asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision was made in the rate support grant settlement in so far as it related to education with regard to firm proposals to alter the basis of the provision of school transport; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision was made in the rate support grant for a nationwide system of school transport based on universal single charges which would eradicate the anomalies and injustices of the present system.

None, Sir. These issues are still under consideration.

Does not the hon. Lady agree that poorer counties such as Cornwall tend to be the rural counties and that it is in those counties that the problems of school transport are greatest? If she will not help through the provision of additional rate support grants, when will she announce to the House her proposals for the reorganisation of school transport?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date. Although I recognise that counties such as Cornwall have a particular problem, it can often be just as acute in inner cities, particularly where concessionary fares for school children have been withdrawn. It is a problem of family poverty, perhaps even more than local authority poverty.

I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work on this subject. Can she indicate when she expects to implement the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee report based on the four experimental areas? Does she accept that where a Tory-controlled local authority, such as Bradford, makes an arbitrary and harsh application of new rules concerning distance, it often causes great hardship and difficulty for parents? Does she agree that the implementation of a flat fare scheme would be much fairer and that that is something that should be considered for application as soon as possible?

Order. Will the Minister please try to answer only one of the hon. Gentleman's three questions?

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. We are considering the basis of the flat fare scheme, but I cannot give my hon. Friend a date because there are more complications than we had feared. We are very anxious to remove the present anomalies and to see that parents cease to suffer as they are at present.

Have we not now reached the situation where, nationally, there should be a free transport system for children going to school? After all, parents are required by law to send their children to school and it costs many of them very dearly.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an argument in support of his question.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend consider that aspect?

I am always willing to consider suggestions from my hon. Friend, but LEAs already spend £100 million a year on school transport even under the present system. I fear that a totally free system is beyond us at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has to build a cultural centre in London.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The many cultural facilities in London are continually being augmented, for example by extensions to the national museums, the new National Theatre and the proposed British Library.

Will my hon. Friend consider staking a claim for about 1 per cent. of the North Sea oil revenue in order to develop the arts in this country? Will he also launch a design competition for a cultural centre similar to the Pompidou centre in Paris, which, incidentally, was designed by a British firm?

No. The policy of the Government, which has general agreement throughout the House, is that more facilities should be provided in the English regions and in Scotland and Wales. I remind my hon. Friend of the distinguished report of the committee over which she presided—the Labour Party NEC arts study group—which suggested that community centres' design and facilities should be determined by the needs of the communities they serve.

Will the hon. Gentleman resist suggestions for a cultural centre, which is bound to give rise to a group of intellectual snobs judging what should go on in it? Will he also remember that Adolf Hitler had a cultural centre and what a mess he made of that?

I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but London is very well provided with cultural centres and the rest of the country needs considerable assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she remains satisfied with the application of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to schools.

My right hon. Friend believes that it is right that staff and pupils in all educational establishments should have the same protection as other people covered by health and safety legislation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that there is much confusion in education circles about the working of this Act? If there is a breach of the Act, who ultimately is responsible? Is it the county or the teachers? Is she aware that there are acute problems, particularly with laboratory stores in schools, surrounding the provisions of the Act?

I shall write to my hon. Friend on the question of where responsibility ultimately lies. I am a little surprised to hear him say that there are great problems already, because the only regulations which have been implemented so far are those which deal with safety representatives and committees. We are only just beginning an inspection to see what further work is still needed. It is too early to make judgments about the implications.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether Squirrels Heath infant school, Romford, qualifies as substandard by the definition used to determine the 1978–79 school building allocation for improvement and replacement projects.

In allocating the 1978–79 school building programme, account was taken of the number of pupils in pre-1903 primary schools and in pre-1919 secondary schools. Once the allocation is made, it is for the authority to decide which projects to undertake. The use of the pre-1903 criteria, therefore, in no way prevents an authority from deciding to replace a post-1903 school, such as the Squirrels Heath infant school, if it considers that such a school should have priority.

Whatever the Department's definition, will the Minister accept that all who are associated with Squirrels Heath infants' school—parents, staff, governors, teaching associations and non-teaching unions—agree that the school's facilities are inadequate and that there is serious and potentially dangerous overcrowding? In those circumstances why should not a new infants school be included in next year's allocation for replacement projects?

