asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she is taking to improve the provision of maintenance allowances for children at school after obtaining the statutory school leaving age.

This is a matter for each local education authority within its discretionary powers.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are understandable differences between local education authorities but that there are also shocking discrepancies between the provisions made by different authorities? Is she aware, further, that there is a real loss of talented children of poor parents to higher education and that this is sufficiently established for the avoidance of it to be a top priority?

There are certain variations, and there are bound to be, where a local education authority has a discretion. Perhaps the number of variations will be reduced with the reorganisation of local education authorities into larger groupings. But in fact these allowances were never intended for those who are of compulsory school age.

Is the right hon Lady aware that the evidence is that the position of maintenance grants is inadequate in every part of the country and that, until she, as Secretary of State, takes some responsibility for this matter, children who ought to have maintenance allowances and who are now prevented from going on to further and higher education, thereby staying at school longer, will continue to leave school before their potential is achieved?

I do not accept that all the maintenance allowances are inadequate, although I accept that there is quite a wide variation. We gave a complete list in a parliamentary answer on 16th June 1972.

May we enlist my right hon. Friend's assistance in trying to persuade the Secretary of State for Social Services that the age for exemption from prescription charges for children be raised to 16 after the school-leaving age has been raised, because this causes considerable hardship? I know that it is not her responsibility, but I should like her help.

I will pass on my hon. Friend's message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received asking her to designate educational priority areas; and what replies she has sent.

None, Sir.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the reason why I and other hon. Members keep tabling Questions on an EPA programme is that we believe—and there is ample evidence to back us—that it is the only way we shall get resources on a sufficient scale into areas of social deprivation on Tyneside or anywhere else? Does the right hon. Lady concede that the dribs and drabs doled out now under the urban aid and other programmes do not add up to the weight of programme required in this sector? Is the right hon. Lady aware that, when this matter was last raised at Question Time, the figures she gave me for spending in this sector added up to only one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total education budget? Will she—

Order. We must have short supplementary questions.

Will not the right hon. Lady do something in this area?

The help going into these areas is not limited to the urban programme. The primary school replacement programme goes into these areas to a considerable extent, and the raising of the school leaving age programme is of particular value, especially in those areas.

The right hon. Lady will recall that the Halsey Report advocated more or less the same policy as that advocated today by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). Why does the right hon. Lady choose to ignore it?

Far from choosing to ignore it, I am continuing the policy where we have had designated 570 schools of exceptional difficulty. Added to that we have the urban programme, the programme for the replacement of old schools and that for the raising of the school leaving age. They add up to a very considerable joint programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration she is giving to the possible reorganisation of the present methods of determining salaries and conditions of service in the teaching profession.

I have seen the arguments which have recently been put forward for negotiating in one forum teachers' conditions of service and their pay. I am always ready to consider changes which seem likely to command widespread support among the parties.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Would it not be helpful in the context of an incomes policy if such matters as pensions and conditions of service were dealt with at the same time as pay? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the future development of the European Economic Community will make it desirable that terms and conditions of service should be more readily comparable with a view to facilitating the movement of teachers between the countries and the ultimate harmoni-sation of those conditions?

It would seem sensible to negotiate these two matters in one forum. However, I must point out that such a change would probably require legislation and so far I have not had a great demand for it. I shall be interested to see whether such a demand develops.

Coming nearer home, may I ask the right hon. Lady, when she considers wages and conditions of teachers in future, to bear in mind the special problems of London teachers in finding accommodation and the effect that this is having on the education service in London?

Burnham is the forum for considering wages. Local authorities have considerable powers to help with the problem of finding houses, and I hope that they use those powers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek to ascertain how many secondary schools now retain a selective method of entry; and what proportion of the total this is.

No, Sir. This could not be done without a special inquiry in respect of every secondary school. The statistics for the different types of secondary school may be some guide and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is it not true that the Secretary of State has used every legal stratagem in the book, often on the flimsiest of pretexts, many of which she has engineered herself, to keep open the maximum number of selective schools? Is the Under-Secretary aware that 64 per cent. of 11-year-olds still undergo 11-plus selection? Does he seriously believe that this is what local opinion really wants?

My right hon. Friend has given effect to the Government's policies, which are based on allowing local authorities full freedom of choice. The 64 per cent. figure given by the hon. Gentleman is out of date. That was the 1971 figure. The figure has now dropped to 60·6 per cent.

The hon. Gentleman said that the policy was based on giving local authorities "full freedom of choice." Is the Birmingham local authority to be allowed full freedom of choice with the scheme that it submitted five months ago?

