asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take in the light of the recent Her Majesty's Inspectorate report on special units for disruptive pupils.

Our first aim has been to ensure that local education authorities and other interested bodies know about the report. It has, therefore, been distributed to them free of charge. It is primarily for the local authorities and schools to decide whether the report indicates a need for action on their part, but should public discussion reveal ways in which my Department could continue to be of assistance, we will gladly consider them.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that reply. May I ask whether she read the excellent article by Stuart Froome—a former headmaster and a member of the Bullock committee—published in the Sunday Express on 11 February? In that article Mr. Froome drew attention to the fact that it was probably lack of discipline in schools, trendy and progressive teaching methods in schools and large schools which had resulted in so many disruptive pupils taking to the battleground within the school classroom. Will the hon. Lady, her right hon. Friend and the Government try to instil new discipline into education, as I believe that this development will remove the necessity for the provision of"sin-bins"in so many of our schools.

Order. I hope that other hon. Members will not follow that bad example on the first question.

I shall say briefly that I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says on the report that he quoted. I do not accept either the theories or the conclusions of the hon. Gentleman. I should like to draw his attention to a report which accompanied the one to which I have just referred, which was a study by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of those schools which were successful in dealing with behavioural problems. I think he will find that that report does not bear out his comments.

Will my hon. Friend ask her Department to prepare a special report on disruptive pupils who are excluded from schools in multi-racial areas? Is she aware that very often, when a pupil is excluded for normal reasons in a multi-racial area, it can look as though a racial attitude is being put forward, when in fact it does not exist?

As I think my hon. Friend will know, a special survey is being conducted into the general educational problems affecting, in particular, West Indian children but also other ethnic minorities. I am sure that the kind of situation to which my hon. Friend referred will be considered.

Does the Under-Secretary of State know that in certain parts of the Inner London Education Authority area psychiatrists and social workers are recommending that children should be sent to these units although they do not exist?

I was not aware of that. I appreciate that not every authority or school has an associated unit. Indeed, one of the matters that arose in the report to which I referred earlier was that some schools do not wish to have access to such units and would rather deal with the problems themselves. I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman indicating such a degree of ignorance on the part of some of those involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made with developing in-service training and retraining of teachers.

): A survey carried out by my Department last summer showed that over half of the teaching force in England and Wales undertook some form of in-service training in the school year 1977–78. Over 100,000 teachers were released from some part of their normal classroom duties to undertake training, the total amount of release representing the equivalent of some 4,000 full-time teachers. This figure is expected to rise to about 5,000 in 1978–79, and to 9,000 in 1979–80. Approval has recently been given to institutions to continue to provide retraining courses in certain shortage subjects.

Can the Minister say specifically whether special attention has been given to the possibility of using colleges of education for this purpose, in particular, those colleges threatened with closure as a result of his own report?

Ideally, initial training and in-service training would continue at the same institution, but this is entirely a matter for the local education authority. Indeed, with regard to North Worcestershire college, I understand that that is under active consideration.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether there is any variation within local authorities with regard to in-service training and retraining of teachers? For instance, do those authorities which wish to save money on education tend to have this provision at a low level compared with other authorities?

I am afraid that there is considerable variation. Although the survey and the answer that I have given show a high level of overall activity and teacher participation, there is disappointing progress in the expansion of opportunities to release teachers to undertake training.

Will the Minister of State see whether more unemployed teachers can be brought into schools so as to create more opportunities for existing teachers to retrain?

Under the rate support grant we have successively made provision for more teachers, both for this purpose and because of declining numbers in schools. It is, of course, up to the local education authorities to decide how those resources are spent, but we urge them to consider the importance of in-service training.

Quite apart from the proper role that colleges of education can play in so-called in-service training, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be desirable for some teachers to go on attachment to successful teachers' departments or schools that are showing outstanding results in adverse conditions? Can he say how far special efforts are being made to enable that to happen?

The provision of in-service training is varied and flexible. The sort of training that my hon. Friend has suggested is undertaken by certain authorities, and I shall do nothing to discourage it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many serving teachers think that the best means of in-service training are, first, the improvement of academic qualifications of people inside the teaching profession, and, secondly, the releasing of people from schools to see successful teachers teaching the same subjects at the same level so that they become aware of the possibility of the best methods of teaching and organisation?

