I beg to move,

That this House, noting the recent Government review of the 16 to 19 age group, urges local education authorities to reappraise their post-16 provision; and welcoming the Government's proposals for the use of microelectronics in education, urges closer collaboration between industry and commerce and schools and colleges.

I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for coming here today to listen to the debate.

There is national concern and anxiety on both sides of the House, despite the absence of Opposition Members this morning, about the problems of youth unemployment. There are problems which arise out of the waste of human resources, disillusionment among young people and the cost to the nation of having so many young people unemployed. The growth in the numbers of young unemployed has concentrated the minds of many people to examine the causes and attempt to obtain solutions.

The purpose of my motion is to air the views of people involved in education rather than of those involved in the problems of unemployment in industry. Some people might have been misled about the intention of my motion by the title given in various places—"Industry and the School Curriculum." It is important that education, for all its failings, should not be held solely responsible for the extent of youth unemployment, any more than it is solely responsible, for, say, the extent of juvenile crime.

Despite the criticisms which I shall make—and I hope that they will be constructive—and comments about what can be done to improve the education of young people, I am aware of and applaud what is already being done. The Department has done a great deal since the general election. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on all that he has done. The CBI, with its campaign for understanding British industry, the trade union movement, local education authorities, chambers of commerce, many individuals and companies have striven to improve the amount of work which is being done to solve the problems of youth unemployment.

So much is being done that it could be said that all the answers should have been found. Perhaps too high an expectation has been placed on the education service for what it can achieve in solving the problems of the young unemployed.

My main aim is to pinpoint certain areas of responsibility and to highlight the areas where full responsibility is not being accepted for the inadequacies, and the expected inadequacies, of our education system in preparing young people for work.

First, I refer to the curriculum and the Government's recently published document. I am aware of and heartily applaud the time and effort that my hon. Friend has applied to it. I do not underestimate the conflicting pressures to which he must have been subjected in trying to arrive at a conclusion in presenting the document. The informed education press hardly welcomed the document with open arms. It has been accused of being a loose and noncommittal document containing too many platitudes and of advancing thinking and conclusions on the school curriculum no further, but it is a sincere attempt to establish responsibility for the school curriculum. It refers to parents exercising their responsibility through their parent-teacher associations and their representatives on school boards.

The document also refers to the powers of governing boards through their instruments of government and how they can affect the preparation and settlement of the school curriculum, and the responsibilities of teaching staff, heads of schools and the local education authorities. I do not list those responsibilities in any order of priority. The fundamental truth is that the final responsibility lies with the State, even if it delegates some—or all in some cases—of its responsibility to other bodies. That may not be a welcome truth, and too often it is not accepted.

By law, we oblige the majority of our children of school age to attend State schools. We deduct rates and taxes by law to meet the cost of providing that education. For those State schools, we lay down statutory requirements and standards on space, the proportion of playing field areas, lavatories, health and safety provisions, the prevention of charging by way of fees and the powers of local education authorities. Despite all those requirements and the statutory obligation on our children to go to school to be taught, we shrink from the responsibility of laying down the basic statutory requirements of the school curriculum.

There is no denying that there are enormous difficulties in defining the school curriculum. There is also no denying that the documents carefully avoid saying what the curriculum must be and avoid giving an indication of a final acceptance by the Government of the responsibility for saying what the curriculum must be.

Many parents do not realise the powers that they have on school boards. They think that the teachers decide the curriculum. Many teachers think that the local education authorities decide the curriculum. The authorities think that the teachers decide. The Government know that they do not decide. I suspect that many employers wish they knew who decides.

Before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State becomes a little too upset at what may seem an unfair analysis of the problem of locating ultimate responsibility, I repeat that I know how much he has done and how much his Department has done. I realise how much local education authorities, together with parents and teachers, do in achieving with a curriculum which, in most instances, goes a long way towards meeting today's requirements.

There should be a statutory requirement to teach certain subjects within the school curriculum. That requirement should include English, mathematics, religious education, a modern language, history or geography and physical education. Those subjects should be taught to a statutory minimum standard laid down in conjunction with the O level and CSE examinations. That would provide us with an opportunity to monitor the success of the curriculum that we lay down for our schools.