The Government's policy is determined by giving the local authorities maximum freedom of choice. [Interruption.] That is certainly in accordance with Government policy. This makes a most welcome change from the universal compulsory comprehensive schools which the Labour Government attempted to impose upon the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations she has had from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors on student grants.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her recent discussions concerning student grants and allowances which she held with interested bodies.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have now considered the representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and other interested parties, and we have decided that from 1st September next the main rates of grant originally fixed for 1973–74 at an amount up to £20 higher than the current rates will be increased by a further £20. This means that the annual rate of grant for students at London and Oxbridge living away from home, now £480, will become £520. The corresponding figures for students at other universities, now £445, will become £485. In addition, to help parents at the lower end of the income scale, the starting point for parental contributions will be raised from £1,100 residual income to £1,500 and parents with residual incomes of £1,500 to just below £2,000 will pay less than they do at present. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

This is obviously a major announcement. If, in the context of pensions, the right hon. Lady's Cabinet colleagues boast of the principle of an annual uprating, should there not be an annual uprating for students too? Is it because old people are generally thought to be popular and perhaps students are generally thought to be unpopular?

I do not think it has anything to do with that. Hitherto, student grants have been determined on a triennial basis. We operated that procedure last time. This is an interim settlement. We shall soon be starting the next triennial round.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this announcement will give some satisfaction to the student body, about which I have been pressing for a long time? May I ask whether there has been any result from the inquiry into the costs of halls of residence which was being undertaken by the University Grants Committee?

I have not yet had any results of that inquiry from the University Grants Committee.

Any announcement by the right hon. Lady that there should be an increase in allowances must be welcomed, but it is doubtful whether it is enough. Does she agree that it must have become a regular occurrence for the Department to be getting letters from Members of Parliament about complaints made by students of the financial difficulties they are having regarding grants and allowances? Does she think it proper that the only advice that can be given to Members of Parliament is that students should apply for social security and supplementary allowances? Does she think that this is the solution to the problem?

I have just announced a considerable increase in student grants and a considerable advantage to parents at the lower end of the income scale regarding the contribution they would otherwise have to make for their student children. I hope that both these matters will be very welcome.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important part of her announcement is the change in the parental contribution scale? Is she aware that the Federation of Conservative Students has pressed for it for some time and will be delighted that she has done it? In percentage terms, may I ask what her announcement means for the student who is not at Oxbridge?

Between 1970 and 1973 there has been an increase in student grants from £380 to £485, which is 27·6 per cent. over the three years.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that any satisfaction afforded to the students will be minimal since the announcement that she has made does not meet their original claim, and that this is important for people on very low incomes because they suffer unduly from increases in food prices which eat away a substantial amount of the grant? Is she also aware that the Opposition are dissatisfied that she has taken no steps to abolish the discrimination regarding married women students, for which the NUS has been asking, and that she has made no attempt to reconcile the discretionary award with a mandatory award situation?

The hon. Gentleman has put three supplementary points. I have just announced an increase of 9 per cent. this year for students not at Oxbridge. That is a considerable increase. The 9 per cent. increase this year makes a total of 27·6 per cent. over the three years. The grant for a married woman living in the matrimonial home will also go up by £20 a year—the first increase since 1965.

May I ask my right hon. Friend not to be put off by the Opposition's sour response? It is clear that she has faced this problem in a sensible and practical fashion with the result that she has taken this point from their armoury of abuse.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am particularly aware that the help on the parental income scale will be extremely valuable. In all, the minimum has been raised by £600 in the space of two years.

May I ask the right hon. Lady to tell the House whether there has been any change in the age limit for parental income disregard, which causes a great deal of difficulty where students who are well over 21 are still having their parents' income taken into account?

Secondly, may I ask her to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) about the problem of discretionary as opposed to mandatory grants?

This is an interim settlement. There have been no fundamental changes in discretionary awards or in age limits.

What is the total estimated cost of this increase?

About £10 million in a year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will issue advice to local authorities faced with parents who refuse to sign grant forms for children wishing to go to university.

No specific advice has been given with regard to signing forms. My Department wrote to all local education authorities on 27th September 1968 asking them to ensure that parents who were required to make a contribution to their student son or daughter were reminded of their responsibility for making up the grant to the full amount of the total maintenance figure.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some students find that their parents will not sign the grant form and are unable to receive the grant? Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend ensure that local authorities are as helpful as possible in such cases so that students are not excluded from university by parents who do not wish them to go?

Yes. I have considerable sympathy with students whose parents refuse to make a declaration of their income. I undertake to do what I can to help to achieve equity in these rare but difficult cases.

The Minister said that he would undertake to do what he can. What can he do?

