asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received from Staffordshire county council on the question of the supply of milk to the 7 to 11-yearolds.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am not surprised by the answer to my Question? Is she further aware that for reasons of pure political spite the Tory-controlled Staffordshire county council, against the wishes of parents and against the health interests of children, is refusing to supply school milk? Does she agree that the education of Staffordshire children is far too important to be left to the Neanderthals of the Staffordshire county education committee? What powers will she take to enable us to provide children with milk?

To take powers to enable us to provide milk would require legislation, for which there seems to be little time left in this Session. I agree that it is most undesirable that many counties have reacted as Staffordshire has reacted. It makes one wonder whether they fear the advent of a Tory Government dedicated to cutting public expenditure.

Is the Minister aware that any child between the ages of 7 and 11 who is in need in Staffordshire now receives free school milk? Is she also aware that the cost to the ratepayer of providing free school milk to schoolchildren between the ages of 7 and 11 regardless of need would be £450,000? Is she aware that that was not even done by the Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council?

It is a pity that Staffordshire has not acquainted the hon. Member with the facts. It will not cost Staffordshire one penny this year to give free milk to all 7 to 11-year-olds in the county. That is because the Government and the EEC are prepared jointly to subsidise this.

How many children in Staffordshire have been deprived of school milk because of the decision by the Staffordshire county council? How many more children are being deprived of milk because of the bandwagon effect of this decision throughout the rest of the country? Will my hon. Friend consider giving additional powers to Labour-controlled district councils which wish to provide milk and which have done so in the past?

Any changes in the proposals require legislation. I cannot tell my hon. Friend offhand how many children are affected, but every child between the age of 7 and 11 in Staffordshire will be deprived of milk because of the decision. Every child living in an area controlled by a Conservative county council which has made a similar decision will also be deprived.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State does not wish to mislead the House. She must be aware that, although the milk will be free for two terms, after that the cost to the local authority will be about 3p per pint. Will she consider sending some constructive advice to local education authorities about how they can use this subsidy to improve the nutritional content of school meals?

We have already done what the hon. Member asked for in the last part of his supplementary question. I said specifically that the milk was free for two terms and that after that there will be the question of the rate support grant. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) cannot have been listening, because that is exactly what I said. The cost is likely to be about 1p per day per child.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied that the current systems of transfer to secondary schools encourage parents of children at primary schools to encourage their children to high levels of achievement.

It is now increasingly common for schools and local education authorities to encourage and help parents to encourage their children to high levels of achievement. Close and easy contacts between teachers and parents are particularly valuable. Arrangements for transfer from primary schools to secondary schools vary from area to area and are not normally important in this context, though I want to see the closest possible contact between schools at the transfer stage.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in inner London at least, many parents have discovered that their children are more likely to go to the school of their first choice if they do no work during the last year at primary school? Is she satisfied with that, and will she encourage second and third-choice schools to make themselves more appropriate to parents who think that their children have academic needs which could be met if the school made academic provision?

The hon. Member's question is puzzling, because the Inner London Education Authority makes provision for children to take O and A-levels in virtually all its schools. In Greenwich, although there is no deficiency of places, Inner London has gone out of its way to provide additional places at schools favoured by parents.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that slanders on the education system are not uncommon and that vastly more parents are deeply interested in their children's educational welfare and in encouraging their children than ever before? Does she agree that this number is increasing continually, in spite of what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) has implied?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is worth saying that there is objective evidence for it. The national primary survey indicates that the tests of reading taken last year—the last time they were done—were the highest since 1955. It is time that that was put on the record in this House.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the kind of answer she has given is unnecessarily complacent? Is she aware that there is tremendous concern about standards in the schools, and will she think once again about the desirability of universal testing, not as a means of deciding on transfer but to ensure that we know what the standards are and can do everything we can to raise them?