I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman. We are the Government who recently brought in the O-level mathematics and English requirements for teachers. That was something that Conservative Members had ample opportunity to do when they complained about standards. As to the academic attainment of teachers, in in-service training it is not only academic attainment that is important, but also the practical skills of teaching.

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

My right hon. Friend recognises that improvement is always possible.

Taking a special point among that category, is my hon. Friend aware that many profoundly deaf children cannot lip read adequately and therefore cannot be taught by teachers who cannot or will not use sign language? They cannot even learn the English language or, if they are Welsh, the Welsh language. Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to require all teachers of deaf children to learn the skills of sign language and use them in teaching profoundly deaf children?

We are continually aware of the need for better training in all aspects of teaching disabled children, and in particular of training teachers of the deaf. There was a study of this problem a couple of years ago. As my hon. Friend will know, all these questions are being dealt with and re-examined in the context of the Warnock report, which I hope will cast some light on the approach that is needed with regard to all disabled children.

It is important to improve the education of disabled children at the secondary level, but is it not also extremely important to ensure that further education facilities are available at training colleges? Is the hon. Lady aware that in many parts of the country there is a great dearth of such courses, and will she therefore give priority to the use of selective special schools for the provision of these training courses?

The whole question of the facilities that we provide for the disabled, and in particular the use of special schools, is thoroughly covered in the Warnock report, as the hon. Gentleman will know. One of the recommendations is that such schools should act as a kind of centre of expertise for such issues. I think that that is exactly the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman is advocating. We have not received all the replies on the Warnock report, but we hope to have them soon.

Will the hon. Lady give an assurance that the recommendation in the Warnock report that the statutory categorisation of handicapped pupils should be abolished will be implemented and that there will be a move towards a more general approach where there can be advice from a multi-disciplinary team to provide a basis of information for the education authorities?

I recognise the attractiveness of the recommendation, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance today. The Government have deliberately decided to wait for reactions from as wide a range of bodies as possible on a recommendation of such fundamental importance before coming to their own conclusion. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that although not all the contributions have yet been received, most of those which have come in show support for this idea.

Can my hon. Friend give a date when the Government will be pronouncing on the reactions to the Warnock report? Is she aware that a recent conference revealed that there is great concern among teachers in special schools about the balance between specialised education in separate schools and integrated education? Some special schools are at present running down very rapidly, and there is clearly a need for a decision as soon as we can possibly get it.

Those consulted were asked to reply by the end of last month, but unfortunately a number of important contributions have not yet been received. As soon as they are to hand we hope to lose no time in reaching decisions on this matter.

Has the attention of the Minister and her Department been drawn to the development of the light writer which has been developed by a severely disabled constituent of mine, Mr. Toby Churchill, and which is specifically designed for those incapable of speech? Does she agree that this could have considerable relevance to educational possibilities in the future?

Our attention is constantly being drawn to a number of aids of this kind which are thought to be of benefit to people, but it is the local authorities which decide whether a certain aid should be provided for a particular child. As has been said, what will help one child will not necessarily help all children.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the overwhelming support that I have had from the Labour Party and from the public at large, repeatedly on Fridays in this House Conservative Members have blocked my Bill to end the caning of handicapped children? [HON. MEMBERS:"Shame."] Will she now undertake to respond to opinion within the Labour Party and in the country by bringing in immediately a ban on the use of the cane in special schools? [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."]

I am not yet in a position to give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I have great sympathy with his attitude, and particularly with his dismay at what takes place here on Fridays. I believe that it is a classic example of the triumph of dogma over common sense.

Bearing in mind the answer which the hon. Lady gave to her hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), the Warnock report was a major report and a matter of great concern to a group of parents who clearly deserve all the support that they can get from both sides of the House. I appreciate that some time must be given for consultation, but the report was published as long ago as May of last year. Is the hon. Lady now able to give any definite date by which the consultations will be completed?