I think that local education authorities, when they meet cases which are strictly within the rules, try to be as helpful as possible in finding a way to meet the need. In that respect, I think that the advice of the

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ensure that those local education authorities, already having a high proportion of rising fives in full-time education, will not be penalised when allocating resources for nursery school provision under her Department's circular 2/73.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some local authorities, such as Southampton, which has a very good record for having rising fives in full-time education, are worried that the formula outlined in circular 2/73 will mean that they will be penalised when it comes to the allocation of funds for nursery school education because some of those rising fives will be taken into consideration in the calculation?

The rising fives are those who go to school in the term in which they become five. The decisive factor for the nursery school programme is not the number in school but the number out of school whose need is still for nursery places. Otherwise, we should be in great difficulty with the urban programme if we had more in schools than elsewhere. Therefore, the determining factor is the numbers out of school who need nursery education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the provision of staff and equipment for four-year-olds and rising fives in nursery schools.

I have asked local education authorities to ensure that the hours of attendance, staffing, programmes, accommodation and equipment available to pupils under five are equivalent to those appropriate to nursery classes.

Is not the right hon. Lady aware that with the policy of taking rising fives and four-year-olds into primary schools there is growing evidence of concern in the teaching profession that large numbers of these children are taken into classes of 30, that there is no extra help, and that in a primary school it is ridiculous to try to imagine that rising fives and four-year-olds will obtain nursery education unless exactly the same conditions apply to the primary school as apply to those of the same age in nursery schools?

When I announced the nursery programme, which the hon. Lady was not able to do, it was a great advance to have rising fives and some under-fives in school because it was a great help to them. Now we have a nursery programme, which the hon. Lady was never able to announce, and we have asked for the full staffing standards for nursery classes for the under-fives.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that children of this tender age are far better off in the hands of their mothers than in these play schools and so on?

For the majority of children, part-time nursery education is very welcome on educational grounds. I do not believe that taking them away from their mothers for about three hours a day in term time deprives them.

Last week I had the opportunity of visiting a college of education in London and meeting some of the heads of schools who would shortly be taking a nursery intake under the expansion programme. Is the right hon. Lady aware that I was told on that occasion of four-year-olds in classes not of 30, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said, but of 40 children? This is not a pupil/teacher ratio that one would want to see in any sector of education and certainly not in a sector which purports to give nursery education. Ought not the right hon. Lady to investigate this matter?

Local education authorities have a discretion whether to take in these children. I am surprised that there are local education authorities which are taking four-year-olds—whom they do not have to take in—into classes which appear to be over-sized.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on discussions between her Department and the Institute of Petroleum with regard to the organisation of courses in petroleum engineering in the United Kingdom, in the light of the recommendations in the IMEG report.

There have been no such discussions, but a group of officials from my own and other interested Departments, including the University Grants Committee, are urgently considering the education and training needs of the offshore industry, and will shortly be consulting bodies such as the Institute of Petroleum.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the institute is in discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry on this particular topic? Will she use her good offices to look at the situation that is arising when a number of universities are embarking on such courses? Will she discuss with the University Grants Committee the formulation of a policy for a top-class research institution in offshore technology in the United Kingdom?

As I have just informed the House, the University Grants Committee has an official on this group who will shortly be consulting the Institute of Petroleum. I hope that getting these two and other interested bodies together will produce the desired results.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have just come from the Department of Mechanical Engineering of University College, London, which is one of the few universities in this country which runs an M.Sc. course in ocean engineering? Did she know that there has been absolutely no contact between her Department and that department since the IMEG report and that it has had no conact with the Department of Trade and Industry either?

I hope that that problem will be remedied now that the University Grants Committee has an official on the group who will carefully seek to identify the education and training needs of industry, to see whether they are already being fulfilled and, if not, to make arrangements to fulfil them.

In view of what the right hon. Lady said earlier this afternoon, does not she agree that the last answer she gave on this matter on 10th April was very complacent? It is no use listing the appropriate departments of universities. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that no training in oil drilling engineering is taking place in this country at present and that we need these oil drilling engineers if the sub-contracting business in the North Sea is to go to British firms and not to American firms?

Before coming to the House today, I carefully inquired as to whether we had had any complaints from industry about a lack of education or training facilities which created manpower problems. I was told that we had had none. I am given to understand that among the top skills in the offshore industry, including petroleum engineers, there is already a significant and growing element of United Kingdom personnel.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she is taking to assist prospective school leavers to adjust themselves to future employment.