On the first part of the question, if the hon. Gentleman will give credit where it is due I shall take his criticisms more seriously. On the second part, according to the national primary survey, children in classes covering a wide range of the curriculum in primary schools did better in the tests than those where the curriculum was restricted to the three Rs.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have given her notice that they intend to implement the voucher scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have informed her Department that they intend to adopt a voucher scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations she has received about the introduction of education voucher schemes.

In the past two months I have received seven letters about education vouchers: three from members of the public, and one each from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), the Kent county Labour Party and the East Kent branch of the Socialist Educational Association. I have had no official notification that any local education authority intends to adopt a voucher scheme, but I understand that Kent is planning to do so experimentally following the feasibility study that it has conducted, which was published last month.

Does my right hon. Friend expect that, if the Kent scheme goes ahead, the district auditor will be looking closely at the handing over to parents of large sums of ratepayers' money, supported as it is by taxpayers' money from the rate support grant? Does she expect the councillors there perhaps to be disqualified, as happened in the case of the Clay Cross councillors who took certain local decisions and were dealt with in that fashion? Does she also expect, if, for instance, £500 were handed over to parents, that the payment would be subject to tax as part of the parents' total income, taking into account that some of those parents might well have sent their children to public schools anyway?

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the tax matter.

Yes, I have.

I would not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has indicated the costs of these schemes. On a bare assessment, within the maintained area alone the cost would be between £90,000 and £600,000 a year for one division of Kent—the Ashford division. If, however, the scheme was extended to take in independent schools as well, as many voucher advocates wish, the sums involved would be very much greater and could be nationally as much as £400 million to £500 million. I cannot believe that this is a proper use of public money, particularly in the case of a county which has one of the lower pupil-teacher ratios and one of the lowest levels of provision of nursery and under-fives education.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is a very strange concept of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity when the choice of certain schools and expenditure on the voucher scheme will depend for many children on the depth of their parents' pockets—and they are the sort of people who hide behind corporate greed which is represented by the Tory Party? Does she agree that it is a misuse of the concepts of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity, to which we all subscribe? Does she further agree that it is a travesty of the English language to describe the voucher schemes in such terms?

I understand the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling. If we care most about the standards of education for all our children—and I hope we do—we should spend the money on additional teachers, on more books and teaching materials and on better buildings, not on ludicrous administrative expenditure for voucher schemes.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that education will play a significant role in the next General Election? Will she therefore make it clear to the country that voucher schemes are just another example of the selfish and socially divisive policies of the Tory Party? Will she confirm that this scheme on a national basis would mean a massive increase in public expenditure advocated by the Tory Party, which is constantly preaching the doctrine of cutting public expenditure?

As I have indicated, the scheme would mean considerable increases in public expenditure which would not be directly related to the quality of the education system. That would be even more true if the extension of voucher schemes included many thousands of parents who now pay to send their children to independent schools. In fairness to the Conservative Party I must say that we have no idea yet whether it is for, against, or divided on the question of voucher schemes.

As the Minister has agreed this afternoon that more parents are deeply interested in their children's education than ever before, will she now give credit where it is due and agree that it is desirable that parents should have the right to choose where their children should go to school? Will she congratulate the Kent county council on doing her work for her in introducing a pilot scheme to see how the arrangement would work?

It is very doubtful whether the Kent scheme would be an efficient or effective way of increasing parental choice. Both the feasibility study and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) have indicated publicly that this is a doubtful way of extending or improving parental choice.

Is not one of the singular attractions of the voucher scheme precisely that it may be available to subsidise children at private schools? Is not this another illustration of the Conservatve Party favouring privileged education as long as it is open only to the wealthy and is subsidised by the taxpayer and ratepayer?

I am concerned not only with voucher schemes, on which the Conservative Party may well be divided, but with the prospect of assisted places and aided schemes on which it is at one. It seems to me that we shall see the diversion of public money in education towards the education of a small minority and away from the education of the vast bulk of our children.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that Labour Members who criticise this scheme cannot have read it in detail? Why does she not encourage some new ideas in education?

