asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account she is taking of the representations received since January on her consideration of the price of school meals for the next 12 months.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement last Tuesday, there is to be no increase in the charge for school meals in September. Local authorities will be reimbursed for the income they would otherwise lose this financial year, and consultations with their associations about how best to do this have already started.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's answer, but will she make it clear that this represents a change of Government policy and that there will be a continuing subsidy to school meals rather than merely a deferment for a short period of the date of an increase?

Consideration is being given to the consequence of this decision for future years.

Will the right hon. Lady say what proportion of total current expenditure on schools will now be represented by the subsidy on school meals as a result of the decision?

I cannot give that information without notice, but the net cost of the school meals service is £377 million for 1978–79.

What has happened to the Government's pledge to halve the subsidy on school meals by 1980, which I think was given in a White Paper? Furthermore, has the right hon. Lady any plans to have any consultations with the teachers so that their role in supervising meals may be clarified?

I am well aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) indicated that the Conservative Party felt that the charge for school meals should be increased. The orginal decision to allow the subsidy to decline was taken before two years of pay policy. It is in the light of that that the Government feel that families badly need help with school meal charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what European Economic Community funds are being made available to the Inner London Education Authority and other education authorities in England or Wales for projects concerning school leavers.

A programme of pilot projects is being developed under the Education Ministers' resolution of 13th December 1976 on the preparation of young people for work, and it will be jointly financed by member States and by the Community. The Commission will make grants totalling about £105,000 per year over three years to the Inner London, Sheffield and Bradford education authorities.

Whatever the merits of these pilot projects, which are probably required, why is it that they cannot be financed either by local authorities in the normal course of action or by the Government? Why does the EEC have to come into local education matters?

I take my hon. Friend's point that he would wish these projects to be totally financed from this country. However, in view of the substantial sums that we pay into the coffers of the Community, there is something to be said for getting back as much as we can.

Is it not extremely important that encouragement should be given to experiments of this sort? Might there not be further initiative from the Department to ensure that children may spend more time out of school buildings in order better to pursue their preparation for work?

It has been the policy of my Department for a considerable period to seek to encourage projects of this kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the future of the adult literacy programme.

Since my right hon. Friend made her announcement on 5th December last about future provision for adult literacy, my Department has received 80 letters, of which 33 were from hon. Members.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that those letters represent considerable concern about the whole future of the adult literacy programme? Could he tell us what arrangements he is making, now that central funding has ceased, to monitor the effects, particularly among local authorities that are refusing to continue provision of this service or to help the voluntary bodies which have tremendous experience in this area? If they fall down on their job, what will my hon Friend do about it?

We are keeping a constant watch, but I should make clear that Government involvement has not ceased. It has been transferred to local authorities, where it belongs. The provision of £1·3 million was made in the rate support grant and I am pleased to tell the House that, on the whole, local authorities are carrying out their obligations in regard to adult literacy.

Does the Minister appreciate that many local authorities are finding it difficult to continue the service? What about the position of voluntary organisations which are running schemes and can see the money running out on them?

We are making provision to help some of the voluntary bodies, as are local education authorities. I have three instances of schemes in Avon, Birmingham and the Wirral where voluntary schemes have been taken over by local authorities. That is the proper way to proceed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that money devoted to this sort of education—what one might call the lower end—probably brings greater returns in terms of human happiness and usefulness than any other education expenditure?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that about 150,000 students have benefited from the provisions of the scheme since 1975. We have had enormous co-operation from volunteers and from BBC programmes such as "On the Move". It has been a great success.

Is the Minister aware that the Cambridge reading project, which has done admirable work on adult literacy in my constituency, has been deprived of its central funding and that the county council, as a result of cuts in the rate support grant and the new distribution formula, is finding it very difficult to make up the deficiency? Can the hon. Gentleman give some personal involvement in this matter?

The project's first application should be to the local education authority, but if the hon. Gentleman will write to me I shall look into the matter to see whether I can help.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she remains satisfied with the educational provision for disabled children.

As I told my hon. Friend on 14th February, my right hon. Friend will continue to seek ways of improving the quality of special education.