I expect to receive shortly the results of a survey by Her Majesty's inspectors of careers education and guidance in secondary schools, on the basis of which I can consider what future help and advice may be needed. Also, when the Education (Work Experience) Bill has completed its remaining stages, I shall be offering advice to local education authorities about suitable arrangements.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Does she agree that it is not merely information that school leavers require but conditioning for a totally alien world, not only of custom and practice, but also of freedom and responsibility? Will she invite local authorities to look at Sheffield's work experience unit, which enables school leavers to exchange three months of their final year at school for three months in a local factory?

I doubt very much whether that would come within the terms of the Education (Work Experience) Bill. A straight exchange does not sound like the kind of thing which the Bill was designed to meet. Otherwise, I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Although the small Bill at present in Committee is very good for those who want work experience, is it not vital to let parents know exactly what is going on, because often in the past parents have not been well informed?

I agree that that is an important factor, and that very careful arrangements must be made to implement the provisions of the Bill.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that adjustment to employment demands certain standards of numeracy and literacy? Does she recall that when I asked her some time ago whether she would make a survey of the standards of numeracy and literacy of all school leavers, she did not think that she should do so? Will she reconsider this matter?

In both of those spheres, what we have done is to see that we get better standardised tests of attainment, both in literacy, which is being dealt with by the Bullock Committee, and for numeracy. The standardised tests do not exist at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the increase in building costs, she is satisfied that standards of school building, particularly in relation to space and quality of materials, are being maintained.

Cost limits for school, further education, college of education, polytechnic and university projects will be increased by 22 per cent. with effect from 1st April 1973. All school projects approved by my Department conform to the requirements of the Standards of School Premises Regulations 1972.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on two good announcements this afternoon?

I am very grateful.

Will the right hon. Lady say how that figure was arrived at?

By taking into account the increases in costs which have occurred since the last increase.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that many local education authorities, such as the London borough of Ealing, for example, are endeavouring to struggle to make into reality a comprehensive system within their areas, and that these increases in costs are having very sad and deleterious effects? The figures that she has announced today will not be of very great help. Will she consider holding a conference of local authorities which find that building costs are inhibiting their efforts, in order to see what she can do to help them?

The 22 per cent. increase in cost limits is the largest ever announced. A 22 per cent. increase in one year is a very considerable figure.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement concerning cost limits on new school buildings and the adequacy of the current school building regulations.

I have just announced, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes), that cost limits will be increased by 22 per cent. with effect from 1st April 1973. The requirements set out in the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1972. which have been endorsed by successive Governments, are kept under review.

Will the hon. Lady assure us that the standards that will now be possible as a result of the 22 per cent. increase will be equivalent in quality and size to the school buildings which have been erected in the past? Is she aware that her two Under-Secretaries have refused to provide any evidence which shows that the current school building regulations are based on any sound educational criteria and, moreover, have refused to discuss this with me on at least two occasions?

The building regulations have been endorsed by successive Governments over many years. The standard of school buildings is well above the minima provided for.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to have a look at those standards as they apply to fire risk, because there is considerable worry in certain parts of the country that fire risk standards are not tight enough?

We have already been doing that. I will send my hon. Friend a detailed bulletin about this.

What was the cause of the delay in the statement? It was six weeks later than last year.

If the hon. Gentleman cares to look, he will find that the announcement in spring 1970 came in February, in 1971 it came in March, in 1972 it came in April and in 1973 it has come in May.

Has my right hon. Friend considered whether, in view of the shortage of building and construction workers, her Department is making the best use of factory-built units for school building?

There are a number of factory-built schools being erected by local authority consortia. We leave the method of construction to the local education authorities, which is best in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the current programme of primary school replacements; and if she will make a statement.

Programmes for the four years 1972–76 include provision for the replacement or improvement of about 2,000 old primary schools at a cost of about £200 million at 1972 prices.

Will my right hon. Friend look at Bedfordshire's primary school replacement programme in detail, as the rise in the county's population is such that we are not keeping pace with primary school needs there? Will my right hon. Friend see whether she can get the county to accelerate its programme dramatically?

I am always prepared to look at individual programmes. Regarding the replacement of primary school programmes, when the four programmes have been completed Bedfordshire will be over half way towards the replacement or improvement of its pre-1903 accommodation for primary pupils. That is well up to the national standard. But I shall have a further look at this matter today in view of my hon. Friend's representations.

The right hon. Lady was asked whether she was satisfied with the primary school replacement programme. Will she say, in view of what she has said about the programme, how long she considers that it will take to replace the 300 pre-1903 primary schools in use in the Inner London Education Authority areas?

I cannot. When I first came to consider the programme I thought that the last Government had left me only 3,000 last-century primary schools. By the time the programme had really got under way we discovered that the problem was even larger than we thought. In fact, there were between 6,000 and 7,000 such schools. That only shows how right the Government were to concentrate on replacing old primary schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek to arrange a meeting with the newly-elected President of the National Union of Teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will have discussions with the newly-elected President of the National Union of Teachers.

