asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many education authorities she and her ministerial colleagues visited in the last eight weeks; and with how many she, or her ministerial colleagues, discussed grants for school uniform or means tests.

In the last eight weeks we have met official delegations from education authorities and members of education committees, county or borough councils on 25 occasions, either at the Department or elsewhere. Since these meetings were usually to discuss specific local problems, grant for school uniform or means tests were not usually discussed. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that the views of my right hon. Friend on the subject of moderating school uniform requirements were conveyed to all authorities in England and Wales in May 1977.

I appreciate that answer, but I am sure my hon. Friend realises that there has been much comment in the Press about local authorities removing assistance in the form of school uniform grants. What steps can she take to ensure that local authorities make grants available to families which suffer hardship in providing school uniforms? How soon does she hope to bring forward legislation?

The only step that we can take in the present circumstances is to encourage local authorities to use the powers that they have. As my hon. Friend knows, it is a matter solely for their discretion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we hope to bring forward early proposals to clarify the present law. I can go no further at present.

The Under-Secretary said that she had discussed many matters. Did she discuss the question of school transport? Roads are becoming desperately dangerous in some areas, and young children sometimes have to walk several miles to school. Did the hon. Lady discuss this problem?

These problems sometimes arise, and we are concerned about them. There is a Question on this matter later on the Order Paper.

With regard to ministerial visits, can my hon. Friend make a visit to Avon and discuss with the Tories on the Avon County Council their indefensible policy of charging pupils to go to the swimming baths? The pupils have to pay not only to go into the baths but for transport, which can cost their parents 50p a visit.

I have made a number of visits to Avon, where it has been made very clear to me that local people are very concerned about many aspects of financial policies, including this one. As my hon. Friend will know, it is not an easy matter to resolve whether swimming is a normal part of the curriculum. If it is not so regarded, the authority has the right to charge if it chooses.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with existing arrangements for teachers to gain experience of industry; and if she will make a statement.

In addition to local initiatives, there are several national schemes which provide opportunities for teachers to gain direct experience of industry. The planned expansion of in-service training should make it possible for more teachers to participate in such schemes and my right hon. Friend welcomes the growing interest and support which they are attracting both from industry and among teachers and their employers.

In view of the crucial link between education, preparation for work and the needs of industry, is it not very important—and will the Minister of State affirm—that we should be trying to ensure that many more teachers, as a regular part of their experience, whether in training or afterwards, are intimately connected with the workings of industry?

I am in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman on this matter. Between 1977 and 1981 there will have been a fourfold increase in the number of teachers released for induction and in-service training. I hope that there may be a significant expansion of industrial experience within those figures.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is at least of equal importance that people with experience of industry become teachers? Are there still shortages in the craft trades in schools, despite widespread unemployment among teachers? If so, will my hon. Friend do something to see that people of mature years and with experience of industry take up teaching?

Yes, Sir. In recent years about 20 per cent, of entrants to initial teacher training have been aged 25 or over. I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers of those coming from industry. In addition, more than 450 mature entrants to the profession, many of them from industry, were recruited to training in the current academic year.

Does the Minister agree that part of the problem is caused by some rather blinkered attitudes in the teacher training colleges, quite apart from anything else? Will he get his Department and its officials to look again at the possibility of changing some aspects of the curriculum of teacher training colleges so that it does not lay such great stress on educational theory but puts more on teacher training in the class room?

That is a matter to which we are giving attention. We are placing emphasis on industrial aspects of the existing courses rather than having a separate new addition to the curriculum, which is already fairly overcrowded at teacher training colleges.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the rate of progress towards a fully comprehensive system of education.

Four out of every five secondary pupils are now in comprehensive schools. I shall not be satisfied until all authorities have offered their children the benefit of a comprehensive education.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply. Does she agree that the latest populist Tory Party proposals to allow children to leave school at the age of 15 is simply another example of that party's determination to undermine the very principles of comprehensive education? Will she, therefore, take a very hard line with reactionary local authorities which are still dragging their feet on reorganisation?

My hon. Friend is more clear about Conservative policy than I am. I am not quite clear about it, but it appears to be the case that the Conservative Party—at least, part of it—supports the idea of comprehensive education followed by the creaming-off of the most academic children into direct grant schools, which I regard as a wholly destructive formula. Other parts of the Conservative Party appear to agree that the less education the better.

When the Secretary of State talked about being satisfied when all parents are offered comprehensive education, did she mean that or did she mean that she insists that they must all take it?

Will the hon. Gentleman mind repeating his question? I missed the nuances of the middle part.

The Secretary of State said in her first reply that she would not be satisfied until all parents were offered comprehensive places. Is that what she meant, or was it a disguise for saying that all parents would be forced to take comprehensive schools?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's nuances were of a kind that would be hard to hear. I want all local authorities to organise on comprehensive lines. I am convinced that within a comprehensive system parental preferences can certainly be taken into account.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the fulminations of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who, I think, will go lower than 15 eventually, comprehensive education, according to the latest report of the NFER, is going from strength to strength and proving better than any form of education that we have ever had? Does she, therefore, agree that the sooner we have all our children in there receiving a comprehensive education, the better for them and for us?