While I am beginning to see more merit in the amalgamation of the O-level and CSE examinations, provided that that ensures that the aspiration to increase the general level of educational attainment is not impaired, I strongly oppose recent reports that the O-level and CSE examinations should disappear. It is vital that we should retain a group examination for 16-year-old children. If that were to disappear, it would greatly harm the future of many of our young people.

If my hon. Friend is referring to some comments in The Daily Telegraph by John Izbicki, I counsel the House to take note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to eliminate the current group examinations for 16-yearold children. That was a mischievous ill-informed article. An article appeared in yesterday's columns in which my right hon. and learned Friend refuted the allegations which had appeared earlier in the week. It should be clearly understood by all hon. Members that my Department has no plans to halt those examinations.

I am delighted to hear that reassurance. Having heard other statements made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, it seemed inconceivable that what was said in the article could be right. It is marvellous to hear a categorical reassurance on that subject.

It has been suggested that character and work profiles should be provided for pupils when they leave school which would replace the examination results. Far be it from me to say that those profiles are bad. In many instances, they would be useful to supplement the examination results. Many employers, and even pupils, would find them useful as a supplement to the examination results.

We must also consider the way in which those subjects are taught and presented to parents in the school curriculum. One of the pleasing things about the school curriculum document is that it gives an insight into the considerable ways in which, within the school curriculum, teachers and parents as well as industrialists can arrive at ways of interesting the pupils and of educating and preparing them for adult life.

I shall refer to two recent publications. One is the report on the 16 to 19 age group by the Department of Education and Science, and the other concerns schools and working life. They reveal how much can be achieved. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the latter document. It is very helpful and I commend it to all those inside and outside the House who have an interest in the subject. They should consider how it may be used as an example in their own areas.

Both documents make a horrific admission. Rather than preparing our young people for work, lamentably we are principally educating teachers and industrialists to prepare young people for work. As we are now indulging in a training programme, it is high time that people realised that they must impart to pupils the information and experience that they obtain. Many schools have done that extremely well for some years, but it depends on the will of teachers, local employers and parents to prepare young people for work.

The Wadebridge school in my constituency in North Cornwall has a remarkable record not only in preparing pupils for work but, in conjunction with local employers, in ensuring that they find jobs, in spite of high unemployment in the area. Many employers and employer organisations deserve unreserved congratulations, but I am appalled that in areas where not enough is done, when attempts are made, particularly by well-meaning organisations outside the education service, they receive a negative response from the local education authorities and schools. A pecking order becomes apparent.

In view of the scale of the problem of youth unemployment, too much sensitivity is being displayed. I ask my hon. Friend to take a much stronger line with local education authorities and, through them, teachers. They have a critical responsibility to prepare pupils for work. School activities generally are important, and many need not relate to future work. They merely widen the mind. Nevertheless, schools have the responsibility to remain up to date on the current and projected requirements of the world of work and to ensure that pupils are kept closely in touch with what is expected of them.

In areas of high unemployment, and particularly where structural industries are in major decline, schools must be aware that the future lies more in finding employment in small businesses and perhaps even in starting small businesses, and in fostering enterprise and aiming at higher personal achievement, than in areas where unemployment is less accentuated. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who is responsible for small businesses, is present, and I hope that he will ask hon. Members to support any proposals that he has to ensure that in areas where industries are declining teachers and local education authorities impart to pupils the different attitudes and requirements of small businesses.

I turn to the question of microelectronics. It is becoming increasingly clear to people involved in using electronics in industry and commerce that in about 1985–86 there will be a phenomenal lift-off in the equipment available. People will be confronted with a whole range of computerised aids. There will be a great change in the nature of work, and the amount of information to be processed will be considerable, which will increase employment opportunities for young people. The Departments of Education and Science and Industry have done much to increase awareness in schools and to increase the provision for gaining computer knowledge. Although £9 million has come from the Department of Education and Science, much more is needed. Everything possible must be done to increase the money and to ensure that every endeavour is made to increase software training and provision in schools, because that is where future employment potential lies.

The Department of Industry is concerned to see more computer hardware in schools, but if our young people are to contribute to the exciting possibilities in the Western world we must also encourage much greater software training, which will greatly help to solve youth eemployment. Equipment is becoming more easily available, cheaper, more versatile and easier to operate, and school rolls in the 16-to-19 age group will be declining by about 25 per cent.