I am aware that there is concern at Squirrels Heath. I am also aware that the local authority has already agreed to undertake some work—for example, to improve the toilets and to install a fire alarm system. The school is scheduled for replacement in 1981. That was before the recent announcement of an extra building allocation. Perhaps the local authority will feel able to bring the project forward, but that is a matter for the authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in any common examination system to replace GCE O-level and CSE, how many subjects are likely to require alternative papers.

The Waddell report —Cmnd. 7281—concluded that on present evidence alternative papers would be needed in a number of important subjects such as mathematics and modern languages. The exact forms that examinations might take will depend on the further development work needed, which may produce additional evidence. The new central co-ordinating body will be expected to develop national criteria to ensure that alternative papers are used where necessary.

I understand that six or seven alternative papers might be needed in the common system. If that is so, how can the Secretary of State defend the suggestion that the common system, which poses such a threat to education standards, will remove the problem of the 64,000 children, about whom the Secretary of State has spoken so often, who have the dilemma of choosing between the present O-levels and CSE?

The hon. Member knows more about the matter than I do, for the straightforward reason that no studies have taken place on the different subjects. Therefore, it is impossible for the hon. Member to state that there will be alternative papers for any given number of subjects. Even where there are alternative papers, the great advantages of a substantial part of the syllabus being in common will accrue to all children. That means that it will be more possible for teachers to teach to children's capacities rather than to a syllabus.

When the studies progress and the new boards are formed, to whom will the amalgamated boards be responsible? Will they be responsible to the Secretary of State, the universities or the local authorities?

The boards will remain independent. However, unlike the present position, there will be a monitoring body —the national co-ordinating body—on which employers, further education interests, teachers, parents and others will be represented. None of those representatives will have an overall majority.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is a great distinction between a common examination system and a common examination paper? Will she accept that in any changes that she might recommend there must be three clear essentials? First, there should be different papers to test the different abilities of different children. Secondly, the nationally recognised standard of the GCE O-level should not be reduced in any way. Thirdly, to achieve that end the papers must be tested externally.

On all three counts I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will accept that our proposals are more satisfactory than the present situation. The Waddell committee found that in some subjects a common examination might be appropriate. It recommended not a common examination but a common examining system. I agree that those are two different matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the situation is that as far as possible there should be common syllabuses in the subjects, thus avoiding the segregation that takes place at an early age? Does she agree that there will be no real progress in this direction unless she is prepared to sort out the existing boards and impose her new structure on them?

My hon. Friend will be aware that I have said that each regional body will include a GCE board and a CSE board. I hope that we can gain the advantages of both systems for the whole examining system.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers are qualified to give remedial lessons to children who are suffering from various forms of speaking difficulties in the junior and secondary schools, respectively, in each of the education authorities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

There is at present no requirement for teachers who work with pupils suffering from impairment of speech to possess an additional qualification. The needs of these children are usually met jointly by teachers and speech therapists.

When shall we treat the problem of children with speech difficulties with the seriousness that it deserves? Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous Government refused to accept Professor J. Tizard's report and that the impression throughout the country is that this Government are not taking the Warnock report seriously? When is my hon. Friend going to do something about it? Is it not society's duty to enable each child to benefit to his or her limits from the education system?

I certainly accept my hon. Friend's last contention. He is dealing with two different questions. Much work has been done for children with speech difficulties in the last year or so. More work has been done than before. There is an inspectorate's survey. A number of new schools and units are being opened to help children with those problems. More speech therapists are employed today than in the past. The work is continuing.

Does the Under-Secretary of State admit that there are grave problems within our education system in dealing not only with young people with speech difficulties but with other handicapped groups including gifted children? Does she accept that too few teachers are able to identify the problems sufficiently early? Will the Government take steps to improve the education system and the identification of gifted young people and other handicapped children so that attention can be paid to them earlier?

The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that we are now doing far more for children with all categories of handicap than in the past. We are also realising more and more clearly the difficulties of gifted children and we are seeking to help them. In all these areas a great deal of additional work is taking place. Courses are being made available by the Department and work is being undertaken by the inspectorate. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that there is a great lack of provision or effort in the area to which he has drawn attention. I remind him that the fundamental point is made in the Warnock report that there is a continuum of difficulty and that it is not a good idea to single out children into specific groups and to try to teach them in those groups. That is what some who talk about gifted children seem sometimes to want.