It is my usual practice to see the president at his request. I have no immediate plans to invite him to a meeting.

Is not the right hon. Lady fully aware of the detailed and general criticism which was made by the recently-elected president of her education policies and, in particular, of the callous indifference which she continues to show about the London teachers' allowance and London school buildings? Does she not think in view of the importance of these matters to people and to children, that she should have the courage to face a public debate so that the people of Great Britain can judge her policies as against the problems which the NUT is now experiencing?

The President of the NUT made certain criticisms. Indeed, he received a very effective reply.

Will the right hon. Lady try to discuss with the President of the NUT the terrible plight of young teachers who are trying to find living accommodation in London? Is she aware that the teachers have put forward constructive proposals for the solution of some of these problems in Inner London? Further, is she aware that the price of property in London is far beyond the reach of teachers even in posts of responsibility earning £3,000 per annum or thereabouts? Does she realise that it is impossible for young teachers, even taking joint incomes into account, to get mortgages to buy living accommodation in London? Will she seek an urgent meeting with the President of the NUT to discuss his constructive proposals for a solution?

I understand from the latest Burnham settlement that at the request of teachers no increase was made in the London allowance. It is customary after the conference of the National Union of Teachers for the executive to see me and to discuss the resolutions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average size of classes in primary schools in England and Wales and in Walsall, respectively; and what is the programme for providing more modern primary school places in Walsall.

In January 1972, the latest date for which figures are available, the average size of primary classes was 31·3 in England and Wales and 33·5 in Walsall. Ten major primary school projects providing 2,400 places at a cost of nearly £1 million have been included in Walsall's building programmes for the next three years.

I accept that some progress has been made. Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in the older industrial areas, such as Walsall, there is a very serious problem of out-of-date school conditions and over-size classes? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to give every encouragement to the school building programme in such localities?

We are already doing that. The Walsall authority, in addition to the places which I have mentioned, has been allocated £115,000 and £90,000 to spend on minor works during 1973–74 and 1974–75 respectively. A start will be made in 1973–74 on new buildings for the St. Thomas of Canterbury Roman Catholic School.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she has made in arranging the establishment of a theatre museum in Somerset House; and if she will make a statement.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction hopes to make an announcement about the use of Somerset House for this purpose before the recess.

I am very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's answer. In view of the large number of interests involved and the consequential danger of delay in bringing this admirable venture to fruition, will the hon. Gentleman take some responsibility himself in ensuring that his Department carries out the necessary negotiations with vigour and speed?

I should like to be more forthcoming to the right hon. Gentleman but unfortunately the responsibility for this building does not fall within the responsibility of my noble Friend or myself. I am most sympathetic to the project which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he will be patient, I feel that his dreams may be fulfilled.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is recognised that there are what are known as interdepartmental influences which can be brought to bear? As far as they exist in his Department, will he make certain to use them? Is he aware that we are the centre of theatre-land in the world and that its economic advantages go far beyond the cultural influences? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter to which full attention should be given because of its great potential?

I have never thought of myself as an inter-departmental influence. I shall do my best to see that the project is brought to a conclusion satisfactory to all parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consents have been given for increases in boarding school fees charged by public authorities in Dorset; what percentage increases they represented; and if she will make a statement.

None. Consent was not required for increases before the commencement of the counter-inflation programme. No increases occurred during stage 1; those proposed to take effect during stage 2 must be consistent with the Price and Pay Code.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not in the educational interests of any child that on financial grounds he should be removed from a school in the course of his school career? Is he aware that since 1969 the local authority-controlled school in question has increased fees by no less than 99 per cent. during the school lifetime of a child and is now proposing an increase of 20 per cent.? Will he use his influence to ensure that that does not happen?

I certainly regret the interruption of any child's education. Of course, local education authorities determine their own fees for boarding schools which they maintain. The Department's consent is not required and the Department has no power to intervene. I am sure that my hon. Friend will use his influence in this matter.

What does the Price and Pay Code say about school fees? Does it affect private school fees? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are reports of fees being doubled since the freeze?

Responsibility for the Price and Pay Code does not fall within the sphere of my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the numbers of children in the City of Birmingham receiving nursery education and in other pre-school groups; how this figure compares with a year before; and what is her estimate of the figures a year hence.

In January 1973 there were about 9,000 pupils under five in maintained primary and nursery schools, 1,000 more than a year earlier. The local education authority expects a further increase of about 1,000 pupils by January 1974.