Considerable and conflicting difficulties are to be found among the people and organisations involved in education, but the Government must be much more clear about their responsibility for the curriculum. Over the next few years there will be great changes in the source of funding and the nature of provision in schools. Central and local government will not be alone in providing the tuition and resources for computer training. They will come increasingly from commercial and voluntary organisations. It is becoming more and more obvious that the 1944 Act has dangerous shortcomings. The documents that I referred to confirm an increasing dependence on local aid, links with industry and reliance on outside provision of electronic equipment.

There is a limit to what the Government can do, but the Act inhibits the amount of aid that can be accepted. Local education authorities alone are allowed to provide teaching, and statutory requirements are frequently quoted to reinforce that. There has recently been a great furore about the provision of books. Comparing the provision of books with the outside aid needed for computer training, I believe that the Act, in its present form, is under threat. We must monitor that element of the Act to ensure that if it is an inhibiting factor it is immediately changed.

I close by asking my hon. Friends to support me in urging my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and his colleagues to accept much more responsibility, to impose a core curriculum and to monitor its achievements by the examination structure. I ask my hon. Friend to promote among local education authorities and teachers a far greater awareness and sense of responsibility about preparing pupils for work. I know that that suggestion will infuriate some who have done a great deal, but it must be accepted that many are backward in this respect. I urge my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry to make a far greater and increasing financial provision to equip our schools with the computer hardware and software which will encourage far greater potential to ensure that children in our schools obtain the opportunity to find work.

I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on the motion that he has proposed and the way in which he has proposed it. He has made a very thoughtful and worthwhile contribution to what he described as a very difficult problem. Indeed, it is probably one of the most difficult problems that we have to consider. In a sense, there is nothing more important for any Government or any society than preparing succeeding generations not only for the world of work but for living generally. Many of us take this to heart.

I particularly liked my hon. Friend's reference to microelectronics. I never fail to be amazed at the adaptability of the young. One has only to consider, for example, the way in which they adapt to space invaders, skateboards or television games in which they regularly beat not only fathers and grandfathers but, everyone else as well. There is the way in which they adapt to motor mechanics. I think that young people of my son's generation must have petrol rather than blood in their veins, as they can do things with vehicles that my generation certainly cannot.

It is therefore not just a question of what we should do normally but the fact that each generation relies upon the next to be more adaptable and to pick up and develop the new technologies so that we may talk about them and use them even though we cannot actually produce them or understand how they work.

The overall picture with regard to the training of 16 to 19-year-olds is unacceptable. I pay tribute to what the Government have already done in this area. I think that over the past two years we have probably the best record of any. Moreover, it is not only in terms of the amount of paper that we have produced. I say that in no disparaging way. We have reproduced "A Better Start in Working Life" and "Providing Educational Opportunities for 16–18 Year Olds". We have dealt with the Finniston report and its importance to industry and education. We have had the RETA report on training boards, and the Macfarlane report, "Education for 16–19 year olds", from the review chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. All of those papers have taken us forward. All have been discussed and all have posed problems which have to be faced.

Not only have we done the paperwork; we have produced money and schemes in areas of the greatest concern. First and foremost, of course, is the youth opportunities programme which the Government have expanded every year since they have been in office. Next year there will be 440,000 places to deal with a very difficult situation. That is a remarkable increase. Here I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in that programme since its inception. For a scheme to be introduced in 1978 and to expand from no places to 440,000 places nation-wide and to deal with that number of young unemployed has been a remarkable achievement which should be recognised in the House. It has required not only commitment from the Government in terms of cash but commitments from industry, trade unions and colleges of further education in many directions.

I am concerned that the "knockers" are now increasingly criticising the youth opportunities programme. Critical motions are beginning to appear on trade union conference agendas. There are inevitable stories of the odd scheme that goes awry. Given the number of schemes that are now available nation-wide, it is inevitable that the odd scheme will go wrong. But that should not detract in any way from the contribution that the scheme has made, is making and will make to dealt with the problems of the young unemployed.

The second scheme which has been recognised, accepted and developed by the Government is the new unified vocational preparation scheme, where we have gone from a very small target number of places to accepting that we want 25,000 places on the scheme by 1983–84 and accepting that we shall have to provide the finance to do that.