I believe that at one time the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) believed that 14 was the right age at which to leave school.— [HON. MEMBERS: "Thirteen."] I did not know about 13. I welcome the prodigal son's return to 15. Perhaps he will get to 16 before long.

On the second part of the question, I say loud and clear that the evidence is growing week by week that where the comprehensive system has had an opportunity to settle down after the process of change, as the evidence shows in Leicestershire and West Sussex, to take the two most recent surveys, the comprehensive schools do at least as well as and in many cases better than the old selective system.

Does the Secretary of State agree with Mrs. Caroline Benn that the Education Act 1976 has failed? Does she agree that she has no powers to impose any particular form of comprehensive reorganisation, and that if she wishes to pursue these foolish and dictatorial policies she had better get herself a new Act of Parliament?

The Labour Party believes in carrying out the law as approved by Parliament. The law as approved by Parliament could not be more clear. Conservative Members might consider the wisdom of advising local education authorities not to carry out the law in spirit, although they may do so to the letter. That is not so uncommon.

I have carefully read the remarks of Mrs. Caroline Benn. They are not as presented in the Press. In saying, quite correctly, that we cannot substitute the Department of Education's proposals for those of local education authorities, she was simply explaining what the Act of Parliament itself says.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions she has had with local education authorities on the question of truancy.

Last July, my right hon. Friend and I had a useful meeting with the local authority associations and the Magistrates Association, and the question of behavioural problems, including truancy, was also discussed at the York conference on comprehensive education last December at which a number of chief education officers and councillors were present.

Does the Minister accept that on any given day it is estimated that up to 150,000 children may be absent from British schools without due cause? Does not that concern her terribly?

The Secretary of State told me last year of the forthcoming discussions with the local education authorities. Will she now say what resulted from them and what action we can expect in the very near future?

The estimates to which the hon. Gentleman referred must be guesses, as no statistics have been collected nationally since 1974. A number of things have changed since then, including the Government. I have told the hon. Gentleman before that one of the principal matters that came out of the meeting with the local authorities was that Her Majesty's Inspectorate is conducting a survey both of what is happening in special units which many local authorities have set up and also in schools which have shown particular success in dealing with truants. Many local authorities are carrying out work and surveys of their own.

Will the Minister confirm that the attendance record at schools in Great Britain is much higher than it is in Parliament on any given day? Will she also accept that if we abolished school meal charges the attendance record would be even higher? Even if she is not aware of it, many parents now find it a struggle to find the necessary money with which to send their children to school, and rather than have their children subjected to this horrifying means test some of them stay away.

I am aware that many parents have difficulty with all manner of income problems. We regret this. We changed the scales for school meals assistance to make them much more generous in order to assist those parents. I accept my hon. Friend's argument. Nothing is good enough other than full help, but that is not possible at present. as he knows.

Is the Minister aware that last week the report of the Institute of Mathematics said that 18 per cent. of children throughout the country at the age of 16 who took the test were absent from school, and that 28 per cent. in London were absent on that day? Does not this show what the real figure of truancy is as compared with the figure for February 1974, which is continually used in the House and has no relationship with children missing from school?

Will the Minister assure us that inspectors—we are not talking only about special units—went in to check the registers in schools to make sure that those marked present were actually in the building?

I am aware that a number of different authorities in different groups have studied attendance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not read with care those reports which were specifically directed towards truancy and has not observed that only a small minority of children are known to be absent without parents' knowledge and consent.

indicated dissent.

It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying "No". I refer him to reports from authorities such as Sheffield which have specifically studied truancy and have not tried to pick up figures as a by-line of something else. He will find, as usual, that the problem is difficult but less dramatic than he pretends.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take following the recent discretionary awards survey.

The report on the survey was published on 1st February. My Department is seeking the views of the local authority associations and other interested bodies. The aim of my right hon. Friend is to encourage authorities to consider each case carefully and to be as generous as possible both in their policies and in rates and conditions of grant.

Does the Minister accept that the report has confirmed that the sharp decline in the number of discretionary awards given by local authorities comes at a time of a 6 per cent. increase in the number of 16-to-19-year-old students? At a time when the Department of Employment is pouring money into short-term courses for students, greater emphasis should be placed on the provision of these longer-term courses in such subjects as law, accountancy and the arts. When will the Government accept full responsibility for making these grants mandatory?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. I will give them. Two thousand fewer discretionary grants were given and on a population basis a further 5,000 ought to have been given, so there is a net deficiency of 7,000. We are discussing this with the local education authority associations. I am particularly concerned with the aspect mentioned by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) concerning discretionary grants for the arts, especially for performers in the arts.

Does my hon. Friend need any further discussion in this matter, since it has become perfectly obvious that substantial numbers of children and young people are not receiving education because of the way in which discretionary grants are being used?

I must explain to my hon. Friend that discretionary grants are controlled not by my Department but by the local education authorities. We can give encouragement, but we can do no more.