I have said before that the study on the voucher scheme is sensible and carefully thought out, but I believe that if the hon. Gentleman had read it, as I have done, he would not be able to conclude from it that the report came out wholly or even largely in favour of such a system, if, indeed, it is feasible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us on the Conservative side commend the radical thinking of the Kent county council and the careful thought of the feasibility study, which was conducted before the decision was made to go ahead with the voucher scheme, which increases parental choice and apparently causes hysteria to half of the Labour Party? Is she also aware that the careful way in which Kent county council is introducing the scheme contrasts with the way in which the Labour Party brought in compulsory comprehensive reorganisation, which was done without any survey or assessment and, according to her speech of 12th July, it is not still clear whether that reorganisation is successful?

The hon. Gentleman argued in favour of a voucher scheme in his pamphlet entitled "Parental Choice" which was published in January 1975. But the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said on "Panorama" that

"an experiment is going to be quite expensive and if it was introduced generally it would cost a lot of money, and that creates great difficulties because of our policy of keeping public expenditure within bounds."

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to conclude her discussion on the discretionary awards system.

The Council of Local Education Authorities has decided, with the support of my Department, to conduct a fundamental review of policy on discretionary awards for advanced courses, in the light of the Department's recent survey and the comments of its own members. I understand that the first meeting of its working party will be on Thursday 20th July and that it aims to complete the review before the end of the year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that many students who wish to take courses in accountancy, law, nursing and the arts are unable to do so because they are deprived of finance from local authorities because of discretionary awards systems failures? Will he divert the money which it is planned to spend on keeping sixth formers at school into providing these longer-term courses for these particular students?

Regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am aware of the difficulty, particularly over the past 12 months when the number of such awards has in fact been reduced and when, according to the population, it ought to have increased. As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in previous Questions, there is the problem of awards for performers, which also gives me considerable concern. I hope that the CLEA working party will look into all the aspects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the case which was taken up with his right hon. Friend about the youngster from St. Helens who is on £10 per week unemployment benefit and who, when he returns to college to take a 12-months course, is to receive £1 per week as a discretionary award from the local education authority? This is less than the cost of the bus fares between his home and the college. What is my hon. Friend's Department prepared to do about that?

Discretionary awards are exactly what their title suggests. They are discretionary on the local education authority. I hope, however, that this matter of a very low rate of award, which is really an insignificant amount, is one of the matters that the CLEA working party will look into.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of children is currently being educated in comprehensive schools.

In January 1977 about 80 per cent. of pupils attended maintained comprehensive schools in England and Wales. I regret that provisional figures are not yet available for 1978.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on encouraging the development of comprehensive education. Will my right hon. Friend continue the policy of giving all our children the opportunity to develop their abilities and aptitudes to the utmost, and reject completely the schemes now coming forward from the Opposition, such as the development of voucher schemes, or Green Shield stamp schemes, which would give opportunities to certain children and deny them to the vast majority?

Yes. What encourages me a great deal is that as the process of change settles down and more comprehensive schools have experience of working with groups of all abilities, so the standards in our schools continually improve. I believe that this will be very helpful to us in the future.

In reply to that last question, the right hon. Lady suggested that at the moment some schools are not able to cope with all types of children. May I refer her back to her rather belligerent argument in reply to my supplementary question on Question No. 2 and ask whether she is satisfied that some parents are getting the sort of school that they believe is appropriate for their child because they have encouraged their child to work hard—for example, a top ability child? The question I am putting is not a partisan one but a straightforward question about which most parents are concerned.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point in the spirit in which he makes it. The inspectors have looked very carefully at the whole question of the education of the gifted child and have made certain quite precise recommendations on that matter, as they have in the case of the child who needs remedial education. We are persuaded that where schools have viable sixth forms it is possible to provide the kind of education that will take a child up to university education, and beyond, within a comprehensive system.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is precisely the future of sixth forms in Liverpool about which parents and teachers are most concerned because of the present proposals of the Liberal-Tory coalition in Liverpool? If those proposals were carried through, they would greatly damage the concept of sixth forms, particularly in the northern part of Liverpool, such as Walton and elsewhere. In regard to the closure of the Paddington comprehensive school, which is the only all-purpose comprehensive school in the city, what representation has my right hon. Friend had, apart from that which I have given to her, and what is her attitude to this matter?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has, I understand, seen a deputation on some of the matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We are aware that there is concern in the area. We are very anxious to make sure that in Liverpool, as elsewhere, there is an opportunity for youngsters to go to sixth forms. In some cases that means that there will have to be a sixth form of sufficient size to make that possible.