Does the hon. Lady agree that a high proportion of children with speaking difficulties suffer those difficulties because of earlier undetected hearing problems? Will she instigate steps to ensure that pupils entering primary schools are given hearing tests?

I am aware that sometimes that is the position. The hon. Gentleman will probably know that the Warnock report recommends that at the earliest possible age before primary school there should be a proper system of assessment for every child to detect every degree of handicap.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on parental choice of schools.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on Second Reading of the Education Bill on 5th December.

Would the right hon. Lady object if the ILEA decided to admit the outstanding 12 children to Eltham Green school?

That is a matter for the Inner London Education Authority, but it is my understanding that parents of 99 children asked for that school as their first choice. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be impossible to meet the first choice of all those parents.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the parents of children attending the Liverpool Paddington comprehensive school are protected against the plans of local Tories and Liberals to demolish that school?

I think that my hon. Friend will know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already seen a deputation on that matter and that I am shortly to do so.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that local authorities already have sufficient powers under the present law to limit the ability of parents to choose schools? Should not any legislative change be to tip the balance in favour of parents?

I am convinced that the proposals in the Education Bill set a new balance. They give additional rights to parents of a sort that parents have never had before, especially the right to information and the right for every parent to be asked his or her preference. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that in a situation in which the school population has fallen by 25 per cent. it is not surprising that local authorities have said that they must have power gradually to phase certain schools out of the system. However, I feel sure that they will always consider the views of the local people.

Will the right hon. Lady take advantage of the unduly long Christmas Recess to study carefully the excellent remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on the Second Reading of the Education Bill? Will she try to satisfy herself that the truth is that the Bill in the name of extending parental choice is in danger of restricting it? In Committee in the new year will she bring forward proposals to strengthen real parental choice?

No. I have studied most carefully the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues from the Opposition Front Bench on Second Reading of the Education Bill. The hon. Gentleman must take on board the reasons that have motivated local authorities, including those dominated by his party, to suggest time and again that, if we are to have a reasonable control of the education system, and if we are to meet as far as possible parents' wishes and protect the accountability of the system to the taxpayer and the ratepayer, there is no alternative to the proposals that we have put forward.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the complete contempt for parental choice in any respect that is being shown by the Conservative-controlled Staffordshire county council, especially for parents who would prefer their children not to be educated at primary schools by means of the initial teaching alphabet? Does she agree that where there is room in other schools the parents of those children should, as far as possible, be given the option of going to schools where that method is not used?

I know that my hon. Friend has written to me on that matter. I thank him for his letter. My view is clearly and strongly that where parental wishes can be met they must be met for all parents and not merely for the minority, which I believe to be the main concern of Opposition Members.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that we agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the new Education Bill is likely to limit parental choice and not increase it, especially on two grounds? First, does she agree that it wipes out the right embodied in the London Government Act 1963 for children to cross boundaries without any difficulty so that parents may choose whatever school they want for their children, often of a denominational nature? Secondly, if power is given to local authorities to change the intakes of all their schools each September, will not some authorities try to keep open unpopular schools by that method? Will they not direct children to those schools who do not want to go to them while there are real vacancies in other schools that are popular in the neighbourhood?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door. He knows that on Second Reading of the Education Bill I made it clear that if there were any limitations of the sort that he has suggested as a result of the clause dealing with the London Government Act they would be amended, as would clause 11(5). I say to the hon. Gentleman loudly and clearly that in my view the Opposition have continually pressed for such things as parental preferences and parental information only since they became the Opposition. I wonder why they never did anything about those issues during the period that they were in office.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the establishment of a coherent programme of education and training for 16 to 19year-olds; and if she will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received representations from the local authority associations and a variety of professional and other organisations concerned with the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds. She has already announced the Government's intention to publish next year a White Paper covering the full range of education and training opportunities available to 16 to 19-year-olds, and recently discussed with the ACC and the AMA arrangements for a joint review of major policy areas to be dealt with in the White Paper.