Did not the survey also reveal that the value of grants to the individual had fallen badly behind with the vast majority of authorities, and does this not make it clear that the local authorities are presenting to Parliament a frighteningly strong case for having the matter taken out of their hands?

I am very much concerned that many "full value" awards are at lower rates than those which applied to mandatory awards, and I hope to explore this situation with the local authorities.

Is it not the case that many local authorities are completely ignoring the detailed content of the rate support grant settlement and are denying grants? Is my hon. Friend aware that they are then seeking to place the blame on the Government, who have provided the money for a large number of grants to be made available?

Yes, we provide money in the rate support grant, and we topped that up by another £1·8 million in the autumn. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that all local authorities are ignoring discretionary awards. Some autho rities are good and some are bad, but we shall be discussing these matters with the local authority associations, which are aware of the gravity of the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many mobile classrooms are currently in use in the parliamentary constituency of the Isle of Ely; how many of these are in (a) the primary and (b) the secondary sectors; and how this compares with mobile classroom accommodation elsewhere in the country.

I understand from the Cambridgeshire Education Authority that there are 33 primary and 30 secondary classrooms of this kind in the Isle of Ely. Temporary accommodation in East Anglia probably accounts for about the same proportion of all school accommodation as in England and Wales as a whole.

The people of Cambridgeshire will be pleased to hear that in this instance they are no worse off than other parts of England. Will the Minister say whether in the provision of mobile class rooms her concern is for mobility rather than economy? If that is so, will she bear in mind that it costs almost as much to move some mobile classrooms from one place to another as it does to erect them?

I am aware that this is a problem, and in Cambridgeshire, as elsewhere, the Department and the authority are anxious to see such classrooms taken out of use and replaced by permanent accommodation as soon as possible. But this, particularly in Cambridgeshire which has a high basic need, is something we are able to do only gradually. Over the last three years we have given Cambridgeshire £14 million in building allocations. The county has applied for about £7 million for the next three years and we are considering this at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her policy on financial help for students in full-time education between 16 and 19 years of age.

Present policy is that financial help for students in full-time education between 16 and 19 years of age is at the discretion of local education authorities. No major change in these arrangements is possible without a substantial element of additional resources, and no mandatory system could be introduced without legislation.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that while the case for financial maintenance for young people in this age group has always been a strong one on grounds of equality of opportunity in further and higher education, that case is now strengthened by consideration both of the whole circumstances of employment and unemployment and of the various anomalies which have already arisen and will increasingly arise with the introduction of the youth opportunities programme?

Yes, the case is much stronger than ever. The difficulty is that the House in its wisdom in 1962 drew a clear line between higher education which was mandatory and all forms of further education which were discretionary. I doubt whether the House would still take the same view. I regard this matter as an extremely high priority, but the House should be clear that legislation is necessary and that the sums involved are substantial—several hundred million pounds.

If the right hon. Lady is so concerned about young people between 16 and 19, why is she allowing provision for this age group in schools to be phased out of the needs element in the rate support grant?

I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. There is no question of the needs of those between 16 and 19 being phased out of the rate support grant. On the contrary, we have recently added a substantial sum for further education specifically for this age group. We have also introduced provision for the part-time education in schools and colleges of 16 to 19-year-olds.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is more than just a problem of discretionary awards? There is the new youth opportunities programme of the Manpower Services Commission. There is also supplementary benefit where young people do not attend for more than 21 hours a week. There are EMAs and students receiving nothing. This is rapidly reaching a state of total chaos, and it must be rationalised.

I do not think that there will be any higher priority when an advance in education can next be made. I should tell the House the orders of expenditure involved. If the rate were the same as that of the MSC, it is estimated that the cost would be approximately £1,000 million a year. If it were at the supplementary benefit rate, the cost would be about £500 million a year. The reason for these high figures is quite simply that education has managed to attract more and more young people to stay on, and, therefore, the cost for those already in schools and colleges beyond the age of 16 is substantial before any more young people are attracted. I make it clear that that is not a reason for not acting on this matter, but the House must be aware that considerable resources are involved.

Surely the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) is right when he says that there is chaos in this sphere. The different provisions for grants present us with a shambles. Will the right hon. Lady consider the case for the appointment of an inquiry into the training of 16 to 19-year-olds? Why not appoint the hon. Member for The Wrekin as chairman of it? That would do her a good turn and would rehabilitate him.

I can think of no better chairman for almost any inquiry into education than my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), who needs no rehabilitation from me or anybody else. However, the purpose of an inquiry is often to avoid a decision. There is nothing to inquire into. The task is to find the necessary resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to be able to make recommendations for the restructuring of university academic staff salaries.

My right hon. Friend will issue no recommendations before the negotiators have issued a joint statement.

That would be generally regarded as disappointing. Will my hon. Friend take on board the fact that there is now strong evidence of widespread discrimination in the salaries of women in university life? This applies also in terms of placements. Will my hon. Friend undertake to investigate this as a matter of urgency?

If what my hon. Friend says is true I shall look into it, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of any proposals today.