When the Secretary of State considers the possibility of a future extension of the comprehensive system throughout the country, will she be prepared to consider, without the benefit of political dogma, the mounting evidence of the low performance of comprehensive schools, as was given earlier this year, for example, by the results of the Institute of Mathematics tests? They showed very clearly that the schools in Buckinghamshire, which are secondary modern schools without "the benefit of comprehensivisation", are far better both in performance and in terms of attendance than the other schools. Will the right hon. Lady take account of this in her future policy towards comprehensivisation?

The hon. Gentleman raises a very large point and I shall try to deal with it briefly. There are variations in the standards achieved by children according, to some extent, to the catchment area of the school, and no one would deny that. An inner city school will find it more difficult to achieve high academic standards than one in leafy Buckinghamshire. We have never quarrelled with that. If the hon. Gentleman will make fair comparisons, I would draw his attention to the comparative studies, which are the only ones I know of, made in Sussex, Leicestershire and Sheffield, all of which indicate that a settled comprehensive system—I bet that the hon. Gentleman has seen none of them; he simply shakes his head—has produced results at least as good as, and in many cases better than, the selective system which preceded it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she has taken to recommend confidentiality for recipients of free school meals.

This matter has been brought to the attention of local education authorities on many occasions. In circular 3/78, which was issued in January this year, my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of trying to avoid practices which would allow pupils receiving free meals to be identified by other pupils.

Will the Minister draw to the attention of the few schools which still openly differentiate between recipients of paid and free school meals the many that now organise this properly and with discretion?

We are always willing to do so when any such cases are drawn to our attention. Occasionally it is the case that such allegations are made and they are proved to be not altogether accurate. Certainly they are always investigated and followed up with care.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the intention may be, there is a great deal of difference between the way in which schools handle the matter of free school meals? Is it not about time that this country found a different way of financing school meals than by forcing children to pay or not pay, as the case may be? Will she, therefore, set up a working party to study some alternatives?

I think that many of the questions about financing school meals have been gone into fairly thoroughly in the past, but I shall consider my hon. Friend's advice.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many senior officials of her Department are employed within the Northern region.

One assistant secretary, who is head of my Department's pensions branch and controller of the Darlington site. In addition, 20 members of Her Majesty's inspectorate have their headquarters in the region.

Leaving aside the gentleman who is responsible for pensions on a national basis, may I ask whether the Minister recognises that the centralised nature of his Department causes concern to bodies in the Northern region, including the economic planning council, which find it much easier to get other Departments which have regional offices to coordinate their policies in the light of regional needs and feel that the headquarters-based Department of Education and Science is much more difficult to fit into that framework?

My right hon. Friend and I met the chairmen of the regional authorities a short time ago. Recently my right hon. Friend has written to the chairman of the Northern region. The difficulty is that our Department does not have a regional base in the same way that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry have. But we have undertaken that, whenever education is a substantial Dart of the agenda of the regional council meeting, senior administrators from the Department will attend.

I congratulate the Minister on the fact that his Department does not have a regional base and does not employ an excessive number of civil servants.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and surprised by his remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice her Department is giving to local education authorities on the problem of falling school rolls.

My Department's advice is contained in circular 5/77, "Falling Numbers and School Closures", which was issued in June last year.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most serious aspects of this problem is the calculation or the estimate that primary school rolls may fall by as much as one-third over the period 1973 to 1986? In view of that, is her Department considering one or two imaginative proposals such as the idea of interchange of teachers between schools?