Will it not be impossible to devise an effective programme that is properly co-ordinated for the 16 to 19-year-olds until we have brought education and training together in one Department, a Department of Education and Training?

I do not think that the answer is to deal with Departments in that way. The 16 to 19-year-olds do not form one coherent group. Their needs are diverse, and because of that it is important to have a system that is flexible and can respond quickly to certain aspects of young people's needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the needs of young people in this age group are diverse they cannot be categorised and assigned at the age of 16 years to a particular programme or to the responsibility of a particular Department? Does he agree that flexibility is essential in the system and that that means coherent planning?

It means coherent planning, but not in the way that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) suggested in his supplementary question.

The Secretary of State keeps making the accusation that the staying-on rate in Britain is one of the lowest in Europe. Is the Minister aware that there will be some concern on both sides of the House if the position is as bad as she makes out? What is the basis of the charge, because in the hon. Gentleman's reply to a question a fortnight ago he said that nine out of the 10 countries listed have no up-to-date figures beyond 1970? He remarked that the differences in definition that underlie the figures make comparisons ineffective and inapposite.

Different countries' statistics are prepared in different ways. However, the staying-on rate in Britain is bad. It is about 30 per cent. That is an average. It is much worse in some areas. It is much worse in working class areas and among working class children.

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

I meet the chairman frequently. He was present yesterday at a press conference which I held about my decision to increase the planned totals for the science budget substantially over the next four years. I shall meet him again on 18th December when I open the new headquarters building of the Science Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer. Is she aware that, although that increase is most welcome in many quarters, the fact is that it is £47 million spread over four years and among six or seven sources? Will she ensure that her Department constantly keep under review the budget of the Science Research Council? We do not want to return to the conditions of the past three or four years during which time the morale within the science arena has declined extremely badly. What assurances is she able to give to the House on this important subject for Britain?

I do not think that I need to give assurances, because the facts speak for themselves. We have now turned the corner and we are back to a state of steady growth for the science research budget, which I believe to be crucial. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman can reconcile his pressure on this issue with his own party's commitment to cut further public expenditure.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether she is completely satisfied that the priorities of the Science Research Council are those of the nation as a whole, and whether the council on its own is capable of assigning the priorities of the scientific manpower available in Britain to the needs that she and the country desire?

Yes. I have taken a great deal of interest in the Science Research Council. I have not the slightest doubt that the emphasis on the development of engineering methods, microprocessor systems, teaching companies, and co-operative awards between science research and industry is absolutely in line with national priorities. In my view, the council is doing a remarkable job for the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what expansion or contraction of funds for the Science Research Council is envisaged in each of the next three financial years.

As I announced yesterday in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Earn-worth (Mr. Roper), I intend, subject to parliamentary approval, to allocate £149·7 million at 1978 survey prices to the Science Research Council in 1979–80, compared with £145·9 million in 1978–79. I have accepted the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils that the council's planning guidelines for the following three years should improve progressively to reach a growth of 1 per cent. in 1982–83, compared with the annual decline of 1·7 per cent. which was forecast at the beginning of this year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the reversal of the decline is welcome? However, that decline in itself was a sad error of policy. Is she satisfied that the sums now available will enable the Science Research Council to discharge all its national obligations satisfactorily, as well as discharging its international obligations?

Yes, I have the assurance of the chairman of the council to this effect. It will take a little time to turn round what was a prospect of decline into a prospect of growth. Meanwhile, I assure my hon. Friend that the other research councils will be growing quite rapidly. The chairman of the Science Research Council is very satisfied with the profile that now exists.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Wales is almost empty of scientific research institutions and as a result our ablest young scientists have had to leave our country? Will she take steps to correct this discrimination against Wales?

I assure the hon. Member that I shall be pleased to look into this matter. I have studied the distribution of research expenditure, which is very much in line with the pattern of population in the United Kingdom as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects a national scheme for mandatory educational maintenance allowances to operate.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to introduce a national scheme for mandatory grants for young people staying on at school after the age of 16 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she now expects to introduce a national scheme for mandatory educational maintenance allowance.

The timing of the introduction of a full national scheme of mandatory awards for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education remains to be decided in the light of experience with the pilot programme covering selected volunteer areas, planned to begin in September 1979, and of the outlook for public expenditure at the time.