Since the Government have repeatedly promised to rectify the 1974 pay anomalies, why are they dragging their feet to the extent that the negotiations seem to have broken down? How long will this last? Would it not be better to put the whole matter to the test of arbitration?

There is no question of the negotiations having been broken off. The last meeting of Committee B was on Friday 10th March and the next meeting is on Thursday 16th March.

Does the Minister accept that the Government's failure to come forward with any new and positive agreements on 10th March was regarded by the university teachers as a slap in the face, particularly since the Government have settled other similar pay anomalies? Does he appreciate that this latest move is an indication that we are again reverting to a brain drain in many universities, a situation that is evidenced by various departments in Glasgow?

I express sympathy on this matter. I hope that the university teachers in no way regard this as a slap in the face. However, let us see how we go on Thursday.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Arts Council

My noble Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the arts, meets the Chairman of the Arts Council frequently. I last met him on 31st January and arrange to meet him whenever occasion demands.

I apologise for getting the right hon. Lady's sex wrong in the Question. It was not my fault.

Will the right hon. Lady ask the Chairman of the Arts Council whether he will publish the salary of the Director of the National Theatre? As we are allowed to know the salaries of the heads of nationalised industries, it seems to me to be in the interests of open government that we should know the director's salary as well.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology. I was rather surprised at his lack of perception whether I was a man or a woman.

The salary of the Director of the National Theatre is a matter for the board of the National Theatre, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address himself to the board.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the Arts Council for discussion, will she bear in mind the plight of the provincial theatres, some of whose representatives met some of us recently? We were informed that £37 a week was often the wage of actors and that for about 10 to 15 weeks a year they have to go on the dole. Will she discuss that matter with the Chairman of the Arts Council, as the position of the provincial theatres is regarded as very serious by many people?

The preliminary question is the saving of the major provincial theatres so that there will be jobs for those who want them in the theatrical profession. My hon. Friend will be aware that the theatrical profession has a great many people in it who are seeking work. I accept what he said about the low pay of actors in some provincial areas.

Will the right hon. Lady accept that it is important for her to get her priorities right? Before she takes up any of her valuable time on a meeting with the Chairman of the Arts Council, will she arrange a very urgent meeting with local authorities to discuss the lock-out at lunch-time of tens of thousands of children up and down the country? Without making any comment on the dispute—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is too well experienced not to know that he is stretching the Question from here to Cardiff. I remind him that it is about the Arts Council.

I always accept your advice, Mr. Speaker, but the Question referred to a meeting with the Chairman of the Arts Council and I am suggesting to the right hon. Lady, who is responsible for the education ultimately of all children in this country, that there is a far more urgent matter for her to deal with here and now.

Back in the capital, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she will give her support to the Arts Council in resisting the Scrooges of the Inland Revenue, who are now proposing to tax the prizes which the Arts Council gives to authors, artists, poets and others of the deserving poor, who get a very poor deal already from our society?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment in detail but I am very much aware of the problem and concerned about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she is taking to promote business sponsorship of the arts.

On the initiative of my noble Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the arts, a launching grant of £15,000 was made towards the establishment in 1976 of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, whose main object is to encourage business organisations to sponsor the arts. My noble Friend frequently reminds the business and arts world that it is Government policy to encourage industrial and commercial sponsorship of the arts.

I express gratitude for that positive reply, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the interests of artistic variety and vitality it is most undesirable that the patronage of the arts should become a comprehensive policy of the State alone?

I agree, and that is why this body was set up. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that it is estimated that in the first year, up to March 1977, business firms contributed about £1 million in sponsorship. That is roughly treble the amount of money which came from the business world in the previous year. Therefore, the association is doing a good job.

I encourage my hon. Friend in his endeavours to attract business and commercial sponsorship to the arts, but will he set his face against any attempt by tobacco companies to use this vehicle to promote their sales of these killing drugs?

I think that that is a matter for the association to look into, I have no evidence at the moment that this practice exists.

Does the Minister agree that the Chairman of the Imperial Tobacco Company has rendered very distinguished service to the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts? Will the hon. Gentleman enter into discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the basis that business sponsorship can be much better encouraged if we have a better taxation structure?

It is certainly true that we want money for the arts, and we shall not set our face against any moneys coming to the arts. If there were to be any abuse by means of advertisements, clearly the association would look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has concluded her consideration of the report of the Local Authorities Management Services Advisory Committee on school transport and is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's position in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in her consideration of the report on school transport, whether she will consider instituting a free bus fare policy for all schoolchildren.

This report, which is a technical one concerned with the feasibility of introducing new arrangements for school transport, has only just been received and is being studied by officials. I hope soon to discuss with the local authority associations and schools, which may be two or three miles away from where the children live. The second point is that country children face other interested bodies both the report difficulties with the build-up of traffic, itself and its wider implications for school transport policy. Meanwhile, I am the rundown of pathways and the dark winter nights. Three miles is far too long arranging for copies of the report to be a distance for them to have to walk in placed in the Library.

Do we really have to have a further round of consultations on the committee's report? Cannot we arrive at a decision? Will the Minister tell the House when a decision is expected in this matter?