While I welcome that trend and know that my hon. Friend understands the desperate need for educational and child-minding facilities for the under-fives, at least in parts of that city, may I ask him to arrange for the closest co-ordination between other Government Departments and the local authority to see that as many of these places as possible go to the parts of the city where there is most need, particularly those parts which have social problems?

I am aware of the social problems in parts of Birmingham. Of the under-fives in school in January this year, nearly half were in nursery schools or classes and the rest were in other classes in primary schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she is taking to ensure that the criteria for identifying areas of educational deprivation are uniformly applied.

In allocating capital resources to local education authorities for the expansion of nursery education I shall take account of data from the census and elsewhere on housing, income and occupation. It is for authorities themselves to decide how to use these and other resources within their own areas.

Would it not be advisable for the right hon. Lady to issue some guidelines to local education authorities about this matter so that we do not find ourselves in the absurd situation that educationally deprived children in some areas receive special help under the urban programme while similar children elsewhere are denied that help?

We give general guidance to local education authorities. We rely upon them to know where the most difficult areas are within their boundaries. We do the general allocation for nursery provision and within that allocation rely on local knowledge.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give the total amounts of money allocated for secondary and primary school building, respectively, in the West Riding of Yorkshire for each of the past four years.

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

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite deplorable that children should have to go outside the school and across a yard to the toilets? When will his Department do something for the Jump Primary School in Wombwell, and for the Swinton Fitzwilliam School, replacement for which has been promised for a long time? Can he also do something for the Wombwell Catholic School, which urgently requires extra classrooms, despite what the right hon. Lady said the other week?

Allocations for the replacement or improvement of nineteenth century primary schools in the first year for which my right hon. Friend was responsible have considerably exceeded the total in the previous three years. I am certainly willing to look at the position of the schools the hon. Member has mentioned. I can tell him that the new preliminary list of school building projects expected to start in or after

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has to meet President Pompidou.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to place the common agricultural policy on the agenda for his forthcoming meeting with the President of France.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for an official meeting with President Pompidou.

I shall be having talks with President Pompidou in Paris on 21st and 22nd May. There will be no formal agenda but the meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss matters of mutual interest. I do not propose to announce in advance the subjects which are likely to be covered.

When my right hon. Friend last met President Pompidou they discussed regional planning. In view of the announcement by Commissioner George Thomson yesterday, does he feel that the location of major international airports is a relevant factor in economic planning within the Community?

What we discussed at the summit was the question of regional development policy from the

Will the Prime Minister accept that Britain has a moral duty to dissuade the French from further nuclear testing, both as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and because there is likely to be serious fall-out in the Pacific? Is the Prime Minister being evasive on this moral issue because he does not want to delay discussions on Anglo-French nuclear co-operation?

There is absolutely no relationship between Anglo-French nuclear co-operation and any tests which the French Government may decide to conduct in future. As I have told the House, President Pompidou's view has been that the time is not right for discussing Anglo-French nuclear co-operation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to President Pompidou that the people of Britain are not only unwilling to accept an agricultural policy which deliberately maintains artificially high food prices when compared with world prices, but that they resent having to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of such a policy? Will he also tell President Pompidou that in the context of the present review of the common agricultural policy France must be prepared to introduce schemes giving direct support to producers as opposed to making them totally dependent on high farm gate prices?

I do not think one achieves the results one desires in international affairs by telling another country that it must be prepared to accept this or that, any more than it would achieve the same result with us by that process. What is important is that it was agreed at the meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture that there should be a complete review of the agricultural policy. As a member of the Community, we can now play a full part in that.

Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the President that the common regional policy is as important to us here as the common agricultural policy is to the French? Will he, secondly, seek to assure a positive response, not only from French but from Europe, to Dr. Kissenger's call for a new Atlantic alliance?

There is certainly no need for me to impress this upon President Pompidou because it was as a result of the talks I had with him that there was agreement that the regional policy was as important to us as the common agricultural policy is to France. It was on this basis that it was included in the summit communiqué and agreed by the remaining Heads of Government. As for Dr. Kissenger's recent speech, both countries have already made it clear that we hope to make a positive contribution in reply to it.

Reverting to the nuclear tests, will the Prime Minister assure us that there is no grain of truth in Chapman Pincher's assertion that we are in a rather weak position with President Pompidou because we want to conduct at least one test of our own?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no grain of truth in that. We have no immediate plans for testing—

What does the Prime Minister mean by "immediate"?

I mean that we have no immediate plans for testing United Kingdom warheads. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the word "immediate", he should stop taking part. Any tests which we may make to keep our nuclear warheads up to date— as we are pledged to the House to do— are taken underground. That is permissible under the partial test ban treaty. There is, therefore, absolutely no relationship between anything that a British Government might wish to do in the future by way of underground testing and testing in the air.