The Government have therefore already done a great deal, but I would not stop there. I say immediately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North has said, that there is a great deal more to do. There is also a greater sense of urgency as the problems emerge. There will be a real effect upon our economic and social future if we do not act on the recommendations of the reports that have already been produced.

I come now to the problems that we all recognise, not necessarily in order of priority.

First, the number of pupils who stay on in full-time education in this country as compared with other countries is a matter of great concern. Moreover, within that full-time education, many of us feel that the division between the academic and vocational streams is far too rigid and desperately needs to be changed.

Secondly, 300,000 young people currently leave school at 16 and go into a job with no further education or recognised training facilities available to them. The position of those young people will cause problems in the future. This is clear from the demographic trends and the decline in the number of unskilled jobs—650,000 such jobs have already been lost, and a further 1 million will be lost over the next five years. We must therefore be concerned about those young people. In the past, they left school and went into jobs and we had no need to worry about them ever after. That is no longer the case.

The third group comprises those who leave school without having a job to go to. I have already mentioned that group, and the special measures which are doing an excellent job and are developing from schemes which originally simply kept young people off the register and gave them something to do and a chance to know what it was like to work. Those schemes are now developing into schemes that provide training, but they need to include much more training in order to be more appropriate to the problems of finding jobs in the future.

Fourthly, there is the nature of the skill training itself. The apprenticeship system has served its purpose in the past, but it is recognised by many as being in great need of reform. Again, the new training initiative to be introduced by the Department of Employment will seek to deal with this. I should point out as an aside that in this context I am particularly concerned about the present decline in apprenticeships and skill training. I believe that this is a false, though understandable, reaction of industry to the current recession. It is a great mistake at a time when we all recognise the need to reform the system, to train to standards and to improve motivation.

We do not want the present system to collapse before reform is implemented. In this context—and here I commend my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—one has only to consider the age structure with regard to skills in engineering and the demographic trends. We have only to visit factories in our own constituencies and see the number of grey hairs on the factory floor to appreciate that the demographic trends show that the great mass of skill is still in the 55 to 65 age band, and that when those people retire there will be a desperate shortage. I say that as an aside, but I hope that it will be noted in other places. One must realise the importance of apprenticeship training at present. The position requires urgent consideration and urgent action to prevent the old, familar pattern of skill shortages developing when the upturn in the economy comes.

Having spelt out the problems, let us look at what is happening on the ground. The school-industry links are better than many realise. They are not good enough, but we sometimes tend to underestimate what is being done on the ground. There are many successes in the links between colleges of further education, secondary schools and local industry. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel round the country will know that in almost every community there is a school that has an excellent record of local links, and that exchanges teachers with local industrialists. Such schools place many of their young people in local industry without availing themselves of any of the Government's schemes. There are many schemes afoot, although they may not be classified.

There are also exciting schemes. I visited a school in Ipswich that had a system of vocational choice for the 12 to 13 age group. Many of the young people in that school begin training there and carry out practical work that enables them to do away with the first year of apprenticeship. The motivation and interest that the school finds amongst the 14 and 15-year-olds is to be commended.

The "bridge from school to work" scheme is run by the Chemical and Allied Products Industry Training Board. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister takes great interest in this scheme. Such schemes are pointers to the future. Things are happening on the ground that should be encouraged. We should encourage the standard of the best to become the overall standard of the country. That should be done, not by legislation but by publicity and personal encouragement. We want young people to have a choice of career that is not the result of a single decision. There should be a phasing in of the transition from school to work. Indeed, many of us accept that nursery education represents the transition of the young from home to school. Such education might take a year or two, but the children are all the better for it. For the 16 to 18 age group there should be a transition from school to work that involves being partly at school and partly at work, or vice versa.

By the time a young person is 18 he should have a clearer idea of his abilities, of what is required from him and of what he can achieve. Transition is the key. I particularly welcome the emphasis laid on tertiary education in the Macfarlane report. Those of us who went through sixth forms would not minimise the contribution that they can make in the old-fashioned sense. By that I mean that the sixth form was an integral part of the school. A sixth former was not only a senior pupil but was second only to the master and had much to do with running the school.