That is a very complacent reply. As only 10,000 out of 750,000 children in hospital are receiving any sort of education, is it not time that the Department woke up, did something about it and consulted other Departments? Will the Minister consult the Department of Health and Social Security, the National Union of Teachers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and report back to the House within a month about what they propose to do?

I am touched by my hon. Friend's faith in the speed of response of the people he has mentioned. Education of children in hospitals is a difficult area because so many children are in hospital for a very short period. There has been an excellent document recently from the NUT which we and the DHSS are studying. We hope to make progress in this area.

Does the Under-Secretary think that the maintained sector of the education system is yet capable of dealing with disabled young people, whether they be partially sighted, hard of hearing or disabled in other ways? Does she not consider that the specialist education units for the deaf and the blind will be necessary in the foreseeable future in order to ensure that these deserving groups receive an adequate education and can participate fully in adult life later?

It may be that many of these units, which are doing excellent work, will need to continue, but in a number of parts of the country it has been possible to educate more disabled children in ordinary schools and we are studying the progress made in this way.

Will my hon. Friend accept that access is often the main problem in educating disabled children in ordinary schools? In this place we have two simple ramps which make the House available to a substantial number of people. Will my hon. Friend please advise local education authorities of the importance of access in the provision of education for disabled children in ordinary schools?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. We seek constantly to remind local authorities of the importance of these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she has held with the University Grants Committee on financial support to the universities.

My right hon. Friend discussed the subject extensively when she met the committee on 17th November last, and the firm and indicated figures of recurrent grant for the years 1978–79 to 1981–82 which she announced on 10th April took its views into account.

Why do current grant and the provisional figures that have been quoted make no allowance for the rectification of the demoralising anomaly in university teachers' pay?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations on this subject are continuing. The figures anticipate pay rises of between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent and price rises of between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. As my right hon. Friend and I have told the House, if there were substantial increases in those figures as a result of the negotiations on university teachers' pay, the cash limits would be altered accordingly.

Is the Minister aware that the latter part of his reply will be very much welcomed by those who believe that it is the Government who are resisting any negotiated attempt to get the anomaly put right more quickly? Will he make clear that if Committee B could propose tomorrow a rapid rectification, it would have his support?

I hope that the matter can be resolved quickly. The whole House feels that university teachers have been extremely patient. The industrial action that has been proposed, particularly the refusal to mark examination papers, would not help the negotiations and would create a great deal of hardship for many students. I hope that it is resolved before then.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the large sums of public expenditure devoted to universities are a clear example of public money being provided without any public accountability? Is it not time that the Government looked at the relationship between the Government and the providers of the money and the universities? We are denied any opportunity of asking Questions on industrial relations or other matters involved with universities, and it is time that this was changed.

It is an ancient system in this country that the financing of universities goes via the University Grants Committee, and I would not want to change the system substantially. I have never found that my hon. Friend in particular or other hon. Members have felt inhibited from asking Questions about matters concerning universities and union representation.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the concern expressed by Dr. Jack Gray and the Scottish Association for Asian Studies about cut-backs and the possible withdrawal of these courses from Scottish universities? Will the hon. Gentleman meet the UGC and press that funds should be made available to maintain these courses at present levels?

I shall make the hon. Gentleman's views known to the committee, though it is probably aware of the matters to which he has referred Perhaps I can discuss the matter with the committee at our next meeting.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the development of national sample testing by her Department's assessment of performance unit.

Yes.

Why have the Government been so slow in acting upon Conservative advice in this area, and why are they so timid and apologetic in their application of objective sampling? Does not the Secretary of State agree that information of this sort is an indispensable basis for raising educational standards?

I do not follow the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The assessment of performance unit was set up in 1975 by a Labour Government after a Conservative Government had been in power for four years and had set up nothing. We are about to proceed this year towards the assessment of mathematics, next year to the assessment of languages and the year after to the assessment of science. Therefore, we are moving with all due speed. I believe that the monitoring suggested is extremely sensible and will be very useful to the educational performances of this country.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the raising of standards the methods suggested by the assessment of performance unit are very much preferable to some of the suggestions from the Conservative Party, which is creating a system of competition between individual children with results published at individual schools? Does she also agree that the recent proposals to reintroduce selective education and grammar schools would tend not to raise standards at all?