It is not a matter simply of my arriving at a decision. It is a matter for the local authorities, which have to implement the policy, arriving at decisions. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the best way to achieve that is simply to tell them what to do and leave them to get on with it, I could only look forward with horror to his ever occupying a similar post to mine.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with underspending of about £2,000 million in the current financial year, one of the ways to avoid a similar position in the next financial year would be get some spending done? Does she not agree that part of it could be done in the Department of Education and Science by having free bus fares for all school children? That would be a very good idea and would help to redistribute income marginally, in line with the manifesto. I am prepared to offer a compromise if my hon. Friend will not go that far. Why not have half fares for those over 14 and up to 18?

The system which is being studied is one of flat-rate fares, which would be the same for all children and which might vary a little from one authority to another. I accept my hon. Friend's argument that people would be much more assisted by having no fare at all, but we are trying to make progress as fast as possible and the best way to do it is within present resources rather than by seeking to increase expense.

Will the Minister agree that two things must be borne in mind particularly in regard to transport? The first is parental choice of school, particularly for those who want denominational Schools, which may be two or three miles away from where the children live. The second point is that country children face difficulties with the build-up of traffic, the rundown of pathways and the dark winter nights. Three miles is far too long a distance for them to have to walk in winter.

We have been trying to remove these anomalies, and that is what the report is about. But there are many families with children in inner city areas, where bus fares are so high that they place a tremendous burden on the family. It is not a simple matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about a possible increase in school meal charges in 1978.

I have received representations from 34 individuals and organisations urging that there should be no increase in the school meals charge this year.

I recognise the reality that the Cabinet and the Department have to face in providing substantially more help to families with children, but will the Secretary of State say whether she would argue for a greater increase in child benefit or a greater subsidy on school meals?

I should not like to be asked to make the choice, but a decision about the level of school meal charges will be announced in the House as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inevitable consequence of increasing the price of school meals is that fewer children take them? Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that the present charge is a burden on many working men and women? Does she agree that there is little point in giving working men and women more money through tax cuts if school meal charges are to be increased substantially?

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case, but he will have to wait for the decision which will be announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has to extend provisions for the 16-to-19-year age group during the current period of high unemployment.

There is a strong education service involvement in both the work preparation and the work experience elements of the youth opportunities programme. The education service will be represented on the 28 area boards which will run the programme under the Manpower Services Commission's general direction and on the national Special Programmes Board. My right hon. Friend issued a statement on 28th February welcoming the programme.

Is my hon. Friend persuading the Secretary of State to put up a fight in the Cabinet to apply more resources to education so that we can provide the courses and pay the 16-to-19 age group, whereby giving them the opportunity which they need rather than their having to draw unemployment benefit?

The programme itself provides 9,000 additional places at an additional cost of £9·9 million in a full year. In conjunction With the Department of Health and Social Security, there is the provision of the 21 hours per week scheme whereby an unemployed youngster who is available for work can receive education up to 21 hours a week.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will not be possible to produce a sensible plan to deal with the 16-to-19 year olds in an atmosphere of mounting unemployment until there is concerted action between the Department of Education and the Department of Employment?

We liaise closely with the Department of Employment on these matters. As my right hon. Friend told the House earlier, we are looking into all educational maintenance grants. However, as she reminded us, it is an enormously costly business.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will set up an inquiry into the syllabus and techniques of mathematics teaching in schools.

The Government's reply to the Tenth Report from the Expenditure Committee on "Attainments of the School-Leaver" is being published today. It accepts the recommendation that an inquiry should be set up into the teaching of mathematics in primary and secondary schools. I hope to announce the terms of reference, its chairman and members shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are about 57 different types of syllabus for the teaching of mathematics in schools at the moment? Is she also aware that her Department has either surrendered or never taken any positive control over the curriculum in this respect and that the profession has not discharged its responsibilities in the way that it should have done? Will she take urgent action to look into what is becoming a national scandal?

The position with regard to mathematics is one of long standing. May I quote the remarks of the Joint Mathematical Council, of which the Institute of Mathematics is a member? It said:

"The widely held belief that all children could once reliably carry out the addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of numbers of more than one digit is quite at variance with the reports of HMIs over the whole of the last century."

We therefore have a problem, and a longstanding one.

I answer my hon. Friend first by saying that this Government have decided to ask direct questions about the place of mathematics in the curriculum. Secondly, this Government for the first time have embarked on emergency courses to train teachers of mathematics, who have been in short supply in the last 10 years, including the period when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State. Thirdly, the Government are assessing the performance of mathematics in our schools for the first time ever in our history.

If the Secretary of State succeeds in forcing Buckinghamshire to go comprehensive, will she expect the standards in mathematics in Buckinghamshire to move to the level in the various comprehensive schools tested by the Institute of Mathematics the other day? Would that be a good thing?