I am not able to do so because, as I said, a number of bodies have not yet replied. The timing of their response is not within our control. We are anxious to clarify this issue as quickly as possible. The report was published in May of last year, but it advocates a total revision of the way in which we have dealt with these matters in the past and I believe that it would be wrong to rush into action without being sure that what we are doing is right.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the light of recent proposals by Calderdale local education authority to reduce expenditure on education, what steps she is taking to prevent a reduction in educational expenditure nationally.

Each local authority determines its own pattern of expenditure. The rate support grant settlement for 1979–80 allows for a 3½ per cent. increase in real terms in expenditure on education nationally in 1979–80 compared with the level achieved in 1977–78.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge cuts in education spending which are proposed by Calderdale, which are bound to hit hardest the poorest children in the most underprivileged areas? Is she also aware that these cuts, coupled with previous ones, are giving rise to concern whether Calderdale can make proper educational provision? Will she look into this matter, ask for a full report and warn the authority if she believes that its policies are endangering proper educational provision?

My understanding is that the total loss to Calderdale, which the authority alleges is responsible for its proposed substantial cut in education, was £170,000, although it is proposing a cut of £900,000 in education alone. Among other things, that means that it will be cutting back sharply on repairs and maintenance of buildings and on some of the advisory teachers who are very important in improving standards of education. I have no power to order Calderdale to do something, but I hope that that authority will take careful note of what is said in this House this afternoon.

Will the Secretary of State tell us the scale of savings, if any, that she expects to arise from the reduction in the school population over the next few years?

In respect of teacher employment and non-teaching costs we axe attempting to allow for a real increase of expenditure, taking account of the savings made as a result of the decline. The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be little overall saving from the decline in population over the next three years. The secondary school population and the population in further and higher education will increase, even though the primary school population is beginning to fall dramatically.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) about the inadequate education provision in Calderdale and to ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is no provision in that area for teaching deaf and partially-hearing children? I have that information from people in the small part of my constituency in that area. That is scandalous. Can my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that provision is made for these unfortuante children?

There is provision for training teachers for special schools, and provision has been massively stepped up for the in-service training of teachers. We cannot compel a local authority to undertake that training. We make the finances available and send out advice on expenditure of the rate support grant, as we do every spring, but we cannot force the horse to drink as well as provide the water.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will list the number of full-time further education students whose local education authority grants are lower than the social security benefits which they would otherwise receive; and if she will make a statement.

Details of the amount of grant paid to individual students by local education authorities are not collected by my Department.

Will my hon. Friend consider the problem of how many local education authority students are in the position of my constituent, Mr. Pheasant? His discretionary grant from the local education authority is £7 a week less than he would receive for his wife and child if he remained at home on social security. Is it not ridiculous to penalise people who wish to take educational courses in order to free themselves from the misery of the dole?

I was advised of my hon. Friend's supplementary question only a few moments ago. My Department can find no trace of any correspondence concerning Mr. Pheasant, from the student or from the authority. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I shall look into the matter. But if it is a discretionary award, it is at the discretion of the local authority. Although my Department endorses the advice given by the local authority associations to local authorities to pay at the same level as mandatory awards, few do.

The Minister knows that one can retain supplementary benefit if one is taking a course involving fewer than 21 hours a week, but is he aware that we regard as totally inadequate what his Department is doing to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Security and its local offices give that matter wide publicity? This provision should be used by young people to take marketable qualifications rather than some of the qualifications that these offices encourage them to take.

We have done our best to publicise the scheme that where an unemployed youngster is available for work, and his course which is the key condition, involves fewer than 21 hours a week, he can still receive supplementary benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she is making in her discussions with teachers' unions and others towards the establishment of a general teaching council.

I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to a question from the hon. Member for Brain-tree (Mr. Newton) on 6 February.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be no progress without strong personal commitment on her part, and does she have such commitment?

I have a personal commitment, and I have raised that matter at teachers' conferences and elsewhere. There have been great differences of opinion between the teachers' organisations. Initiatives were taken in 1976 and 1978 to bring the parties together. These broke down because of differences of opinion. Of all people in the House, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it requires two to make an agreement.