However, it is a mistake to think that sixth forms can be recreated throughout the country and that they can fulfil our future requirements. Therefore, I welcome the emphasis that has been laid on tertiary education. It is particularly important in urban areas. The concept of sixth form colleges and of colleges of further education is more acceptable to students and young people, because they can wear jeans and become students overnight with all the motivation that that involves. In addition, a wider range of courses can be offered. Academic and vocational courses can be mixed and everything can be done within the same set-up. With the best will in the world, however good a sixth form may be, the limits on staffing and on numbers mean that it will incline towards academic rather than vocational subjects. I should welcome a blurring of the edges. Students should be given a wide range of opportunities and should be able, not only to learn a language, but to take an engineering diploma at the same time. Therefore, I welcome the move towards a tertiary education system.

I should like to go beyond what is happening on the ground to outline a scheme that some of us have been working on, which gives a message of hope in such difficult times. As a result of my work in the Department of Employment and the decisions that I came to independently, a scheme developed for the way in which we should consider the 16 to 19 age group. I have christened this scheme "life-link" or "life-line" if, for no other reason than that one must have a name for it. It is largely based on a non-bureaucratic and non-centralised national role that will involve the whole of the 16 to 18-year-old age group. It seeks to mobilise genuine local interest as the motor to achievement.

Its national role is to co-ordinate standards. A great deal of work is being done and papers are being produced on examinations and the form that they should take. A great deal is being done by TETOC and BEC to achieve a national standard, whether that standard be in skills semi-skills or in a wide range of technical professions. This should be encouraged. It cannot be achieved through legislation but the different Departments involved should work together as a matter of urgency.

The second national role needed to promote the life-link scheme—this may be more controversial—involves careers advice and the careers service. The service is basically financed by the Department of Employment, but there is no control over the careers service offered in the various education areas. There are great variations in the numbers of careers advisers available and in the way in which they operate. I am far from being a central Government man. I much prefer to think where possible, in terms of devolution. However, we should consider a national scheme of careers advice and advisers that are linked into the system.

Schemes such as the youth opportunities programme and the UVP have a national role. The target figure is set and the Government finance it. As the Macfarlane report recognises, we must work towards a system whereby the special programmes division of the Manpower Services Commission, which already has 27 area boards, is converted into a series of local boards that are responsible for the whole of the 16 to 18 age group. They should have responsibility for co-ordinating work for the young unemployed and for those affected by the UVP. I have already referred to the 300,000 who start work without any skill training. Further education must also be co-ordinated.

My hon. Friend's report accepts the work that the MSC is doing and sees it as an ideal body to carry such work forward. From there, the traineeship principle should be developed. We should decide national standards and set up a national careers service. In addition, there should be national finance in terms of the targeting for different areas, although it should be remembered that there is more unemployment in some areas than in others. Most importantly, there should be a tremendous local contribution by industrialists, trade unionists and educationalists. Such local people should look at their own specific labour markets and work with their local training boards. Local motivation is important. Local people know the schools and colleges. If such steps were taken they could prove worth while.

I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest. We all know of his expertise and skill on this subject. He spoke of greater co-ordination and has encapsulated his thoughts in his last few sentences. Does he envisage co-ordination that would include the educational world? We should all be interested to hear my hon. Friend's thoughts on that point.

The simple answer is "Yes". This is an opportunity to air my personal views at an early stage. I am working with a team of people to see whether our original thinking can be developed further. We intend to make a response to the Government's initiative on new training. The group feels that education, including further education, should be very much involved. This is an area where there has been no co-ordination. There is a need for all these matters to be pulled together. It is not a question of territories or even finance. It is a question of using facilities.

It is nonsense that, in an area containing youth opportunities programme youngsters and UVP youngsters attending colleges of further education, we do not also consider young people in those colleges taking other courses as of right. It is also nonsense, where schemes connected with the youth opportunities programme involve employers' own premises, to imagine that someone doing an educational course at a college of further education would not benefit from taking part of the course in an employer's premises. It is a question of coordination towards specific objectives and targets.

I think that my speech has probably lasted enough to whet people's appetites. I hope to have a chance to develop my thoughts on further occasions. One recognises the key importance of the 16 to 19-year-olds. Many people are giving thought to the matter. The Government have done a great deal. It is a critical area. There is a need to move faster with a greater sense of urgency and a greater sense of concentration.