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I can think of nothing that would be more upsetting for education than to go back to the reintroduction of selection. It is astonishing that education spokesmen of the Conservative Party are now suggesting that they should bring back grammar schools when it was the Leader of the Opposition under whom the proportion of children going to comprehensive schools increased from 28 per cent. to 55 per cent. It is hard to tell where the Conservative Party stands.

"The blanket use of tests … in some state assessment and local testing programmes appears to require inordinate amounts of time and resources on the part of teachers, other personnel involved … and the students themselves."

Is the Secretary of State prepared to take a less dogmatic view about the question of general testing? It is not a matter of creating competition. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is a question of finding out what levels of performance exist among children, among schools and among the national system without any element of competition?

That is exactly what the assessment of performance unit is concerned with. It is based upon a light sampling test amounting to 2 per cent. of the children in the country. It is the considered view of those represented on the APU's governing body, which consists of teachers, educationists and a wide range of people, that this is the appropriate way to monitor performance. It is not the Labour Party which is being dogmatic. It is the attempt to return to testing every pupil every year or so that is dogmatic.

We welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the sample testing. However, is she not aware that most parents are concerned about the standard of achievement of their own child and the standards of the schools to which they are going compared with the national standards?

Of course, we agree that they have a right to that information. That is why this Government have asked all schools to inform parents when they may see the teachers of their children and when they may see the head teachers. In addition to that, it is open to a parent to ask a teacher—indeed, it is a daily experience—how the children are doing. The evidence that I have put before the House based upon the testing in the United States shows that testing of the kind that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) continually promotes does absolutely nothing to improve the standards of education in schools—on the contrary.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the advice given in schools to pupils wishing to go to teacher training colleges, in view of the difficulties recently experienced by young teachers in obtaining jobs.

My Department circulates annually a new edition of its booklet "Careers in Teaching" to all careers teachers and careers officers in England and Wales. Recent editions have included advice about the effects of the reduced number of training places.

Is the Minister aware of the possible serious effects that can come from the present wastage of teachers due to their unemployment? Is she aware, for instance, that there are 400 applicants for only 40 places in my county and that a large number of teachers were employed in job creation schemes last winter? Does she realise that this leads to many people in the sixth form who would otherwise have become teachers now withdrawing from doing this and that the number of those intending to go on to teacher training colleges is down to one-sixth of the previous figure obtaining in some schools? Does she realise that this will lead to a serious situation in two or three years' time? What is her reaction to it?

We are anxious that fewer pupils should go into teacher training. We have reduced the number of places. We are anxious, however, to maintain the standards of those who attend teacher training. Nevertheless, we have done what we can, as the hon. Gentleman will know, through the rate support grant settlement, to make more money available for teacher employment. We hope and believe that local authorities will use the money in this way.

Does my hon. Friend agree that future requirements for teaching staff should take into account the need to reduce the size of classes? Will she, therefore, reassure young people who are thinking of entering teaching that there is a worthwhile future ahead of them? Will she also press for the necessary public expenditure to be set aside in order to ensure that we can have smaller classes?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is aware of the widespread concern about the continuing small proportion of students from a manual worker background entering university: and what action she intends to take to resolve the problem.

My right hon. Friend and I fully share this concern. What might be done to increase participation by this group is one of the matters on which my Department has invited views in its recent discussion document "Higher Education into the 1990s". Copies of the document are available in the Library.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that for the last 50 years the proportion of undergraduates with a background of fathers with a manual occupation has remained unchanged at about 20 to 25 per cent.? Does he agree that this eventually percolates through to the higher echelons of the Civil Service, to the great detriment and disadvantage of Labour Governments? Will he consider setting up a working party of sons and daughters of working men to see whether we can seek a remedy to this situation?

I cannot go back 50 years at the moment, but I can confirm that in 1976 24 per cent. of successful university applicants were children of manual workers, and this proportion has tended to decline marginally over the last few years.