If there were a general teachers' council, might it not be able to make a better job of manpower planning and the general flow of people into the profession than the Department has done over the past decade? If it were set up, would not the general regulation of employment and unemployment in the profession be one of its jobs?

A professional council of teachers could make a useful contribution, but I point out that in the past year there has been a reduction in teacher unemployment from 11,460 to 9,786. That constitutes 1·6 per cent. of the total teaching profession. Many other professions and trades would be grateful for such a low level of unemployment.

Is not the lesson of the two abortive attempts to form the council that unless and until a Minister takes a positive initiative the council will not be formed and the teaching profession will not be self-governing and self-disciplining, as it should be?

That is a fair comment, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that since 1970, when the Weaver report on a teaching council was published, more than one Minister has attempted to take an initiative. Lord Glenamara, as he now is, took such an initiative as did the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and on more than one occasion I have spoken along these lines to teachers' organisations. The problem is the kind of initiative to take, and clearly a substantial degree of pressure will be required.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the current provision of careers education; and what proposals she has for improving it.

My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that provision for careers education is at present satisfactory in all secondary schools. The Department's circular 14/77, on local education authority arrangements for the school curriculum, asked authorities to report on steps taken to improve preparation for working life. Further action will be considered in the light of consultations on the report on authorities' responses, which will be published soon, and the findings of Her Majesty's inspectors' survey of secondary education in England, which will be published later in the year.

Does the Department have no view on how careers education might be improved? If there is to be a meaningful improvement in careers education, should not the responsibility be vested in the careers service, with perhaps a careers officer seconded to each school, with sole responsibility for the guidance of secondary school children therein?

The careers service has an important role to play, but it is different from that of careers teachers. The role of my Department is purely to advise, guide and encourage. As long ago as 1973, in survey No. 18"Careers Education in Secondary Schools ", we reported to local authorities on the deficiencies in the provision of careers education. But the local authorities have to determine the amount of careers education that they provide.

Will my hon. Friend impress upon local authorities that they have a special duty to the nation to allow careers officers to create close contacts with manufacturing industry? Will he encourage them particularly to give careers officers access at least to a telephone so that they can develop these contacts?

I hope that my hon. Friend means careers teachers. Careers officers are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The more links that careers teachers have with industry, particularly local industry, the better.

Will the Minister encourage industrialists and others to visit schools and colleges and point out the attraction of careers in industry and commerce, which is vital for the country's future?

We encourage visits to schools by industrialists and trade unions, and there is a strong link between individual schools and firms. The more links there are, the better it will be for the entire community and education.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many children do not go into industry because their fathers have had a long experience of bad conditions and low wages? Will he tell the career advisers to talk more to parents to stop the situation arising in which they advise bright children to choose the safety of the town hall, building society or bank?

I agree that industry must do a lot to improve its image. In the past there has been a tendency on the part of schools to underrate commerce and industry, as distinct from other more glamorous professions. However, there has been a massive increase in the number of people now taking science, applied science and engineering courses.

Is the Minister satisfied that the links between schools and local industry are adequate? What support are the Government giving to the scheme entitled"Understanding British Industry"which is being promoted at present?

We are giving support to a number of schemes such as"Understanding British Industry ", and in the Education Bill which is now before the House we are making provision for community governors to be on the governing bodies of schools. I should like to see this go much further. I should like to see schemes similar to that operating in Essex, whereby, each term, local industrialists and trade unionists meet the senior staff and the head of the school to discuss these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the pending pay claim of teachers.

The teachers' panel first presented its claim at a meeting of the Burnham Committee on 7 March. In view of the Prime Minister's anouncement, on the same afternoon, of the establishment of a Standing Commission to consider comparability issues, the Committee agreed to resume discussion on 21 March.

Are all the members of this panel united in the claim, or do they take different views about it? If the claim is eventually referred to the comparability Commission, with whom are the teachers likely to be compared, particularly in view of their holidays?