The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) for initiating the debate. Because of the hours that hon. Members have been sitting this week we have a poorer attendance than the importance of the debate warrants. The subject with which the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) dealt touches one of the fundamental aspects of our national life. It is a pity that educationists have been responsible for most of the argument without the reinforcement of the views of those who can speak on behalf of industry.

Industry has been lax in making its wishes felt, largely because of the education that those in industry received. This is of enormous importance. In the nineteenth century, there was a wish to create the fully rounded man. This remains the main purpose of our education system. Other countries realised that in order to survive they must have people who could earn a living for the nation. Only very slowly is this country beginning to realise that we have to tailor a large part of the education system in order to maintain, let alone improve, our standard of living.

The myth of the arts graduate, and the myth that one can create a person able to turn his hand to anything because he has received some divine instruction or possesses some divine ability to use his brains to the maximum, is having to be examined closely. It is astonishing that we should be turning to such matters at this stage of the twentieth century when they were resolved satisfactorily in other countries 100 years or more ago. In the nineteenth century Germany set out on a course of providing for the education of its industrialists. Over 80 per cent. of directors in Germany have engineering qualifications.

In factories in Japan, and indistinguishable from the rest of the work force, there are people who have received a university education in engineering who are able to work alongside people carrying out the productive processes.

That is the sort of thing that we find ourselves, even at this late stage, examining but not implementing. No one can be happy about the fact that we have failed to understand the needs of the work force and the educated work force in industry.

We went fiercely wrong 20 years ago following the Robbins report on university expansion. We had the kernel of a superb education system in our cities, potentially geared to the demands of industry. What did we do? We started setting up places in the countryside—in York, Lancaster, Sussex and Essex—trying to emulate 200 years too late the dreamy spires of Oxford and Cambridge. Far from moving in the right direction, we moved in the contrary direction. The message was the need for even more arts graduates.

The situation on the Continent is quite different. I recall visiting Siemens, the big electrical organisation. I wanted to know about its recruitment policy. My driver was a philosophy student. He had graduated in philosophy but was unable to get a job and therefore was driving us around and talking to us. I was told that the company recruited 70 per cent. electrical engineers, 10 per cent. mechanical engineers, 5 per cent. linguists, and so on. In response to my question about how many arts graduates were employed, the personnel director of Siemens looked at me and the language barrier broke down. I asked the question again, giving, as an example, students like my driver, who had studied philosophy. His reply was "Philosophy? We do not do philosophy here. We are electrical engineers." This is a fundamentally different approach from what we have come to expect as normal in a world that does not regard it as normal.

This is linked with the division between our classes and the division on the factory floor. For my first job in a factory I wore a boiler suit. I became a foreman and put on a white coat. On becoming a machine shop manager I wore some decent clothing. I also moved up in the toilet ranks—from the ordinary toilets to better toilets, and on to the managerial toilets. My times for arriving at work also changed. I started by clocking on. A little later, I signed on. Eventually I was simply able to walk in. The same would have applied in regard to a canteen, if there had been one. Anyone might have imagined that my salary was going down rather than up. What are we trying to do?

People arriving for work in Japan are indistinguishable. One sees a whole horde of production engineers poring over the latest piece of new machinery trying to get the utmost out of it. This fundamental difference of approach is of enormous importance. We are talking essentially of engineering. If one does not learn mathematics and engineering when young, one never learns. It is different with history or literary criticism. Some of us turn to such subjects in later life with great enjoyment. I cannot say that my knowledge of history compares with the knowledge of those who studied it during the crucial years of their life. It does not mean, however, that because we did not enjoy those advantages but, instead, undertook a technical education that would earn us a living, we are an illiterate lot.

Industry is also culpable in this matter. The process normally is that like selects like, whether in industry, in Government, or in the Civil Service. This is a big problem. Industry likes to pick the best people. The best people tend to go to university, study certain subjects and go on to appear before selection boards, where they meet similar people. The system perpetuates itself.