Yes, because the fundamental problem is not one which arises from the organisation of the schools. It arises from the shortage in mathematics teachers and from the fact that we have as many as 57 separate curricula in O-level mathematics. That cannot be the proper basis for achievement in mathematics and never has been. The Institute of Mathematics was testing boys and girls whose primary period in school was spent under the previous Administration.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us welcome the setting up of this inquiry and appreciate the problems which she has been encountering? She will realise, I am sure, that the great problem in mathematics starts in primary schools. Is she aware that there are many systems of teaching mathematics in primary schools which merely make simple sums difficult?

Yes, I am aware of that. The action which the Government are taking to improve mathematics teaching in primary schools is to require mathematics O-level or its equivalent for all future intending teachers. Again, this is the first time that this has been done.

With regard to the survey which has been widely quoted, it strikes me very hard that, in a survey which also indicated that British teaching of science was the best in the world, this is never quoted, while the mathematics results are always quoted.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Opposition welcome an inquiry into the teaching of and the curriculum for mathematics, bearing in mind especially the horrific results of the Institute of Mathematics report last week and that much juvenile unemployment is caused because school leavers have not the mathematics levels necessary if they are to be taken on as craft apprentices?

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member welcomes the mathematics inquiry. But it would be very helpful if occasionally the Opposition gave credit where it was deserved—[HON. MEMBERS: 'Two years ago."] I am talking about the teaching profession and not about the mathematics inquiry. The Opposition fail consistently to indicate that we have very high and improving standards in science teaching. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), in quoting the results of a survey which was criticial of mathematics teaching, pointed out neither that the position in West Germany with a selective system had declined more rapidly nor that in science teaching we were the best in the world.

Resign!

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14th March.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be attending the annual dinner of the Finance Houses Association.

Apropos this evening's engagement, has the Prime Minister read today's Press reports of his miraculous eleventh-hour conversion to the Tory principle of cutting taxes? Is he aware that it will cost some £5,000 million to return to the Tory tax levels of 1973?

I am not sure whether the hon. Member is congratulating me or—[HON. MEMBERS: "When you have done it."] Then we are all agreed. That is splendid. But, as regards cutting taxes, since we began, taking the example of a married man with two children and earning £60 a week, which is a fair example, during 1977–78 I am glad to say that his tax bill was reduced by £106 a year. That is a good start.

Are any of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial meetings today concerned with attempts to secure growth in world trade and a reduction in unemployment? Will he say something about his talks on the subject with Chancellor Schmidt?

My talks with Chancellor Schmidt were concerned with a number of factors which are affecting growth in the world. At the moment, there is a substantial disparity of view between a number of industrialised nations about what is the best course to follow. I am trying—with what success, I do not yet know—to synthesise some of these views, because it seems to me that no single element in them, whether it be stability of exchange rates or going for growth, or whatever may be the solution that is fancied, will do it. What is needed is a combination of remedies taken collectively by all the nations together. That, in my view, could restore confidence, and it is confidence which is required in the world at present.

Bearing in mind that some of us might agree with my right hon. Friend about a reduction in taxes, will he bear in mind that the last time that a Chancellor took out £5,000 million from taxes, expecting that money to go to regenerate industry, the money went elsewhere, a good deal of it overseas and a good deal into property? Will my right hon. Friend take into account that if we have a reduction in taxes it must go to regenerate our industry?

Yes. I ask my hon. Friend not to accept as a complete statement of my total views on these matters three lines that were extricated from a public meeting and published in the Press. They happen to be three lines that hit the Opposition rather hard. As far as my hon. Friend's point is concerned, there has always been a certain fear of the growth of imports following the expansion of the economy in this country. I hope that recent indicators will not bear that out as likely to happen to a degree that will make us more vulnerable.

If the Prime Minister really believes that people prefer cuts in taxation to an increase in public expenditure, why is he presenting to the House this week a public expenditure White Paper which increases public expenditure next year, and why is he asking the House to approve it?

It is important that even though we cut taxes there should be a proper maintenance of public services. If in order to achieve that—including appropriate expenditure on the Health Service and on education —it was necessary to increase public expenditure, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition too would see that that was the answer. It is possible to have a balanced view on these matters.

Indeed, but how can the Prime Minister cut taxes and increase public expenditure when production is flat?

It depends to a great extent on getting the economy going again. In certain circumstances both an increase in public expenditure, in the construction industry for example, and a reduction in direct taxation could achieve that growth, and both will happen this year.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we are all in favour of increased tax reliefs in the coming Budget, but will he bear in mind that, since the child tax allowance can no longer be increased, the only way of bringing relief to families with children is through an increase in child benefit? This particular increase in public expenditure—by increasing child benefit by £1 next November—is one matter that we are urging upon the Prime Minister.

I have heard my right hon. Friend explain this at great length and with great force and conviction. I am bound to point out in logic that this is not the only way of improving the position of families with children. This can also be done by other kinds of tax reduction which affects families with children and families without children. All these matters are being taken into account. I am very happy to see that a stray and random remark of mine has attracted such interest so that now everyone realises that there will be some tax cuts this year.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14th March.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time to explain to 20,000 people who will not get mortgages over the next three months why he has bullied the building societies into reducing their lending? This action is entirely wrong and it will do nothing at all to stabilise house prices.