The Minister will realise the disappointing nature of that reply. Has the Department carried out any detailed analysis of the number of children who are likely to be deterred from staying at school, particularly those from poorer families, because of the absence of educational maintenance allowances? How do the Government intend to make up for that deprivation?

I assure my hon. Friend that research has been carried out. We share his disappointment that we cannot introduce a full-scale scheme immediately. Such a scheme would cost £110 million in a full year. However, it is hoped that the present scheme will not only provide useful incentives in important areas but will provide us with much more valuable information when the scheme is actually working.

I shall call, first, those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.

Does the Minister accept that very large numbers of children—especially those of poor parents—are literally being induced to leave school at 16? They are not getting the opportunity—just as the Prime Minister said that he did not have the opportunity in a similar situation—to go on to university. Does he also accept that we should make very serious attempts, despite the laughter of Tory Members, who all had chances of higher education, to encourage our children to stay on at school, and not induce them to leave and be immediately unemployed? When this scheme comes, could we have it without a means test?

It would not be possible to introduce the scheme without a means test—certainly not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I share the assumption of my hon. Friend in this matter, and I think that the pilot scheme will prove that both of us are right.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's priority, as soon as public expenditure is available, to make this a national scheme?

It is certainly one of our highest priorities.

Is it not a better priority for £110 million of public expenditure to ensure a better education for those who are at school up to the age of 16?

Of course that is also our aim—to provide the best possible standards. But certainly Labour Members, and many Conservative Members, too—see a real need to induce many poorer children to stay on at school. Many now leave simply because of poverty.

Despite having to look at representatives of higher education on the other side of the House, does the Minister accept that higher education is essential and necessary? Does he agree that the national executive of the Labour Party, which is not liked by Conservative Members, has been pressing the Government to go ahead with the scheme as quickly as possible in order to ensure that there are no anomalies such as those that exist at the moment, where youngsters go on the dole because they cannot afford to stay at school? Some youngsters take TOPS courses, but many who would like to stay at school cannot do so because of lack of financial assistance.

The Government treat this as a matter of the highest priority. It is envisaged that the scheme would provide about £7·50 in an award which, together with the £4 child benefit, would bring the youngster up to the same level as he would receive on supplementary benefit.

Is it the Secretary of State's intention that the pilot scheme set out in the Bill should be based on education needs, or based merely on areas in which youth unemployment is extremely high? Does he accept that it is more important to encourage the teaching of skills with a wider use of discretionary grants because this would be a better means of using scarce resources?

We shall pay attention to the take-up of places by youngsters in these areas. Another factor will be the unemployment in the area, and yet another the nature of the area—whether it is inner-city or not.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her latest estimate of the number of children taking school meals; how this compares with the position in 1977, 1976, 1975 and 1970; and if she will make a statement.

We estimate that in October of this year some 5·1 million pupils in maintained schools in England were taking school meals on the census days, representing 66 per cent. of those present. The numbers for October 1977, 1976, 1975 and 1970 were 4·9 million, 5·5 million, 5·6 million and 4·9 million respectively.

Will my hon. Friend recollect—of course she could not personally—that about half a century ago the great mass of working-class children were undernourished and suffered from rickets? The introduction of school meals has made a major contribution to producing the present healthy generation of youngsters. Does she agree that, in view of the serious downward trend in the numbers taking school meals, active steps should be taken to reduce the price of such meals with the eventual aim of providing free school meals?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the value of school meals. However, I do not accept that there has been a significant downward trend. There was a substantial drop in 1977, which we have now recouped. The latest available estimate of take-up of this benefit is that about 80 per cent. of children entitled to do so took up free meals.

Will the Minister read out those figures again for the benefit of her hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts)? I do not think that he understood them. Will the Minister confirm that the number of children taking school meals increased sharply between 1970 and 1975 and then fell during her Administration until last year, and that the number has now increased again? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understood that.

The hon. Gentleman is correct inasmuch as there was a substantial rise in the numbers of pupils taking free meals between 1970 and 1975, but the numbers are now more or less at the same level. As to his argument that this in some way rebounds to the credit of the Conservative Government, I suggest to him that it only shows how undernourished the pupils were in that period.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she can yet approve plans submitted for the comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education in Newport, Salop; and if she will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received proposals from the Salop education authority which are, prima facie, satisfactory. These involve a voluntary aided school and the governors of the school—the Adams' boys grammar—have not yet submitted their own proposals under section 2(3) of the 1976 Act. They have been required to do so by 15th December.