I notice that a number of answers have been given from behind the Front Bench to the hon. Member's last point, to the effect that teachers might be compared with Members of Parliament. On the first part of the hon. Member's question, he will have seen from the press, particularly the education press, that there are certain differences of emphasis within the teachers' panel over the claim. On the point about the claim being referred to the comparability Commission, this would be a matter for both sides to agree. My understanding is that the management and the teachers are both now examining that possibility. I cannot yet say with whom the teachers will be compared. That is a matter for the comparability Commission, not the Government.

I recognise that teachers generally have not done too badly since the Government came into office, and particularly since the Houghton award. However, will my right hon. Friend use her influence to see that in any future major award there is a move towards a lessening of differentials in the teaching profession? This would be an example to the rest of the country. Will she ensure that, in future, substantial increases go to new entrants to the profession and to the lower graded teachers, and that less goes to directors of polytechnics and others, who are pretty well provided for already?

It would be for the management and teaching sides to take note of that. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are great differences of opinion on the matter within the teachers' panel itself. Over the last few years the teachers' argument has been that there has been some erosion of the Houghton comparability. That has been made a major element of their claim.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the provision of nursery education in England and Wales.

My right hon. Friend will not be satisfied until nursery education is available for all three- and four-year-olds whose parents want them to have it. At present about 18 per cent. of all three- and four-year-olds are in nursery schools and classes, and a further 19 per cent. of the age group are in reception classes in infant schools. Future projections for England and Wales provide for 50 per cent. of all three- and four-year-olds to be in education by 1983, of whom about 28 per cent. are expected to be in nursery schools and classes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled Gloucestershire authority has an abysmal record of no expenditure on nursery education recently and no plans to engage in it in the future? If the Government are determined to see equality of nursery education provision, it will be necessary for them to find means of dealing with authorities such as Gloucestershire so that the children of that county can benefit.

I am aware of Gloucestershire's appalling record on this score. There is little doubt that many local authorities are not helping themselves if they wish to avoid any further change in central Government control over programmes of this kind. Last year about 60 per cent. of Tory-controlled education authorities made no bid for the nursery education programme.

Will the Minister approach this matter with a little caution? Is she aware that the projected expenditure in Hampshire on nursery education for the coming year will amount to £1,600 a year for each child? If half the children of qualifying age in Hampshire were to exercise the option, should it be available to them for such education, it would cost the county £92 million. On that basis, generalising for the whole country, one is talking of a figure of about half the public sector borrowing requirement.

I did not follow the hon. Member's arithmetic closely enough to be sure that it was accurate. We are aware that Hampshire has a good reputation in this matter. Perhaps it could send emissaries to Gloucestershire.

As one who represents a local authority which has done a magnificent job in this respect, may I ask whether it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to publish in Hansard a list of the authorities that have done well, and a list of those that have done nothing? In such an event, those that have done nothing will be stirred into doing something.

We publish such lists from time to time. Sadly, they do not always have the effect that we would wish.

Since it is recognised on both sides of the House that the first five years of a child's development are vital, and since at least one in four of all preschool age children have no provision at all that might be suitable for their needs, will the Minister consider urgently the possibility of introducing specific grants for such purposes, particularly for those families which would otherwise not be motivated or could not afford such provision?

We have had discussions with the local authorities during the last couple of years about the general question of specific grants. It was precisely these discussions that I had in mind when I said that local authorities which resist root and branch the imposition of specific grants are not helping their case by not using money given to them for this purpose.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the educational disadvantages suffered by children born in the late spring and early summer, who normally enjoy only two years in infant schools? Apart from the expansion in nursery education, would it not be helpful to have a more liberal policy on the admission of rising-fives to school? When will my hon. Friend relax the guidelines issued on employing staff to make this possible?

There has already been a relaxation of guidelines on the admission of rising fives. As with many other things in this field, this is a matter for the local authority. However, falling numbers of births will soon solve that problem anyway.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps she is taking to implement the Bullock report on literacy.

As I have previously advised the hon. Member, the recommendations of the Bullock report were addressed to the education service as a whole. Replies from local education authorities to my Department's circular 14/77 on their curricular arrangements have indicated active programmes of work in this field, supported by the Inspectorate. The recently published survey of primary education in England also contained encouraging evidence of the priority given to language skills and of a continued improvement in reading standards. The possibility of further action will be considered in the light of consultations based on a report on authorities' replies to circular 14/77 which is now in preparation.