Is not the principal objection of the major Commonwealth countries in the Southern Hemisphere to the continuance of these French nuclear tests the intrusion of a European Power into their territory? Is not this a grave issue because the Australians and New Zealanders sincerely believe that Britain is bending over backwards to fall into line with the policies of a European power in the Community to the detriment of their interests?

My hon. Friend must himself judge the reason for the position which Australia and New Zealand have taken up. The French Government are entitled to claim that the test is taking place in French territory.

Rubbish.

Surely it is other matters which people consider. The question of the degree of fall-out is the reason why we have always urged that all countries—not only France, but also China—should adhere to the partial test ban treaty.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to finalise and publish the provisions of phase 3 of the prices and incomes policy.

It is as yet too early to say. Proposals for stage 3 will be published well before stage 2 ends, which we at present envisage will be at about the end of October.

As phase 3 is likely to be effective before the House comes back after the Summer Recess, will the Prime Minister ensure that we have the opportunity to debate this and related matters before we rise for the Summer Recess? Does the Prime Minister's announcement that nothing is barred from discussion mean that the TUC will be able to discuss the possibility of abandoning or freezing increased council house rents, an increase in family allowances and, possibly, the payment of wages through accounts held in the Cayman Islands?

The TUC was not only able to but did discuss all the questions which the hon. Gentleman has raised, with the exception of the last one, when we had talks in Chequers and at No. 10 last summer and last autumn. The TUC is well aware that it can raise all matters of this kind which it wishes to discuss.

It will not be possible to announce the details of stage 3 before the House rises in July. That is quite apparent, because we have asked the Pay Board to go into the question of the anomalies which are presented to it by any union or person. Its report is expected at the latest towards the middle of September. We are well aware of the undertakings which have been given to the House about making available the information which is to go into any future code.

When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the TUC and the CBI, will he point out to them that one manifestation of the success of the Government's policies is that the pound is now one of the strongest currencies in the world, that in the last two months it has appreciated substantially against the dollar and quite significantly against the French franc, the guilder and the lira, and that this bodes extremely well for the outlook of our import prices?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right—[Laughter.] It may be natural for hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches not to wish to see the pound strong. From the point of view of exports, we have a sufficient margin of competitiveness with the pound at its present level, and from the point of view of imports of food and raw materials it is of benefit to us that the pound floats upwards.

With reference to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), does he recall that last year when the trade unions tried to raise matters like rents, food prices, school meals and school milk, he ruled them out in this House on 6th November as being political matters—

indicated dissent.

That appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of 6th November at col. 630.

The Prime Minister will also recall interrupting me when I accused him of this and again confirming that these subjects were barred because, as he said, they were political matters decided by the Government.

indicated dissent.

He said that. Are we to take the more helpful attitude of the Lord President of the Council at Cambridge who nine days ago said that nothing will be ruled out, nothing barred, and that the Government are now prepared to consider whether they will make changes in respect of these previously closed political issues to enable agreement to be reached for phase 3?

I repeat that not only were the trade unions able to raise these matters: they did discuss them at Chequers and at the No. 10 talks. They discussed pensions, family allowances, the level of rents and rent rebates. All these matters were discussed. What I made plain to the House and to the TUC and the CBI was that the legislation to enable us to become a member of the European Community, the Act to deal with housing finance and other Acts of this kind had been passed by Parliament and we were not prepared to repeal them. What we were fully prepared to do was to take into account the consequences of this legislation in, for example, the level of rents which had now been fixed, and, where we thought it right, to deal with that. We did so on two occasions following those talks. We dealt with rents by greatly putting up the needs allowance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman simply telling us that discussion was not ruled out of order and will not be ruled out of order again but that, as he has made clear to the House and has not changed this afternoon, he rejected changes in policy on these matters? Does the Lord President's statement mean that the Prime Minister is now prepared to go into the talks with an open mind and change the policy on housing, rents and school meals—where the increase was deferred only for stage 2—or will he close his mind to these questions just as he did last November?

The position remains exactly the same. If the trade unions want to raise the question of increased rents and their consequences, or the impact of going into the Community on food prices, or any of these matters, they are perfectly free to put forward their views. They know us well enough to know that we have an open mind and are prepared to listen to them. [Laughter.] That only demonstrates the vast gulf which now exists between the trade union leaders and the Labour Party.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his plans for renewed talks with the TUC and CBI on countering inflation.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for a further meeting with the TUC.