Will my hon. Friend please put as much pressure as possible upon the governors of Adams' grammar school? This farce has continued for far too long.

We are seeking to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied that sufficient encouragement and opportunity is provided in schools for girls who wish to pursue a career in engineering.

No, Sir, she is not. My right hon. Friend would like to see many more girls at school studying subjects, notably mathematics and physics, that would enable them to choose engineering as a career.

Es my hon. Friend aware that when an award was made to the one and only female apprentice engineer at British Leyland Vehicles in my constituency recently, the occasion generated such excitement that television crews arrived to record it? In view of the continuing need for highly skilled engineers in the country, will my hon. Friend set about encouraging careers officers as well as pupils to widen their vision in this direction?

We certainly do that. The biggest single factor is the attitude of girls themselves and their parents. However, there has been an improvement. In the academic year 1973–74, women comprised only 3·7 per cent of the student intake into engineering and technology. By 1977–78, the proportion had risen to 5·1 per cent. But that has to be compared with a figure of 36·7 per cent. for students on all courses. My right hon. Friend is therefore not satisfied with the number of women entering engineering and technology. She considers the figures to be far too low.

Since women teachers can have a powerful influence on girl students at school, would it not be an idea if the Government gave a higher priority to encouraging more of the people coming into teacher training colleges to have qualifications in O-level mathematics in particular?

That is what we are doing. It will be a necessity for everyone entering a course of teacher training as from next year to have an O-level in mathematics.

Has the Department ever carried out any research into the extent to which girls are actively dissuaded by school teachers from taking such subjects as mechanical drawing, design and technology? If the Department has not carried out such research, will it undertake it?

There has been some research into this question but perhaps not enough. Much of the evidence is anecdotal. I think that teachers and careers officers are trying to persuade girls to open their eyes much more to the availability of courses in engineering and technology.

Has the Minister any figures as to the percentage of girls going on to physics and engineering from girls' schools, as compared with the percentage going on from mixed schools?

No, I have not those figures before me.

Is the Minister aware that prejudice against women in industry is very deep-rooted among both employers and some trade unions, and that it really is time that the Government spoke out strongly on this issue to each side?

I am not certain that there is that prejudice among either employers or trade unionists. The problem is to persuade girls to take up these courses. Usually, when a firm employs a girl engineer, it finds that she is excellent at the job she is doing.

Is the Minister aware that there is an inadequate number of teachers with the right qualifications in our schools to encourage girls to go on ultimately into engineering and other allied careers? Will he look at this question rather more closely than he has, and also involve each side of industry within the schools so that there may be an expertise which at the moment is lamentably lacking?

The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts. This Government introduced special courses for the shortage subjects. This Government, more than any other Government that I can remember, have tried to emphasise the importance of links between industry and education.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12th December.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will the Prime Minister, at some time during his busy day, give some thought to the development of the microelectronics industry, and perhaps deny the rumour, which is causing great concern on each side of the House, that the INMOS research and development project is to be sited at Bristol? Does not he agree that, as a great deal of public money is involved, the project should go to an assisted area? Does not he agree that Greater Manchester, with all its facilities, would be a very suitable site for the project?

Yes, Sir, the Government are giving consideration to this matter. The Secretary of State for Industry will announce the Government's decision in due course. It is true that there are many sites in Britain which would be useful and which could perfectly well accommodate this valuable new public enterprise. Whatever happens to the headquarters, I hope that all the manufacturing jobs—which will be in the proportion of at least 10 to 1 to the headquarters—will go to the development areas.

Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment in his very busy day to consider the amendment on the Order Paper, in the names of many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, in response to the Government's motion on the fight against inflation? Will he, in response to the Labour Party conference and the trade union conferences, declare a moratorium on all sanctions and get down to some further negotiations with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry?

I have considered the amendment that my hon. Friend and some other hon. Friends have tabled. I noticed the reference at the beginning to what they describe as the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party on this matter. I am sure that opportunities will exist tomorrow, subject to hon. Members catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, for the opinions set out in the amendment to be expressed.