Will the Minister confirm that the purpose of our educational system is not to assist Labour Governments? Will he confirm that the Government will bring no pressure on universities to apply any form of positive discrimination regarding non-educational qualifications for entry to universities?

I am not talking about positive discrimination, which can be insulting. However, I am concerned at the type of figure which shows that 50 per cent of the places in universities are taken by occupation groups whose parents represent 25 per cent. of the population. As the university population will inevitably decline in the 1980s because of the decline in the birth rate, universities must pay particular regard to the matter.

I support the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Does not the Minister agree, however, that it is not only the section that he mentions that is at risk? There is also the maintenance of children in sixth forms and children and young people going into further education. The lack of support for them militates particularly against the lower income groups.

My hon. Friend makes a considerable point. The number of applications for universities from this group are less than they would otherwise be. I am concerned that financial considerations should not deter potential higher education students from staying on in full-time education beyond the age of 16. But it is important to recognise that a system of mandatory grants for 16 to 19-yearolds would be very expensive.

I believe I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister will tell me whether this is so—that the proportion in this country is higher than in Europe. It is higher than the proportion in France or Germany. Does the hon. Gentleman have those figures with him?

I do not have the figures with me. The types of education provided in European universities, the staff-student ratio, and so on, are so totally different from our system that it would be misleading to give figures. On all sides of the House, we would be entirely complacent to accept the present figures. Something must be done to improve them.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that most people who send their children to private and so-called public schools do so because the classes are very small and, therefore, the teacher contact with each child is much greater than it is in State schools? Does not this underline that we need to reduce the number of children in our classes, to utilise all the teachers that we have available and to put more money into State education, so that the teachers will have smaller classes and can therefore teach the children better? Does my hon. Friend agree that this would help a great deal to ensure that the sons and daughters of manual workers have greater access to higher education?

It might help somewhat. There is no doubt that class size and performance have a great relationship to each other, but many other factors are involved. I think that my hon. Friend hit upon one of them before, and that is money.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition are as concerned about this matter as any Labour Members? Compassion and social ability are not the monopoly of the Left. Does it not strike the Minister that the decline in the proportional intake to universities from the manual working classes has come at the same time as we have moved to comprehensive schools? These trends may be working in country and small town areas, but may it not be that in down-town areas in the centres of cities social ability has been reduced and that the deprived child from the poor background is not getting the way through that he did with good grammar schools?

That is a travesty of the truth. It is because O-levels and A-levels are now available and open to a much larger range of students than in the past that future prospects look brighter than they otherwise would.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she next plans to meet the chairman of the Science Research Council.

On Thursday, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that that is an encouraging date? Will she take the opportunity of discussing in particular with the chairman of the Science Research Council page 2 of the annual report, which states that the declining budgets which are likely to be available between now and the 1980s could well render the SRC unable to discharge its duties adequately and as it is hoped to do? Will she therefore ensure that in the long term some of the revenue from North Sea oil is diverted to helping hard-pressed British science, because in real terms the decline since 1973 has been far too significant?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about North Sea oil. But he will recognise that since the report was published there has been an increase in real terms in the science budget, and that will be sustained in future years.

On Thursday, will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman to give a view—perhaps prepared over several months—of the effect on the United Kingdom research pattern of the creation of a separate Scottish State?

I had not thought of discussing that matter with the chairman, but I shall certainly consider it in the light of my hon. Friend's representations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has any further plans to provide employment opportunities for unemployed teachers and student teachers who will become qualified in the current year.

In January 1978, 465,000 teachers were in employment in England and Wales, 2,700 more than in September last. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 should enable local education authorities to employ nearly 471,000 teachers next school year—that is, some 11,300 more than would be needed simply to maintain previous policies. In addition, Statutory Instrument No. 422, which was laid before Parliament on 22nd March 1918, provides for the payment of superannuation benefits to certain older teachers who are retired early, which could help to create vacancies for younger teachers.