I like to see every year the work of production engineers and to keep myself informed about what is happening. In one large organisation I met someone who was reputed to be a bright young fellow. I compared his salary with the salary of others working in the same firm carrying out other jobs. The production engineer was earning much less. The problem about inflation is that one can never mention salaries because they mean nothing two or three years later. The salary that that man could obtain by the age of 30 if he continued to be very good was about £4,500 a year, perhaps a little more than he might have earned if he had been a good shorthand typist. There is something wrong if that is what could be earned by a good graduate who was held to be competent and valuable. There is something wrong about our system in industry if it does not bring the necessary pressure to bear on our education system, and there is something wrong about an education system that does not seem able to provide what is needed.

I am worried, particularly in view of the cuts in spending on education. At present we still have some of the finest technical education institutions. I think, for example, of UMIST, in Manchester, which used to turn out probably the highest proportion of engineers in the world, and which still has a remarkably high standard. The university where I obtained my qualifications in the evenings was then only a modest technical college. The subject that I read was mechanical engineering. I looked at the 18 names of those who passed the examination two years ago and saw such names as Mistry and Patel—splendid names. A number of those who passed were my constituents.

The interesting thing is that the list consisted predominantly of people who were not born in this country, people who think that they can earn their living in a superior way. The important point is that some of the other names were of foreigners, who enable these splendid courses to continue. If we cut off the supply of educational opportunities we may strike at the only way in which we can improve educational opportunities for those who want to make use of them in industry in the future.

We shall one day find ourselves with 80 per cent. of our people in top management having studied engineering. The only question is whether we shall decline until that is forced upon us, until we become so impoverished that it is the only way out of our problems, or whether we shall at this late stage see just a little distance ahead and make the necessary changes in our education system.

Those are the unpleasant choices, unpleasant for those who feel that the subjects in question are not educational in the widest sense. Let me disillusion them. At one stage in the distant past those subjects were considered rather more important in some respects than they are now. Those who contributed to the physical sciences were held to be educated in the widest sense. They are the kind of people that we want—those who can use the skills that they can learn and the techniques that they can acquire in order to advantage industry. Without them, we are a poor country, and the sooner we realise it the better.

I wholly agree with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the high standing and respect that students and masters of the physical sciences should have. However, I cannot agree with him that if one does not pick up engineering early, one never can, whereas history and similar subjects can be studied later. That is not what happens. It is an educationally unsound and disappointing view. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not push it hard, and I did not think that he was being rigid.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on the motion and the way in which he moved it. He spoke quietly and in depth about a number of important aspects of today's education. We should do well to heed much of what he said.

I apologise for the fact that I must leave shortly after speaking, because I have to go to a funeral. I have been reproved by an hon. Friend for not wearing a black tie. It is no disrespect to my departed friend. It is simply that I think that in the Chamber we are always cheerful, but I shall change the tie for the funeral itself.

Incidentally, I was astonished to hear on the Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning that "Yesterday in Parliament" would be cut short because after the marathon debate on the British Telecommunications Bill most hon. Members were sleeping. That is nonsense. I was in my constituency until late last night, and I know that most other hon. Members were in theirs. I realise that it was a throw-away remark by a programme compere, so I am not blaming the BBC, but I hope that the BBC will note that it was nonsense.

I want to speak carefully about two or three aspects of education as it is now. It is possible to be a wholly committed supporter of comprehensive schools, as I am, and of the principles that underlie them, and yet to be very concerned about what can happen in practice. It is one thing to say that the ability and potential of children cannot be adequately assessed at the age of 11, and that in any case children of different academic abilities should not be educated in separate institutions. It is quite another thing to say, with Rousseau-esque sentimentality, that all children should be educated as though their potential were equal, that all their career aspirations are equally valid, and that they should keep all their options open as long as possible, until the moment of truth when a child decides whether to be a nuclear physicist or a hairdresser's assistant. Perhaps I exaggerate, but a caricature often highlights truths otherwise overlooked.

Because for many of our less able pupils schools aim to provide far too broad a curriculum, boys and girls end up with far too insecure a grasp of the essential skills that they will need in adult working life and—the most serious result—educationally disaffected. I am not arguing for a return to thin, Gradgrind, three "Rs" gruel, although I believe that the three "Rs" are the most important. Nor am I suggesting that music, art, drama and literature—indeed, any of those subjects of less direct interest to employers—are mere frills. Remove them from the curriculum, which is what is happening in the areas of an increasing number of authorities, and the result will be to starve society of the imaginative and creative impetus that, despite our grave economic position, is perhaps our most important raw material.