I welcome the decisions of the CBI and the TUC to take part in the discussions which I have proposed. I shall be meeting the TUC on 17th May and the CBI on 30th May.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as everyone now understands that Britain is enjoying an unprecedented even sensational economic boom exceeding all previous post-war growth rates, there is an increasing realisation among trade unionists, official and unofficial, that the essential priority of the rate of economic growth should not be jeopardised by excessive wage inflation in phase 3?

Yes, I think there is a general realisation of this. I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that for this country to have an average rate of growth of 5 per cent. is not a boom condition or something that is outstanding for a Western industrial country. It is less than half the growth rate of Japan for the last 16 years. It is less than the average growth rate of many of our European partners. I hope, therefore, that we shall keep this in balance. At the same time, we should be reassured by the fact that the figures of industrial production put out earlier today show an increase of one and a half points for March over February, that the increase in total output between the second half of 1971 and the latest three months is nearly 6 per cent., adjusted to an annual rate of growth, and that for manufacturing alone there is a corresponding increase of about 6½ per cent. These are very encouraging figures, but our task now is to ensure that they are sustained.

How does the Prime Minister justify the double standard of constantly refusing to intervene in the great national scandals of big business, whether due to the damage caused by defective products or the dubious morality in boardrooms, while he constantly intervenes and moralises about the legitimate wage claims of trade unions? Where is the logic of that attitude?

I have never advocated defective products, nor unethical matters in boardrooms. Indeed, in my speech at Perth on Saturday afternoon I specifically condemned the latter and I do so in this House now. If there are products which are defective, we have laws under which those responsible can be brought to account. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of where the law is defective in this respect, it can be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry. As for the procedures in boardrooms, they can when brought to light be examined by the Department concerned from the point of view of either tax or company law, which in any case we propose to modernise in the next Session.

Bearing in mind the important, indeed the essential, rôle which productivity deals have to play in maintaining economic growth, will my right hon. Friend listen favourably to representations made to him by the TUC and CBI on this point for implementation in phase 3?

Yes, Sir. We are fully prepared to discuss with the TUC and CBI the question of productivity arrangements if they wish to raise them. In any case we shall wish to raise them ourselves in phase 3. It is well known that a number of trade union leaders have pointed to the opportunities of introducing so-called productivity arrangements which do not justify themselves. What they said to us during the Chequers talks was that this causes bitterness between unions and workers because they regard it as unfair that there should be a productivity arrangement which is not justified. Therefore, it would be necessary to work out with them, and perhaps with others who can give us advice, what would be the best form of justifiable productivity arrangements.

When the Prime Minister talks to the CBI, will he ask it to condemn unequivocally the sort of goings on that we have all read about at Lonrho which are fatal to any counter-inflation policy? Will he also point out to the CBI that greed does not now seem to be a monopoly of the trade unions?

It would not be necessary for me to ask the CBI to make a statement of that kind, and as a responsible body it should be prepared to make its own statement. I hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will not exaggerate to the extent of saying that an incident of this kind is fatal to the counter-inflation policy. It is the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, but one should not suggest that the whole of British industry consists of practices of this kind.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will show no enthusiasm whatever for the bizarre attitude of Mr. Campbell Adam-son in desiring to see a repetition of the publication of the ill-fated National Plan?

I was not aware that that was Mr. Campbell Adamson's view. It is not a matter which he has put to us, but should the matter be raised I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that he is no more prepared to change his mind about what he calls political issues in discussion with the TUC than he was last year?

The right hon. Member cannot have listened to what I said. The other accusation that is made by Labour Members is that by having discussions with the TUC and CBI and in reaching agreements we were forming a so-called corporate State to overrule Parliament. I have specifically safeguarded Parliament's position in all the talks we have had by saying that legislation has been passed by Parliament. We are prepared to consider the economic consequences on workers and employers of what is done. Indeed, we have gone further because we have asked for the fullest consultation before any future legislation is passed, such as the codes under the statutory policy.

Although we now understand that the Prime Minister has made the position clear by saying that he will listen with an open mind, does he mean by the use of the words he used a moment or two ago that he will only consider the consequences of his legislation, or does he mean—and did the Lord President mean—that on the question of the repeal or standstill of the housing legislation he is prepared not only to listen to what is said on that matter but to act upon it?

No, Sir. I am not prepared to repeal the Housing Finance Act, because there is a great body of trade union opinion which believes that it is the right policy to help those who need it and that those who are the higher paid workers can fully afford to pay a fair rent. It was a policy which the Labour Government followed, and when the trade unions say that they wish to help the lower paid I believe them to be in earnest. The way to do it is to help the lower paid to pay their rents and to see that this is done by rent rebates. Those who are getting high wages in our economy can well afford to pay the rent.