I appreciate the measures that have been taken by my right hon. Friend. Does she agree, however, that it is absurd that simultaneously we should have the problem of over-size classes and unemployed teachers? In view of the anticipated further redistribution of resources by the Chancellor, will she press him to take steps to make funds available for this purpose?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that over the last three years the pupil-teacher ratio has steadily improved, and our plans indicate that it will continue to improve for at least two years ahead. In addition to the figures that I have already given, there will be vacancies for an additional 2,000 teachers in further education. The numbers of unemployed teachers have fallen from 10,500 in December last to 8,800 in March, which is some improvement.

Does the right hon. Lady nevertheless agree that there has been a tragic waste of young talent here, and does that not pose a deeper question? Is she satisfied that sufficient attention is being given currently in our schools to the gearing of education to the likely job opportunities in the next decade, when we all know that massive changes will have to take place in productive methods and. Indeed, in jobs generally?

Yes, we are very much aware of that. That is one reason why we are encouraging far closer contact between schools and industry. One example in recent weeks has been the discussions that have now started with the Engineering Industry Training Board to see whether some part of the foundation year can be taken in the last year of school, particularly for those boys and girls for whom vocational education is especially attractive.

Has my right hon. Friend had any talks with our right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development with a view to seeing whether some of the unemployed teachers could be persuaded to go overseas to teach English and other subjects in Third world countries?

Yes, some consideration has been given to that matter. A number of teachers are going overseas, not only to teach English, but to help in the setting up of primary school systems—for example, in Fiji.

Does the Secretary of State regret that she has still not found it possible to find a way of getting young trained teachers who are on the job creation scheme into the classroom by the use of those funds? Will not the whole structure of the teaching force in future years be distorted if we miss the best of the intake over these last two years?

On the latter point, we are making provision for additional jobs, particularly to give opportunities to the very able young people who are now trying to enter teaching. I do not believe that a figure of 11,300 more in schools and 2,000 more in further education is too shameful against an unemployment figure of 8,800.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the current level of adult literacy.

No, Sir, and that is why I am glad that provision for adult literacy is becoming a firmly established part of educational provision.

In view of the fact that our schools are passing out young adults 15 per cent. of whom are estimated to lack basic literacy, is it not time for a new initiative in the basic skills in schools?

They could not have been doing so very well in the past judging by the scale of adult literacy provision that we have had to make over the last two or three years. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, performances in schools are being looked at. We have sent out a questionnaire to local education authorities, replies to which will come in the summer, asking particularly what kind of provision is made in the teaching of English and so on.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the resources for adult literacy and numeracy courses, and, indeed, for Russell priority courses as they affect the local education authority sector, largely go through the rate support grant, we shall have patchy provision? Does he further agree that some authorities will adopt what would not be the Government's priorities—for example, my local education authority, with its absurd and offensive course on fox hunting?

I certainly would not want the money to go on fox hunting. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the overwhelming number of authorities, which are democratically elected, are aware of their responsibilities in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which education authorities have not yet complied with the Education Act 1976; if any such authorities are using delaying tactics in failing to submit acceptable plans for comprehensive education: and if she will make a statement.

Of the 38 authorities required to submit proposals for all or part of their areas, only six have not yet complied. Of those, I expect proposals shortly from Barnet, where only one school is involved, Walsall, two schools, and Shropshire, in respect of Newport. Proposals from Birmingham are delayed pending the outcome of my legal proceedings against the authority. The other two are Kirklees and Redbridge. I am aware of the possibility of delaying tactics and shall continue to use my powers under the Education Acts to ensure that the intentions of Parliament are carried out.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Party has repeated continually at the Dispatch Box that it is in favour of comprehensive education but that very few people agree that it is saying what it really believes? Does she also agree that a certain degree of firmness needs to be taken at this stage with those authorities which are clearly using delaying tactics and which were confident a short time ago that they would see a Conservative Government? Finally, does she agree that their hearts must have dropped recently because that chance is now receding somewhat?

I find myself a little puzzled. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that the Conservative Party is the best friend of the comprehensive schools. His hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said that it will defend the remaining grammar schools and bring them back. The hon. Member for Brent, North, in the Black Paper, also said that comprehensive schools and grammar schools were not compatible one with the other. Perhaps one of these days we shall know where the Conservative Party stands.