Yes, we are looking at all the aspects of falling rolls and all the solutions which might be adopted to cope with the ensuing difficulties.

What advantage has been taken of lower school rolls to improve the teacher-pupil ratio? What advantage have local education authorities taken of the improved rate support grant settlement to appoint more teachers?

We do not have the final figures on the advantage that authorities have taken of the extra money that we have given them to employ more teachers, but it is our understanding that so far it appears that this money is being used for that purpose—which clearly we are pleased about.

Is the Minister aware that despite falling rolls in London, as a result, I suppose, of comprehensivisation, the selection procedures by ability adopted by the Inner London Education Authority mean that in some cases a pupil, for instance, in band 1 cannot go to a neighbouring school which does not have vacancies in band 1 but has vacancies in band 2 or band 3 and is directed to travel for perhaps half an hour or an hour by bus in order to attend a school which has vacancies in band 1? Is the hon. Lady aware of the great deal of parental misery that this is causing?

As those who are living in selective counties could tell the hon. Member, any process of selection usually involves inconvenience and travelling. However, it is my understanding that the system that the ILEA adopts achieves about 90 per cent. parental satisfaction in school choice—a higher percentage than anywhere else in the country.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure, before she agrees to any school closures as a result of falling rolls, that local authorities which propose closures have expanded their provision of nursery education?

It is not within my power to ensure that, but certainly questions of that kind are taken into account when we consider proposals for school closures.

Will the Minister consider three ways in which falling school rolls could help in education? First, where schools have to close, those that close should be the schools in which parents have no confidence and not simply those with the oldest buildings. Secondly, now that we have to recruit fewer teachers, we could raise the academic standards among those we are recruiting. Thirdly, more space could be given in certain schools which have been overcrowded for years in the middle of our cities.

My understanding is that space is already becoming available in schools in our cities which have been overcrowded for years. With regard to the question of academic standards of the teaching profession, we have already taken a number of steps on this matter, which—sadly—were not taken by the previous Conservative Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to make known her decisions on the recommendations of the Oakes report.

In the next two or three months.

Does the right hon. Lady envisage thereafter a period of consultation, so that her decisions can be widely discussed?

Yes, indeed. My understanding is that already consideration is being given to some aspects of the report with the Council of Local Education Authorities. We are at present receiving a great many submissions on the report, which will be carefully considered before the Government give their final conclusions on the matter.

Concerning higher education, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people feel that our universities are not accountable in terms of the funds they receive from the public purse, and that vice-chancellors at universities quite often have a very bad reputation in terms of industrial relations, industrial democracy and safety? Will my right hon. Friend institute some kind of inquiry into the whole set-up in our universities?

On the first part of the question, I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend, because I think that the universities in Britain have maintained an international standard in a way that some others have not. With regard to the second part of the question, however, I think that the vice-chancellors and university authorities should give very careful attention to the involvement of their staffs, both teaching and non-teaching, in the administration of universities. That is a matter that I hope they will pursue in the light of the White Paper and other progress made by the Government in this respect.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be wrong to prejudge the decision of this House and that, as legislation will be needed to implement the recommendations of the Oakes report, the stories that she intends to set up a shadow system in the meantime, before she gets the legislation, are quite wrong?

On the first part of the question, it was not our initiative but that of the Council of Local Education Authorities which led to the consideration of preliminary work on the establishment of regional bodies, but it has been made quite clear by the council and ourselves that this will in no way prejudice the conclusions about the report, nor can it do so. Secondly, I would welcome, and so would my hon. Friend the Minister of State, a discussion and debate in the House when time is available.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of the number of secondary schools which do not provide careers advice for their pupils; and what proportion this represents of the total number of secondary schools in England and Wales.

No recent survey has been made, but my Department's circular on local education authority curricular arrangements asked authorities to report on their activities for encouraging and facilitating careers education and guidance in schools. The need for further departmental action will be reviewed in the light of consultations based on the replies to that circular.