Is the Prime Minister aware that about three weeks ago, just before the present Provisional IRA campaign of bombing began in Northern Ireland, the Eire Government withdrew the police who had been stationed along the border for the last three years?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman and will inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of what he has said about this matter. It is my experience, from my conversations with the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, that the Republic is as anxious as we are to avoid violence on either side of the border in Northern Ireland. I know that he has taken many steps to try to prevent it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday, 12th December.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery).

In view of the motion in the name of the Prime Minister on today's Order Paper, will he take out his obviously busy diary and indicate to the House how much of his winter break he intends to spend in Scotland and Wales? If he does not intend to move his private office to either Scotland or Wales during that period, will he tell us how much time he intends to spend in Scotland and Wales during the referendum campaign, and whether he intends to use that as an opportunity to announce the first provisional dates for the Assembly elections, which would be a great incentive in terms of guaranteeing a "Yes" vote in these respective nations?

I am afraid that it will not be part of my official engagements today to consider how much time during the recess I propose to spend in the hon. Lady's beautiful country or, indeed, in my own country. If she offers to be my hostess, that might be an additional attraction. Indeed, I might even be able to convert more members of the Scottish National Party to vote Labour after I had been there. But I promise her that I shall continue to give my full attention, with other Ministers, to the affairs of both Scotland and Wales.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Queen today, will he discuss her proposed visit to Iran? Does he agree that a visit in anything like the circumstances which presently prevail in Iran would be entirely inappropriate? Does he agree that the Shah's regime should not be buttressed by a visit from the Queen until the Shah can show that he has the full support of the people of his country?

These arrangements are always announced some months in advance. If the situation in February, or whenever Her Majesty visits, is the same as it is now, of course I would certainly advise Her Majesty nut to proceed. But no visit by Her Majesty should be regarded as buttressing the regime. State visits of this sort or, indeed, semiofficial visits, take place as a matter of inter-State relationships and are not regarded as supporting a particular regime.

Has the Prime Minister taken careful note of the exact wording of the first seven Questions to himself on the Order Paper today? Does he not think that this part of Question Time has become somewhat farcical? Will he, therefore, start the New Year on a better footing by placing in the House of Commons Library a list of the Questions that he would like us to ask him?

That is a very novel idea. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I can rely upon myself to give very good answers but I cannot guarantee the quality of the Questions.

Will my right hon. Friend consider very seriously indeed the position in Iran? I really do think that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the whole Cabinet should consider whether they ought now to change completely their policy towards the Shah and his regime, which quite clearly does not have the support of the people of Iran.

I note my hon. Friend's view, but I have nothing to add on this matter to what I have said so far. I do not believe that expressions of opinion from the Dispatch Box will aid the situation in Iran at present.

As the Prime Minister has today taken the unusual step of tabling a motion not for one but for two parliamentary recesses, will he give consideration to a still further innovation and table the date on which he will be prepared to face the electors of this country?

That is an interesting point. I have no doubt that it will all be brought out in the debate which I believe is due to begin in seven minutes time.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to look at the situation in regard to the dispute with the National Union of Journalists? Is he aware that many local weekly newspapers in my part of the country are making very high profits, yet some young journalists are taking home as little as £31 and £35 a week? Will he pass on a message to the Nottingham Evening Post, which has sacked nine journalists for taking part in an official dispute, and tell it that we are living in 1978 and that we have a Trade Union and Labour Relations Act which really ought to be honoured?

I note my hon. Friend's views, but on this matter, as on many industrial questions, I do not believe that an exchange of views in the House is the best way of settling these issues. I think that the system we used to have some years ago, in which we did not ourselves embark upon these matters until it was quite clear that there was no prospect of solving them through the normal procedures of arbitration, conciliation or negotiation, certainly achieved better results than we seem to be getting now.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12th December.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery).

Will the Prime Minister now tell the House with a clear "Yes" or "No" answer whether the Government will apply sanctions to the National Coal Board if it is forced to break the 5 per cent. pay policy?

It is a well-known rule in this House, although not always observed, that one does not reply to hypothetical questions.