Has the Minister read recent articles in the education supplement of The Guardian which draw attention to the sharply declining provision of school books? Is she also aware that four and a half years ago the Bullock committee made a central recommendation in its report about the appointment of a committee to advise on capitation allowances and the provision of school books? As the Minister told me last June that she was actively considering implementing this recommendation, why has nothing happened?

I did tell the hon. Member that, and we have not closed our minds to the possibility of setting up such a working party. We are examining the demands that would be made on manpower by a number of inquiries, of which this is one. The National Book League has established a working party, which is expected to report early next year. We want to take that report into account as well in making our decision.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the Bullock report was far more reassuring on the question of literacy than Conservative Members, particularly those on the Front Bench, would have the country believe?

Not only do I say that, but I add that the reassuring statements made by the Bullock report have been more than borne out by the recent primary survey, which has revealed a similar picture.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that although she is quoting from the Bullock report, the House has not yet debated it? At some time in the dying hours of this Government may we have a debate on that report? In that debate, will the Government recommend what, within the rate support grant—not a separate grant—would be reasonable expenditure per primary school child and per secondary school child on books and tools of learning in any school?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's observations, although I doubt whether his friends in the local authorities will thank him for them. The amount of money made available for capitation to local authorities has been substantially increased. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first observation, it is not a matter for me when a debate should be held. I suggest that he approaches his right hon. Friend and asks for time from his own side.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if she will make a statement regarding the progress made by the Assessment of Performance Unit.

The unit conducted its first surveys of performance in mathematics in 1978 and expects to publish its first report, on primary mathematics, towards the middle of this year. Plans are well advanced for surveys in mathematics and English language at primary and secondary level in 1979. Surveys of performance in science are expected to start in 1980 and assessment in foreign languages will follow.

Is it intended that the unit should liaise with the committee of inquiry into mathematics, set up by the right hon. Lady? If so, could the right hon. Lady provide the House with information about that?

The Cockcroft committee of inquiry into the teaching of mathematics is now in operation. Its report will be available to the Assessment of Performance Unit in time for the later mathematics studies. The primary mathematics survey is being conducted at the moment. That material will also be available to the Cockcroft committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report by the director of education for the London borough of Merton, a Conservative-controlled authority which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) used to represent? That report was published in the recent issue of"Education ". In the report, the director examined the performance of comprehensive schools since the borough went over to the comprehensive system in 1969. Overall, he found that O-level and A-level passes had increased by nearly 100 per cent. and, in English and mathematics, by nearly 50 per cent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to put on record some of the remarkable achievements of comprehensively organised authorities. In Merton, the number of O-level passes in 1978 was twice as many as would have been the case if every grammar school pupil had passed O-levels. Many of them failed to do so. A study of Hertfordshire, another Conservative-controlled authority, showed that the total number of passes in O-level, since the area of Welwyn and Hatfield became comprehensive, increased over the period 1968 to 1975 by 95 per cent., against an increase of about 24 per cent. in the age group. Similar information has come from Sheffield, Leicestershire, East Sussex and many other authorities. I am sick and tired of the fact that none of this information is published.

If the Secretary of State returns to the question about the role of the Assessment and Performance Unit, may I ask her to encourage local authorities to adopt the tests used by the unit? In that way, once there is a national yardstick, local authorities will have the means of gauging how they fare in their schools.

The APU test materials will not be avaialable to individual local authorities but the National Foundation for Educational Research is drawing up a group of tests comparable to those used by the APU and these can be employed by local authorities that wish to use them. That will be with the co-operation of the local authorities.

In assessing performance and reading results, should we not take note of the statement from the Conservative Party that if it is elected to power it will destroy the 1976 Act which has brought about more comprehensive education and has resulted in some magnificent performances?

That is fair comment. One of the great advantages of the comprehensive system is that it provides opportunities for boys and girls who would otherwise never have them in secondary modern schools. I hope that some Conservative authorities, for example, Bromley and Kingston upon Thames, will consider seriously whether they are wise to close off those opportunities to so many of their children.