Will the Secretary of State direct her attention to Cheshire? is she aware that her interference in that county's plans to go comprehensive by the issue of a directive in recent weeks has created complete chaos because a number of young people who had been assessed for selective education can no longer be allocated places in selective schools and there are inadequate places in the secondary sector if the county is to provide places in secondary schools which are within reasonable distance of the young pupils' homes?

Cheshire was warned in a circular a long time ago that we should not approve the continuation of taking up places in selective schools. The hon. Member expressed concern about whether, when a child has entered a system of education in a selective school, we shall continue to support that child until his education has finished. Yes, we have always taken the view that we shall continue to support that child until his education is finished. The hon. Member will be receiving a reply from me to that effect shortly

Will my right hon. Friend direct her attention to Avon and the position in the Kingswood constituency? I am of the opinion that the 1976 Act is not being complied with in this connection. Will my right hon. Friend examine the situation and perhaps take some action?

We have recently written to Avon about some of the aspects of its comprehensive organisation. We are now awaiting a reply from that authority.

Does the Secretary of State agree that although local education authorities are bound to obey the law they are under no duty to fill in the gaps in the law which have been so trenchantly exposed by Mrs. Caroline Wedgwood Benn? Would not the Secretary of State be better employed in seeking to raise standards in all our schools instead of using all her efforts to destroy selective schools of proven academic worth?

I am determined to improve standards. But the worst thing that could possibly happen to the schools is the continuation of the constant battle in which the Opposition engage. The best way to improve standards is to settle once and for all the question of comprehensive reorganisation which has advanced so far under Governments of both parties in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce legislation to integrate the public schools into the pattern of comprehensive secondary education.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so but remains firmly committed to the long-term aim in our manifesto of phasing out fee paying in schools.

Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a disappointing reply? Surely there is a consensus in the House for the concept of equality of educational opportunity. Should we not therefore bring forward legislative proposals, with the support of the Opposition, to integrate the public schools so that we end the system whereby 10 times more resources are concentrated on the children of the privileged than on ordinary children? Is my hon. Friend aware that the privileged children then qualify for State subsidies in the form of higher education?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is not easy to work out legislative proposals for doing what he suggests. I am sorry to tell him that there can be no prospect of the Conservative Party supporting legislation which is designed to ensure equality of opportunity in our education system. Plainly, the Conservative Party is devoted to the opposite view.

Will the Minister make it plain whether it is still the Labour Party's policy to make the provision of private education a criminal offence? Will she be warned by the fate of her right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who enunciated that policy some years ago and has since sunk without trace?

There is no suggestion of making this a criminal offence. As for the fate of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should be happy to emulate it.

Could my hon. Friend make a little progress in this area by ensuring that, where the State provides money for boarding education through the Armed Services and the Diplomatic Corps, the grants are paid at a rate which will encourage the taking up of places in the maintained sector rather than at an inflated rate which serves only to perpetuate the public schools?

We are considering this matter. We are anxious to do all that we can for the maintained sector of boarding education.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that if she and the Government wish to phase out fee-paying schools the simple and easy way to do it is to raise standards in the maintained sector so that parents no longer wish to pay large sums of money to have their children educated privately?

I agree that many parents are sadly deluded into thinking that one receives a better education if one pays for it. Unfortunately, an examination of the standards of many of the independent schools does not bear out that contention.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18th April 1978.

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

Has the Prime Minister had time today to see the Press reports which show that 977 officers are queueing to leave the Army? Is he aware that this figure represents the officer strength of 30 battalions and that the Royal Air Force may be short of 200 pilots by 1980? Is the Prime Minister aware of the disgust within the Armed Services at the Government's attitude to pay and conditions? Is he aware that this is masked only by their sense of discipline and high sense of duty?

Yes, I have seen these interesting reports. They seem to me to be a piece of very useful information that someone has managed to get out during the period when the Government are considering this matter of pay. I congratulate the person whose initiative it was. We shall continue to consider the matter and we shall bring the answer before the House in due course.