Will the Prime Minister find some time today to telephone President Ceausescu of Roumania in order that he might discover how the President managed to resist Warsaw Pact pressure to increase his country's armaments expenditure so that we in our turn might be more successful in resisting NATO pressure to increase our armaments expenditure?

That is a most ingenious addition to my responsibilities for the day. If I carry out all that has been suggested, I shall not have very much time left. Of course, my hon. Friend will recall that the basis of President Ceausescu's approach, as far as I can see, is that the Warsaw Pact already has sufficient armaments. What we must take into account is the fact that the armaments of the Warsaw Pact, especially in the theatres in Central Europe, exceed those of the NATO powers, and this is an important consideration when we consider the appropriate level.

The Prime Minister will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has been calling for substantial measures of further nationalisation, for cutting tax relief on mortgages, for further State control of pension funds and for the abolition of the House of Lords. Since the Prime Minister, in one of his rare flashes of candour, has already revealed that he is all in favour of abolishing the House of Lords, will he say which of the other proposals he supports?

The right hon. Lady, as usual, is totally expected. I rather fancied that she would not be able to resist that kind of temptation. With regard to these matters, I am open to advice from any quarter, including even the right hon. Lady herself. I get editorial advice from the Conservative newspapers every day and from the Morning Star. I am very ready to consider good advice from any quarter, but, if the right hon. Lady really wants to know about these matters, I suggest that she gets Conservative Central Office to write to Transport House and she will no doubt get her answer.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his non-answer was totally predictable? Is he also aware that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the only real difference between himself and his right hon. Friend is that his right hon. Friend is prepared openly to discuss the objectives of the Labour Government whereas he wishes to conceal them?

If both the answer and the question were predicted, it was hardly worth while having either. Although the right hon. Lady may think it important to try to discuss party manifestos across the Floor of the House, when they are ready they will be published. I seem to remember that she had some similar embarrassment—is that the word?—when the proposals of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were leaked to The Economist the other day and were denied. So far as I can see, the only difference is that the hon. Gentleman's proposals went to The Economist and ours apparently went to the Morning Star.

As my right hon. Friend has recently been improving his gunnery practice, when will he turn the howitzer of a radical Labour Party manifesto upon the Conservative Benches?

That will appear in due course. Meantime, I suggest even to the right hon. Lady as well as to my hon. Friend that they should not believe everything they read in the newspapers. I know that this is something to which the right hon. Lady frequently falls victim, but I promise her that one day she will find that not everything—even in The Sun or the Daily Mail—is totally accurate.

Does the Prime Minister realise that it is not sufficient to say that all will be revealed in the manifesto? The Secretary of State has, among other things, called for the nationalisation of the North Sea. This is already doing considerable damage to confidence and it is up to the Prime Minister to make the position clear.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the 200-mile limit was agreed a long time ago. I assume that he meant nationalisation of North Sea oil. If that is the case, he will allow me to remind him that the country —thanks to a Labour Government and no thanks to his Government—are taking a very substantial proportion of the product of North Sea oil for the national benefit and will continue to do so. I hope that we shall continue to have his full support.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago you announced that on occasion lion. Members might have the opportunity to ask a second supplementary question, especially when a Minister refused, declined or somehow failed to give an answer to the question asked. I am not complaining about the non-answer that I got from the Minister today, but may I ask you whether, on occasion, this will still be your practice?

If I made that promise, I was a very unwise person. There are times when I allow hon. Members on both sides of the House a second bite at the cherry, but as long as there are a large number seeking to get a first bite at the cherry it is very difficult to allow it too often.

I have a brief ruling to make. My attention has been drawn to the effect of the Prime Minister's proposed motion to shorten the Christmas Recess by one day on the 10-day rule for notices of Questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we leave that issue, may I ask whether it is not the case that the House has not yet approved the motion, so that the whole situation is hypothetical at this moment?

Order—except that hon. Members, once they see on the Order Paper the date that is proposed, submit their Questions to the Table Office, and in this case they have been accepted. I am legitimising something that was almost but not quite legitimate.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the assumption that the motion on the Order Paper is approved, are we to take it that there cannot be any question of oral answers on Monday 15th January?

No. There will be Questions on 15th January. I think that hon. Members ought to take time to study what I have said. There will be Questions—and Answers, I hope—on 15th January.