The right hon. Lady quoted the O-level and A-level passes in certain Conservative-controlled authorities. Will she now quote similar results in the inner-city Labour-controlled areas?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened, he would have noticed that I quoted Sheffield. I could quote the passes in the Inner London Education Authority area and in a number of others. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, no doubt, bear in mind the somewhat contentious comparison between Tameside and Manchester, which leaves out of account the fact that Manchester has many more families below the supplementary benefit level, many more families dependent upon benefits and many more ethnic minority families. A comparison on that basis is highly dubious by any statistical method.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 13 March.

I have been asked to reply.

As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House no doubt have the matter of devolution very much in their minds, will my right hon. Friend take it from those of us who remain convinced devolutionists that we should like to see the Scotland Act remain on the statute book? Nevertheless, when the orders are brought before the House, it would be better for the reputation of the House to have a free vote. That is more important than the result of the Government or Opposition recommendation on annulment.

These matters will be taken into account, as the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House a few days ago. I have nothing to add to his remarks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take time today to consider the highly important matter of rates, so that he may advise his right hon. Friend on his return? Less than four months ago the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Government were determined to keep rate increases within single figures. However, last night the Under-Secretary of State confirmed that rate increases would average nearly 18 per cent. Does not that miscalculation demonstrate the full extent of the Government's failure, and, as a result, the crushing burden that will be placed on the hard-pressed ratepayers?

It is not a condemnation of the Government. It is a situation which arises from economic circumstances, pay settlements and other factors. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the rest of the House that it would be wiser to await the full figures. That was the indication given by my hon. Friend when he spoke in yesterday's debate.

Perhaps I might bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the question that he is supposed to answer. It concerned rates, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to put us off by saying that what has happened is not the Government's fault. In fact, it is entirely the fault of the Government in their handling of the economy and the way that they pressurised local authority associations over the local government pay settlement. What is more, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at local authorities, let him consider the average proposed rate increases in some of the Labour-held areas and compare those with the proposed increases in Conservative areas. He will find that it is a very bad comparison for the Labour authorities.

The right hon. Gentleman said that I ought to return to the question on the Order Paper, but that is exactly what I did. It was he who strayed from it. I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman was against the local government pay settlement. He talked about the Government using pressure to try to get a settlement. I should have thought that the House welcomed the settlement. I am certain that the country does so.

Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to persuade the Prime Minister to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the best method of making up the shortfall in retirement pension increases which has come about as a result of the difficulty of anticipating the level of wage increases? I appreciate that Conservative Members have never wanted to relate pensions to wage increases, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that a Labour Government are duty bound to honour that commitment?

I am sure my hon. Friend acknowledges that we have carried out our obligations in this matter in past years. I cannot make any further statement on the general subject today, and I do not think my hon. Friend would expect that it could be done by question and answer.

What was the Government's role in the deals done behind closed doors at the Perth conference of the Labour Party over the weekend? What persuasion went into getting the trade unions to withdraw their emergency resolution that the ordinary people of Scotland had decided and that an Assembly should be set up? Why do not the Government get on with that?

I shall not comment on what may have happened behind closed doors or elsewhere at Perth. The resolution passed at the conference was a very good one. It indicated the general way in which the people of Scotland and the Labour Party in Scotland think we should proceed in this matter.

When my right hon. Friend has the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister when he gets back from his most valuable work in Paris, will he try to impress on him that, although it is by no means the only factor involved in the recent referendum, the main factor is the 52 per cent. of the Scottish people voted"Yes ", against 48 per cent. who voted"No "? [HON. MEMBERS:"Of those who voted ".] Indeed, of those who voted—and that is the usual way in which elections are conducted in this country. Will my right hon. Friend indicate to the Prime Minister that that is a clear majority of the Scottish people?

On the first part of the question, I am grateful that an hon. Member from this side of the House has stressed the importance of the Prime Minister's speech in Paris yesterday. I do not know why the Opposition are laughing. The Prime Minister spoke for British interests. I hope that the Opposition will have recovered their equilibrium by tomorrow when the Prime Minister makes a statement on the matter to the House.