I fully appreciate the extensive nature of my right hon. Friend's commitments for today, but will he try to find a little time to talk to the delegation of councillors from Sunderland who are lobbying Ministers at Westminster this week? If my right hon. Friend is not able to do that, will he give urgent consideration to making an early visit to Wearside and the North-East to discuss these problems at greater length?

I am aware of the request by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for me to receive a deputation, but it seems better that I should receive a deputation from the North-East as a whole. That is what I propose to do.

May I press the Prime Minister a little further on the question which was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)? Is he aware that those figures reveal an appalling situation in response to the Pay Review Body's decision last year and that about 7,600 people have either left the Armed Forces or have applied to leave as a result of last year's pay review? Will he agree to look at this pay claim on merit, not within the 10 per cent. guideline, otherwise we shall be in danger of having some equipment without people to service it properly?

I am yet not sure what is the authority for these figures as no official announcement has been made. Clearly, someone has thought that it might help the pay claim if he produced them at this stage. I am unable to comment on whether or not they are accurate. If the Opposition know that they are accurate, perhaps they will tell me where they got the information. I should be interested to hear.

What is your answer?

The general position of the pay claim of the Armed Forces will be considered, as it is being considered, and an answer will be given to the House, against the background of all the other pay claims, the responsibility of the Government for the defence of the country and every other factor that must be taken into account before a decision is reached.

Is the Prime Minister saying that those figures are inaccurate or is he merely stalling? If they are accurate, is he prepared to take them into account in finalising the Armed Forces' pay claim?

I am saying that the figures have not been officially issued. I am not aware whether they are right or wrong. I am making inquiries about that. I believe that they were produced extremely fortuitously. I say for the third time that I shall be interested to see whether they are right or wrong. If they are right, it shows that there are better opportunities in civilian life than there are in the Armed Forces, or that many people think so. That is a factor that must be taken into account.

May I ask the Prime Minister about Press reports on an entirely different matter? Do any of his meetings with his ministerial colleagues today relate to the Government assisting the passage of the Protection of Children Bill? If he could say something about that, it would be widely welcomed in all parts of the House.

I regret very much that the progress of that Bill was impeded. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is now considering the matter to see what assistance can be given to ensure that, with the will of the House, it gets to the statute book. Where there is, as I understand it, an overwhelming view by the House, not a divided view—and I believe that this is what nearly everyone, it not everyone, wants—that the Bill should reach the statute book, I believe that the Government should do their best to help.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although that Bill should be given a fair wind, so also should the Bill which is being piloted through by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher)? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Leader of the House to provide time for my hon. Friend's Bill too?

Whatever sympathies I may have with these Bills, I think it is necessary to be careful about interfering with Private Members' time and saying that the Government must take responsibility for every Bill that does not manage to get through the House. I favour my hon. Friend's Bill, but there is a big division of opinion about it— although it may involve only a small number of people—and, therefore, I do not think that the Government have the same responsibility there as they have in the case of the Protection of Children Bill

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

I have at present no plans to visit Porthmadog much as I should like to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in Porthmadog this winter the unemployment rate has been up to 15 per cent. and has worsened as a result of the Government's regional policies, particularly the withdrawal of REP? Is he further aware that during this period unemployment in Sweden stood at 2·1 per cent., in Austria 1·7 per cent. and in Norway 0·8 per cent.? Will he, therefore, stop peddling the myth that unemployment is a uniform problem in all Western countries?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like. It so happens that the Government's measures have been of great assistance to Wales in the matter of employment, and that includes the investments made by the Welsh Development Agency. It is fair to say, especially on the basis of the results of a by-election last week, that the people of this country understand that the Labour Government are the best party capable of looking after the interests of the unemployed.

As well as making his regular visits to South Wales, will my right hon. Friend travel to North Wales and refer the people there to the splendid victory at Garscadden, when nationalism was completely rejected? Will he advise the people of North Wales that, if the problem of unemployment is to be dealt with, it will be done by maintaining the economic and political unity of the people of these islands?

Yes, I have no doubt about that, and no more has the Labour Party in Wales. If Plaid Cymru insists on independence, it will be rebuffed in Wales as the SNP was at Garscadden.