When my hon. Friend has those consultations, will she make it transparently clear to chief education officers and careers officers that there must be even more and better liaison between the pupils themselves, the pupils' parents, local industrialists, higher sections of education, and trade union officials in the areas involved?

I certainly accept my hon. Friend's contention. We believe that as much information as posible should be available early in a pupil's career before subject choices are made, and certainly that parents should be involved as much as possible.

What estimate has the hon. Lady made about the amount of time per year in which each secondary school pupil actually has the benefit of careers education and guidance?

We shall be able to make such an estimate in a more informed way when we have the replies to the circular which is asking precisely that kind of question.

asked the Secretary of of State for Education and Science what action she intends to take in the light of the Warnock report on the education of handicapped children and young people.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to conclude discussions on action to be taken to implement the statement in the Warnock Committee's report that one in five children needs special educational help.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to conclude her discussions on any changes in the current arrangements for the education of handicapped children, consequential upon the publication of Mrs. Warnock's report, Command Paper No. 7212, May 1978.

My right hon. Friend announced on 24th May the Government's intention to consult widely before reaching decisions on the Warnock Committee's findings. A consultative document will be sent to a wide range of interests shortly inviting replies by 28th February 1979. Meantime my Department and the Welsh Office, in conjunction with other Departments concerned, will be conducting their own study of the report's recommendations and suggestions.

Will the Secretary of State and the other Ministers in considering this report, give particular attention to the importance, which I think comes out strongly in the report, of education for the under-fives who are handicapped, which is even more important than it is for the under-fives generally?

I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. It has been a priority of my Department for some time, when funds for under-fives have been short, to make them available particularly to people of this kind.

Does the Minister accept that, desirable though it is to aim at the integration of handicapped pupils with normal pupils in normal schools, a point is reached on the scale of handicap when special schools remain very important? Does she accept also that Mrs. Warnock and her colleagues rather blurred this point and suggested that special schools were not as important as, I believe, they are?

I accept that there may be particular varieties or degrees of handicap which cannot be coped with in ordinary schools, but it has been my experience that whenever I have concluded that a particular group, say, is so involved, I have then come across examples of successful integration. If the Warnock Committee was not more definite on this, I suspect that it was because the committee did not want to rule out future developments which might make it invalid.

Does my hon. Friend agree or not agree that the reform of special education is of such importance as to warrant detailed consultations and the provision of adequate resources? Does she not agree that some local authorities are now rushing into reform as a money-saving device as a result of section 10? Will she urge them to make haste slowly?

I accept that the proper preparations and resources are necessary before such a change can be made. I have little evidence that many local authorities are proceeding in this direction already without such preparation, but I shall study any such cases which are brought to my attention.

Does not the hon. Lady agree that education of the handicapped should be among the highest priorities of any Government? What plans does her Department have for giving parents the right of access to the records of their children's education and a right of appeal against a decision of the local authority about their children's education?

It is my understanding that it is rarely the case that parents of handicapped children do not have both the right of appeal and the right of veto over what should happen to their children's education. As for information and school records, the hon. Gentleman will know that the recommendations of Warnock about the keeping of detailed records are a little at variance with some representations that we have had recently. However, these are among the questions that we shall be considering with care.

Mr. Ovenden, Question No. 15.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question No. 14 was taken with No. 13.

I apologise to the hon. Member. It is just that he usually sits in a different place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great feeling of unrest among the parents of children who will require special treatment and teaching? Is she not further aware that to give local authorities this grave responsibility is asking too much? Will she therefore use her power and influence to ensure that children who require special education shall have that opportunity? When there are so many teachers out of work, can we not run special courses in this respect for those teachers?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, and I will consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her latest estimate of the number of teachers who will be unemployed after the commencement of the autumn 1978 school term.