It is too early to draw a conclusion like that. Having seen what happened in 1972–73 when there was a dramatic increase in house prices which did nobody any good— whether those concerned were buyers or sellers—I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have congratulated the Government on trying an experiment to see whether, by curbing the amount available in building societies, it is possible to have a reasonable roof put on house prices. Maybe the experiment will not succeed, but the hon. Member should not condemn it out of hand before it has been tried and had a chance to work. It is an attempt to restrain inflation and keep house prices within limits so that people can afford them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are still many people who are looking for houses to rent in Britain today? Will he consider a major increase in public expenditure in housing in order to meet that need?

There is always a need, as we on this side of the House constantly recognise. There is a need for owner-occupiers and a need for those searching for rented property. That is why we totally disagreed with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when he said that the building of council houses had done great harm. I have never heard a suggestion that is more completely untrue.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government are discouraging the private rented sector? More council houses, less privately rented housing and more homeless than ever before.

I am not sure of the point of the right hon. Members' question, but I hope that he will explain to millions of council house dwellers in this country, who are not able to buy houses, that he holds the view that it does great harm to build council houses. Why does he say that?

Will the Prime Minister find time to call in at his local friendly clearing bank and ask why it does not open on Saturday. Is he aware that one of the major clearing banks has had to withdraw the suggestion of offering a vital Saturday opening service for customers at the behest of the bank trade unions? What are the Government going to do to curtail them?

I could, of course, recommend that the hon. Member banks at the Co-op. Short of that, although I am deeply concerned about the problems of the clearing banks, I have too much on my hands in correcting the heresies of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East to enter into these matters.

Will the Prime Minister read or re-read the remit to the National Enterprise Board given at the time of the closure of the Plessey factory which indicated that all possible steps should be taken to offset redundancies created at that time? Will he consider the responsibility of the National Enterprise Board to resist the closure of the British Leyland plant at Speke for the same reasons?

That would not be appropriate. We have to deal with Ley-land on the basis of its becoming a viable and commercial enterprise. That must be left to the managerial judgment of British Leyland. If it feels that it has to close the Speke plant, that plant must be closed. That is its judgment and the Government will uphold it. The future of British Leyland as a whole is bigger than that of any individual factory.

Will the Prime Minister in his speech this evening to the Finance House Association seek to explain whether it is still Government policy, as stated in the White Paper that the House is debating on Thursday, to increase public expenditure every year for the next four years by considerably more than the increase in gross domestic product, on even the most optimistic assumptions? If this is still Government policy, how does he reconcile it with his recent conversion to a reduction in taxation?

I am very grateful for all the suggestions that have been made to me about what I should say in my speech tonight. I shall take them all into account. There will be a debate on this matter on Thursday, and I shall look forward to hearing the hon. Member's views on the matter then.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I shall answer in my own way and in my own time, and I shall resume my seat when I have finished. In regard to the problem which has been mentioned, the country requires an increase in public expenditure and in turn requires a consistent and steady growth in the economy. That is what the Government are succeeding in doing.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that in the last few weeks we have reached only Question No. Q2 in the Prime Minister's Question Time. Will you advise us how hon. Members with Questions slightly later on the Order Paper, such as Questions Nos. Q3, Q4 and Q5, could manage to get in?

I have advice, but I had better not give it. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the first four Questions were in the same form, and it was only a matter whether hon. Members would get in supplementary questions. There is a wide interest in these opening Questions, and if fewer hon. Members jumped to their feet, we should move on more quickly.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any significance in the fact that on today's Order Paper the Prime Minister is described as "the Primate Minister"?

I am a Nonconformist myself.

Before I propose the Question, I must tell the House that yesterday Front-Bench speeches took two hours 19 minutes, and six Back-Bench Members each took 20 minutes or over. The result was that only six hon. Members from the Back Benches could be called from either side of the House. This puts me in an impossible position when hon. Members are seeking to take part in the debate. The House will realise that with another 40 hon. Members wishing to speak today, it is impossible for all of them to be called, but it is possible for right hon. and hon. Members to exercise greater self-discipline in the length of their speeches.

As the House well knows, all I can do is to appeal—and remember; and I promise to remember, in the interests of the House.

My predecessor in this House urged upon me before I came here never to put Mr. Speaker into an impossible position. I shall therefore seek to be as brief as I can—and as brief as the House will allow me.

In coming to power, the Government inherited a defence programme that was ludicrously ambitious in its projections of forward expenditure. Therefore, the Government undertook the 1974 defence review in order that the nation should not be called upon to devote resources to defence expenditure disproportionate to those which our commitment and our economic position could possibly justify and sustain. After the defence review decisions, there were minor reductions made in some other areas of projected expenditure. But these later adjustments need to be seen against the whole background of the vital battle for the nation's economic survival.

The outlook is improving, and we have therefore felt able to allow a real increase to be made in our defence budget for the next two years at least—in response to NATO's call in the face of the increased Warsaw Pact threat.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to the House yesterday that our plans will allow us to make real improvements in our defence capability while at the same time fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reduce the percentage of gross domestic product that we spend on defence so that it is more in line with that of our major European allies. This is a major achievement.