Does not the Leader of the House think it strange that 29 hon. Members want to know where the Prime Minister is today? Does it not stir even the right hon. Gentleman's slumbering conscience that we have still not done something about the farce of the procedure of Prime Minister's questions? When are we to have another debate and a decision about the procedure recommendations that we debated recently?

As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, we can look at the matter to see whether an alteration is necessary. The earlier alteration was made to meet representations from various parts of the House, but if the House wishes to have the matter referred to the Procedure Committee again, I do not think that the Prime Minister would object.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 13 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House aware that some of us on the Labour Benches have been preparing not a neutral but an election-winning Budget? Will he convey these items to the Prime Minister, when he returns, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and urge on them the need to raise personal allowances in order to take 3 million low-paid workers and pensioners out of the tax bracket, to abolish the television licence, to introduce school grants for sixth formers—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make his Budget speech now. He must ask a question, not give information.

If my right hon. Friend is not out of breath, will he also tell the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we feel that there should be free travel for pensioners, the disabled and children going to and from school? If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor ask where the money is to come from, will he tell them that we shall start with an effective tax on people such as the Duke of Westminster and that we shall also—

Order. The hon. Member is not being fair. The minutes are ticking away and his supplementary question will fill a column of Hansard.

We shall also stop the rake's progress in the Common Market.

On the last point, I think that my hon. Friend was seeking to agree with the Prime Minister's speech in Paris yesterday. I am sure that my hon. Friend was cut short in the rest of his speech and we cannot expect to anticipate his Budget Statement today.

In view of the total rejection of the Wales Act by the people of Wales, will the Lord President find a moment to telephone the Prime Minister today to suggest that five minutes is all that is required to table the motion to repeal the Act?

It is true that there was a majority against in Wales, but I notice that some of those who emphasise that fact most strongly do not take into acount the similar fact, that in Scotland the vote went the other way. That fact must also be taken into account. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will lay the order, as has already been indicated. [HON. MEMBERS:"When? "] I cannot give any date, but I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will have many other excellent reflections to make on the matter at the same time.

Will my right hon. Friend make clear to the Prime Minister that, although we welcome his speech yesterday, there is a majority on the Government side that believes that Common Market membership has been an unmitigated disaster for the British people and that he should say that unless the common agricultural policy is scrapped Britain will withdraw from the Common Market within 12 months?

I believe that what the country will want to do—and what I hope the Opposition Front Bench will come round to doing eventually—is to study carefully what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He made a most important declaration. He was standing up for British interests, and it is especially difficult for a British Prime Minister to do so because when he goes to many such gatherings he has to suffer the awkwardness of having behind him the Quisling newspapers which will never support the advocacy of British interests. That must be taken into account, too. Tomorrow the whole House will welcome what the Prime Minister has to report. It will command general assent on this side of the House.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister's effort to cut our net contribution to the Community budget, which is far too high, must have the support of the Opposition as it would cut Government expenditure?

I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. He puts the point so skilfully and softly that I am sure it must have penetrated the skulls on the Opposition Front Bench.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that the Prime Minister is absent on Common Market business. The Leader of the Opposition is also absent. As the right hon. Lady draws a salary—it is approximately £80 per week more than any Back Bencher—for doing her job, is it in order to raise during the Consolidated Fund debate on Thursday the scrounging on public funds that is going on?

The hon. Gentleman may raise on the Consolidated Fund only those items to which I referred last week and which are covered by the Estimates.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a matter that I raised with your predecessor on a number of occasions, and which I touched on with the Leader of the House this afternoon? I refer to the manner and style in which questions are put down to the Prime Minister. I was given some encouragement by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, in pursuing this point some years ago. May I ask whether you would feel ready to give me further encouragement in the pursuit of trying to make Question Time more relative to the events that concern hon. Members, rather than their having to put down fictitious questions in order to pursue their points?

The House is aware that this radical change in our practice has taken place in this Parliament, for the first time. Earlier I expressed opinions on the matter, but the House indicated quite strongly to me that it wished to continue with the open questions. I much prefer substantive questions so that I may ensure that the supplementary questions are related to them.