In June 7,024 men and women registered as unemployed were seeking work as school teachers in England and Wales, a fall of 1,828 since March. As the determining factors are so uncertain, it is not possible to forecast teacher unemployment in 1978–79.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of teacher unemployment could be substantially reduced if authorities with higher than average pupil-teacher ratios devoted their resources to employing teachers and improving their educational services rather than frittering their money away on irrelevancies such as voucher schemes? Is she aware, for instance, that Kent county council intends to spend about £600,000 on an experimental voucher system while at the same time imposing on the Hoo middle comprehensive school in my constituency a pupil-teacher ratio worse than the national average for primary schools?

I am glad to say that the overall pupil-teacher ratios in England in both primary and secondary schools last year were the best ever attained, but there are still some authorities, like my hon. Friend's authority, which have not reached the average and which could certainly employ more teachers. We have provided in the rate support grant this year for 11,300 additional teaching posts. I hope that authorities which have not yet taken up their share will reconsider and do so as quickly as possible.

When shall we see the next set of regulations to enable teachers to retire early with their bene- fits? Would not that be a way of providing occupation for newly qualified teachers?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have promulgated the first set of regulations with regard to the retirement of teachers. The more difficult second group, which involves superannuation enhancement, will, we hope, be laid before the recess.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 18th July.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with members of the general council of the Trades Union Congress.

I am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to take note of the sweet-talking speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend to a gathering of Asian immigrants and note the sharp and cynical contrast between the tone and content of that speech and the "shock horror" television statement she made some weeks earlier, averring that the country was being swamped with Asian immigrants? Will he—

Order. It will save time if I make this point early. If the hon. Gentleman will ask the Prime Minister questions on matters for which he has responsibility, that will help us all.

Has my right hon. Friend or the Leader of the House received a request from the Leader of the Opposition, which she promised she would make as a matter of urgency, for time to debate the subject of immigration?

The Lord President tells me that he has received no request for a debate on immigration. I would welcome, as I am sure the whole House would welcome, such a debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "You supply the time."] There is not much time left, because the Opposition, who had under their control most of the available free parliamentary time, have failed to use this opportunity to have such a debate. However, if the right hon. Lady's speech means that she is moving closer to the Government's policy in these matters, I welcome it. I have never wanted this to be a matter of party dispute.

May I cross-examine the Prime Minister on the Government's policies? Last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman did not know that his own Government's record on unemployment was one of the worst in the western world. As today's figures show unemployment rising to 1·5 million and job vacancies falling, what is his excuse this time?

I reflected on the right hon. Lady's question last week because I thought that it was a most interesting one. I find that the Conservative Party documents take the view that I rather take on these matters. They say that it is "idle" to talk of an "economic miracle" because our problems are so deep-seated—

The Prime Minister talked like that.

—and that what is needed for Britain is a "long hard haul." This has been true because of the decline of this country's comparative productive capacity over a period of 50 years.

The Prime Minister will recollect that he inherited a figure of 600,000 unemployed. Under his Prime Ministership and his predecessor's, it is now 1·5 million. Does not this prove that Socialism is incapable of creating genuine jobs and increasing wealth, but is capable only of sharing out wealth that other people have already created?

No, Sir. What it shows is that the world has been going through a substantial recession in which every major country has had a large increase in unemployment. That is what it shows, and that is what the Bonn summit was about yesterday and the day before. But, as the right hon. Lady talks about our inheritance, I shall quote a few more things that we inherited—a disgraceful rate of increase in the money supply, a disgraceful rate of inflation, a disgraceful rate of increase in the minimum lending rate, and half a dozen other matters. We put those right.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in his busy schedule to go to South Africa House and see whether he can get it opened in order that he may deliver birthday greetings to Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, after 16 years on Robben Island, greetings which the South African authorities refused earlier today to accept from the Labour Party, sections of the Liberal Party, the trade union movement, students and a cross-section of society? Will he please try to do that?

I have long been, as I know my hon. Friends are and I hope many Opposition Members are, an admirer of Nelson Mandela. Whether or not South Africa House accepts the greetings, I should like on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to send him formal greetings from this Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on Margaret."]

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th July.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).