The people of Wales are very anxious to say "No" in the referendum vote on the Welsh Assembly. Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a danger that we shall not reach today or tomorrow the amendment to the Wales Bill dealing with the 40 per cent. requirement for the referendum which is now in the Scotland Bill?

If the hon. Gentleman is right that people are anxious to say "No", no doubt we shall have the assistance of himself and all other hon. Members in getting the Bill through so that the people may take full advantage of the opportunity to do so.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 18th April.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

During a busy day, will my right hon. Friend have time to consider the rather sinister news that the Opposition appear to believe that a major priority, if they should ever form an Administration, should be to devote the best brains in Whitehall to beefing up the Contingency Planning Unit in order to defeat the trade unions in any confrontation which might arise? Is it not highly significant that the only planning that the Opposition believe in is planning of this destructive kind?

I am not responsible for these Press reports, and I do not know whether the Opposition's attitude in these matters is sinister or naive. I do know that they do not understand the trade union movement. However, this is an interesting development. I suggest in all seriousness to the Opposition that they might consider publishing this report in order to avoid any sinister implications being put upon it.

Will the Prime Minister spare us a little of his expertise on these matters since it was he who became the first Prime Minister for many years to use troops for strike breaking, as he did during the fire brigade strike? Is he aware that we regard him as a bit of an expert on using troops for strike breaking and even in getting the approval of his hon. Friends to do so?

Sunk without trace.

I should like to deny the allegation that there were cries of "Author" when the hon. Gentleman rose to his feet to deal with this report. It is fair to say, however, that on the whole the Conservative Party tends in its dealings with the trade unions to be aggressive when it should be accommodating and to be timid when it should be bold. If the Conservatives would like me to hold a seminar on this question, I should be happy to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me as one who did not support him in his attempt to defeat the firemen that I should like him to turn his attention to another very important matter of saving jobs? Is he aware that the Minister of Agriculture is meeting the Bakers Union representatives today with a view to saving 4,200 jobs which will be lost because of the recent agreement to close down Spillers? Is he aware that the argument about spare capacity is no longer acceptable to these men? They are being asked to work 12-hour instead of 8-hour shifts. Is my right hon. Friend aware that from 22nd April, if these jobs are not saved, there will be an overtime ban in the baking industry?

I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend would not want to spread the belief that the firemen were defeated. They were not. They had an increase of 10 per cent. plus a pledge that their conditions would be brought up to the proper level over a two-year period. That was not a defeat but was a fair settlement for everybody. I hope that the information my hon. Friend gave me about the bakers will be brought out in the discussions with Ministers. That is the appropriate place for it to be discussed.

Is it not absurd and derogatory to this House that, unlike any other Minister, the Prime Minister should be expected to answer without notice questions of detailed fact? If this sort of programme is required, would it not be better on the radio?

It is true that the character of Prime Minister's Questions—I do not know about the answers—has changed over a period of years. They seem to have become much more an opportunity to make party points and to reply to them than used to be the case. I regret that development. As far as I can, I try to prepare myself for it as long as the House wishes to do it in that way, but I believe that there is a better way of spending 15 minutes.

If my right hon. Friend manages to find time to meet the Spillers company, will he tell it that as a result of its ruthless action in sacking 8,000 men without notice—many of them in my constituency—there will be acute shortages of bread all over Britain? Will the Government now lean on this firm to reopen negotiations about the closing of those bakeries?

I shall refer what my hon. Friend said to the appropriate Ministers and they must take due note of it.

As there is a great deal of today still left, will the Prime Minister return to 10 Downing Street and ask questions about the position in the Armed Forces? If what is stated is true, it is tragic that men who have served and acquired the necessary expertise for a modern army are now leaving it. Is he aware that it will create a desperate situation in the future unless this man drain is stopped?

The hon. Gentleman need have no fears. As soon as I saw this report on the tape at 1 o'clock, I asked that inquiries should be made. I did not have the replies by the time I came here at 2.30. I shall have the reply and we shall be able to check and see. [Interruption.] I work during the morning and do not spend the morning reading the tape. I saw it at 1 o'clock.