance of Britain's businessmen when he was the Chancellor and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was President of the Board of Trade.

Oh!

Order. The House must not get too happy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was seeking to catch your eye?

I did not observe that.

Would my right hon. Friend consider taking the Leader of the Opposition with him to the N.E.D.C.—

Why?

even as a humble observer so that he will better understand the significance of these trade figures? Is my right hon. Friend aware that four months ago, when the first of these remarkable sets of figures was available, the Leader of the Opposition said, "I will wait until I see next month's figures" and that on the second occasion he said "I will wait until I see the third month's figures"? Is it not time that he considered the current month's figures and the remarkable success they show?

I will certainly consider by hon. Friend's interesting suggestion when the right hon. Gentleman has had time to do his homework. My hon. Friend misrepresents the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman made that sour comment on the publication of die second quarter balance of payments figures, not I think as any reaction to individual monthly trade figures.

asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I would refer to my reply to Questions by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) on Tuesday.—[Vol. 793, c. 239.]

In his replies the Prime Minister said that he would always be prepared to consider any invitation to the Soviet Union. In view of the remarkable increase in prestige and the almost solidarity of this nation, as has been shown in the last set of Questions, would my right hon. Friend now consider initiating a proposal for him to visit the Soviet Union to discuss such serious subjects as Vietnam, the Middle East, disarmament and the possibility of a European Security Council?

On the question of trade figures, I have no doubt they will hake been studied by all the countries with which we have dealings, and, of course, the increase in trade with the Soviet Union has been particularly marked in these last five years. With regard to the other matters, I can assure my hon. Friend that whatever decision is taken at any time about a personal meeting with Mr. Kosygin, we are in very close touch with him on these subjects.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another thing which has been particularly marked about our trade with the Soviet Union has been the remarkable increase in the adverse balance which we have with that country? If he goes to Moscow will he raise this matter?

This has been a continuing problem, to my knowledge for over 20 years, and was a problem for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was President of the Board of Trade. We have had to deal with it, too, and the gap has been narrowing somewhat. The Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries do not accept our insistence on an absolutely bilateral balance, because they want to earn sterling in their trade with us because of their adverse balance with other sterling area countries.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with the Spanish Head of State.

I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Would the Prime Minister try to find an opportunity of conveying to General Franco the deep repugnance felt by many people in these countries of Britain at the continuing denial by his régime of all legislative autonomy in the nations of Catalonia and the Basque? Will he express to General Franco our sense of horror at the appalling treatment meted out to Basque nationalists in Spanish gaols?

The views of the House are very well known on some of these questions of the treatment of minorities within European Spain and in other parts of the Spanish empire. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the question of the right to vote, while it is true that those living in Spanish territories overseas do not have much of a right to vote, nor have the occupants of Spain in the sense that we understand it in England, Wales and Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish as a Green Paper the Treasury report on the economic and financial effects of Great Britain joining the Common Market.

I take it that my right hon. Friend is referring to the White Paper foreshadowed in the Answer I gave on 18th November. I have nothing to add to what I then stated.—[Vol. 791, c. 1106–11.]

I was not really referring to that one at all. Is it not essential that before this House is asked to vote once again on the question of entering the Common Market the fullest possible information which is available to Government should be made available to Members of the House of Commons?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not referring to that one, because there is not another one to refer to. I have said that the estimates we are making, and I mentioned some of the difficulties about this on 18th November, will be made available to the House either as a White Paper or as more than one White Paper. My hon. Friend says a Green Paper; but that would not be appropriate. White Papers are usual either when there is some statement of policy or when they set out to give the background and factual information. The policy has been debated a number of times, and what will be done here will not be a matter, as it were, for arguing as to what sort of policy it should be; it will be as clear a statement of the facts as we can make it about the economic implications of joining the Common Market.

Whether it is published as a Green or a White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Paper is available to hon. Members as soon as possible after the House reassembles in January, and will he then intervene with his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to secure an early debate in the House.

The question of a debate is not for me but for discussions with the usual channels. I will certainly do my best to get this information published as quickly as possible after it is in. I have said, I think to the right hon. Gentleman, certainly to the House a week or two ago, that we have to make assumptions which can only be assumptions, and it may well be that between now and then we shall have somewhat greater clarity taking place within the Common Market agricultural policy. It may not be very much information, but it might bear on the assumptions in the White Paper.