We must not let the improvement which we are now able to make cause us to lose sight of the outstanding contribution which the United Kingdom already makes to each element of NATO's triad of forces and, indeed, to the forces of each NATO major commander. I believe that it is a tragedy that the major political Opposition party in this House has become so besotted with the pursuit of political power that it cannot generate even a flicker of patriotic pride to illuminate the vital and substantial contribution which Britain makes to the Atlantic Alliance and to the peace and security of the free world.

The debate so far has taken the usual course of Opposition contributions consisting of negative or destructive views of the nation's defence effort—without a single constructive attempt to deploy their own policy for examination by the House or, perhaps equally as important, by those outside this House who take an intelligent interest in defence affairs.

Let me place on record for the benefit of serious observers of the defence scene the facts on Britain's contribution to collective defence within the NATO alliance. The United Kingdom itself provides a vital base for British forces assigned to NATO, including those forces which would reinforce Allied Command Europe, and the aircraft of RAF Strike Command which in war would operate in support of all the three NATO major commanders. The United Kingdom also provides a base for the vital United States forces which are stationed here in peace time, as well as those which would reinforce NATO's posture in time of tension.

We contribute by far the largest of the readily available maritime forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel. Virtually the whole of the Royal Navy, the third largest in the world, is assigned to NATO, and we also contribute RAF aircraft to act in support of maritime operations.

The need to deter Soviet aggression applies no less to the seas than to the land. The defence of Europe demands the passage of transatlantic reinforcements and the use of the seas around Europe for the deployment of forces. The startling growth in Soviet maritime power has been one of the striking features of the last decade. In the Eastern Atlantic, the Soviet Union's maritime capability, in particular her submarine forces, continues to improve in both quantity and quality. At sea, as on land, NATO needs a range of capabilities so that it can respond flexibly to threatened or actual aggression. The United Kingdom has a vital role to play since in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas we continue to provide the main weight of maritime forces readily available to the Alliance.

In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our contribution to the Alliance's maritime capability, we are continuing with the major re-equipment programme for the Royal Navy. Five new classes of warship are under construction. These include the new class of anti-submarine warfare cruisers, the first of which, HMS "Invincible", was launched last May, nuclear-powered fleet submarines, which we are the only European NATO navy to operate, and the Type 22 frigates and Type 42 destroyers. To complement these new ship classes there are new weapons and equipments including the Sea Dart and Sea Wolf guided missile systems, and the Sea Harrier aircraft.

Turning to the Army, our peace-time commitment of the British Army of the Rhine is 55,000 men. This number would be more than doubled in an emergency. The tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles stationed in BAOR are a significant part of the ground forces immediately available to meet any surprise attack, should that eventuality ever occur. In support of the land forces, RAF aircraft are based in Germany in the strike-attack, reconnaissance, air defence and support roles. The air support contributed by these 12 squadrons would play a crucial role in ensuring that an enemy did not gain aerial superiority over the battlefield. We also contribute theatre nuclear forces and, by means of the Polaris force, add to NATO's strategic nuclear capability.

Our forces also make significant contributions to SACEUR's strategic reserve, including the United Kingdom Mobile Force, contributions to the ACE Mobile Force and three squadrons of the Special Air Service. On the northern flank, Royal Marine commandos contribute reinforcement forces.

This year anti-tank guided weapon systems in BAOR will be increased by 60 per cent.—yes, 60 per cent.—compared with 1974 and in RAF Germany and BAOR the total number of SAM systems will be up by 160 per cent.

The air defence of the United Kingdom, which was dismantled and discarded by a previous Tory Government, is being restored. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) talked of the Soviet threat. Let me tell him that under this Labour Government major steps have been taken to counter the threat to this island from the Soviet Backfire and Fencer bombers, something that his Government failed to do in the four years that they were in office.

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the time lag in the development of aircraft would have led any prudent British Government to make at least a reasonable forecast of an improved Soviet air capability and would have laid the foundation for the things that this Government have had the initiative, courage and ability to put into action.

rose—

I have hardly begun my speech. The trouble with the Opposition—and I exclude the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher)—is that they are great fellows at dishing it out but they do not always have the intestinal fortitude to take it when it is given back—to use someone else's phrase.

These improvements include our plans for improved radar coverage, airfield survival measures, Tornado ADV, air-to-air missiles—including Skyflash medium range and AIM 9L short range—Nimrod Airborne Early Warning and air-to-air refuelling resources, which my right hon. Friend announced to the House yesterday.

These are some of the positive steps that have been taken. They are not pie in the sky, nor the Tory election moonshine that was trotted out by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. They are firm, practical steps which have been taken to ensure that this country has its air defence restored from that which we inherited from the previous Tory Administrations.

The Minister has spoken about the importance of air defence. The principal element will be the re-equipment of Strike Command with Tornados. The Secretary of State spoke about the delays in the delivery and introduction of this aircraft, which is essential and the backbone of our air defence. Can the Minister say when the replacement of Tornados will be completed? Has this been put back?