During his hectic day, will the Prime Minister explain to the House how these disastrous unemployment figures tally with his party's slogan at the last election "Back to work with Labour"? Is he aware that the 900,000 people who have been put on the dole by the incompetence of his Government want a straight answer to this question?

Yes, Sir. It is, of course, the case that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there would be many more unemployed if the Opposition had had their way about Leyland and, indeed, about many other such matters. It is also true that the situation is much better than it was when we had a three-day week—

No, it is not.

—and that production is higher now than it was then, as indeed it should be. If the hon. Gentleman should happen to be here after the next General Election, which I very much doubt, he will find that unemployment will be going down steadily.

As it was agreed at Bonn yesterday to stimulate the western economies, will my right hon. Friend today consider expanding ours by means particularly of removing or relaxing the restrictions on housing, health—

And dividends.

—the social services and education'? Contrary to the views expressed from the Opposition Benches, would not this help simultaneously to relieve human need and unemployment?

Yes, Sir. I think that the faster rate of economic growth that this country is experiencing this year clearly gives us a bigger dividend—but not the kind of dividend that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was referring to—for increasing those public expenditures. But we must not increase public expenditure until we have earned it, and so far we have not earned it.

As the Government admit that food prices have risen by 104 per cent. since they came to office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Common Market."]—running alongside restriction of wage increases, does not the Prime Minister think that he should take time off today to announce the end of this attack on the living standards of the people?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Wages have gone up faster than food prices over the past four or five years. That has had no impact on living standards. Indeed, living standards are going up this year. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, because of the situation we inherited, food prices went up very fast in the early years of this Government, but I hope that he will rejoice with me in the fact that during the past 12 months they have increased by only 6·7 per cent.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the CBI.

I hope to meet representatives of the CBI tomorrow. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's industrial strategy has been greatly welcomed on both sides of industry and that they are equally aware that the Opposition clearly have no industrial strategy? But, in his discussions with the CBI, can he suggest further Government action to implement some of the recommendations of the sector working parties?

Yes, Sir. It is my profound belief and knowledge that the CBI and the TUC together welcome the Government's industrial strategy, despite the attacks that the Opposition constantly make upon it. We are constantly working with industry through the sector working parties. Indeed, much of the work that is now being done is being translated to the level of firms. This is helping to increase productive efficiency and exports.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in my constituency unemployment has risen to 7·6 per cent., which is three times as high as it was at the time of the three-day week? When he is talking with the CBI, will he inform it that he intends to make ours a development area so that industrialists will receive better grants to bring factories into our area?

If the hon. Lady will put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on development areas, I am sure that she will receive an answer. But I must point out that what she seeks would involve additional public expenditure, and her own leaders are heavily committed against that. But that is not the only discrepancy we find between their general statements and their particular requests.

As my right hon. Friend has been having some very successful talks with trade unions recently, will he bear in mind that one thing that would upset many trade unionists is any decision to return aero-engines to Chile? Will the Cabinet reconsider that?

It is not a matter for the Cabinet to reconsider. It is not a Cabinet matter at all, except on the question of the issue of an export licence. The engines belong to Chile. Whether I like that or not is not in question. They were sent here for repair and now they are due to be returned, as the repair has been paid for. That is the legal position, and the Government do not come into the matter.

In view of the excuses produced by the Prime Minister this afternoon on the subject of unemployment, may I ask whether he has forgotten that his party and his right hon. Friends fought the October 1974 General Election on the basis that unemployment was under control and that inflation was coming down? Were they perhaps not telling the truth then? Therefore, what is the excuse for anyone's believing them next time?

I do not know whether anyone will believe me. I can only tell the facts as I see them. It is for the public, not for the Opposition, to make up their minds about that. I think that they have a pretty good idea about it. What is quite clear is that the world recession which started in 1973, following the quintupling of oil prices, has been longer than any country expected. It was to unemployment that all of the seven nations which assembled yesterday were directing their attention. I hope that we shall be able to overcome this problem, but I will not make false promises about it. As regards inflation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have reduced the level much below what is was when he was in office. Further, we have kept it under control.