I am saying that in our fear of providing restrictive, vocationally based education, we do less able children a grave disservice in pursuing the chimera of a broad, liberal and relevant education. We have not got the balance right. I am by no means certain that the discussions of what the curriculum should contain have so far helped; on the contrary, too often they have disguised the real issues. Many of the discussions have not got at what happens in the nitty-gritty of life in schools throughout the country. Too often people with an academic interest in the curriculum discuss it without reference to the coal face, so that they do not get at the precise facts.

That is not to knock the Government document on the curriculum that came out this week, which substantially got at the truth. We cannot attempt as broad a curriculum as is being attempted in many schools. I particularly welcome the core as outlined this week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Can my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is an acknowledged expert on the subject, find in the document on the school curriculum any means whereby the Government could ensure that schools actually teach what the document identifies as a core?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. The Government do not have the power to ensure that schools teach any core that they lay down, but they are in a position to influence the situation. I know the pressure that HMIs can bring on local authorities and schools, and the influence that the Government can bring to bear in the broad debate on the curriculum.

The Government have—or should have—an important power in enforcing one part of the school curriculum, namely, religious education. Unfortunately, that subject has been allowed to drift dangerously low in the list of priorities in schools. However, the Government have tried to redress the situation. I welcome that effort, and I hope that it will continue.

I come back to my original theme. We need to look carefully at the role that higher education plays in influencing and shaping our school examination system. Our universities are probably guilty of considerable hypocrisy. On the one hand, they suggest that they want candidates with a breadth of educational experience rather than high-level qualifications in a narrow subject hand, yet in practice they choose the latter whenever they have the opportunity to do so, as anyone who is familiar with the type of A-levels required by universities knows. Incidentally, I see that this week there has been a move by one of the Oxford colleges in its demands, but generally speaking what I say is correct.

The Government proposal to retain the A-level examination, but to complement it with the I-level examination, is sensible and praiseworthy. However, I-level will be eyewash if in the end the universities favour candidates with high-grade A-level passes supplemented by what I shall call satellite I-level qualifications closely related to the main specialism. What will that achieve?

What worries me just as much is that, in so far as the pattern of A-level candidates is to a large extent determined by the requirements of higher education, so O-levels are influenced. In other words, the candidate who succeeds at O-level is the one whose O-level results form the most clear continuum with his A-level studies—which, incidentally, looks most impressive on the UCA forms which have to be completed before A-level results are known.

In turn, O-level influences the curriculum pattern reflected by CSE examinations. There is an extraordinary chain of knock-on effects. The Government rightly concluded that the O-level/CSE pattern needs to be reformed, and they propose to introduce a common system at 16-plus. There is much to be said for that, provided that standards are properly safeguarded, as they can be. When this Government—or, indeed, any other Government—may go wrong is when higher education is permitted to continue moulding the whole system, however indirectly. A small tail will continue to wag a large dog. We need an examination system which will satisfy not merely the needs of higher education but those of employers, too, and which will inspire children in school to seek a broad education and perhaps give them the ambition to continue their education for life.

The suggestion that after one year in the sixth form there should be a pre-vocational examination is a start, but only a start. More thinking is needed if we are to produce school leavers who are not merely the products of a liberal education but have the qualifications that will appear relevant to employers.

I shall say a brief word about YOP courses and the way in which they are organised. I have seen many such courses. Broadly, they are working well. The influence on such courses of the educationists, particularly as represented by the Department of Education and Science, is of great importance and should be maintained, and possibly strengthened.

I say in passing that at Perivale, in my constituency, we are losing a skillcentre. It is being moved because the lease of the premises has run out and an enormous increase is being demanded of the Government-funded agency which runs the centre. In my opinion, the agency was right to refuse to pay the enormous increase. It would be wrong to do that in the name of the taxpayer. It is tragic that such a high rent is demanded that the skillcentre is forced to move. In fact, it is linking up with another centre that is not far away, so no places will be lost. None the less, the facility will be lost to my constituency, and I regret that. I hope that landlords in that and other areas will have regard to the length of the public purse and its ability to pay such increases.

I come back to the curriculum. I know from my long experience in schools that more and more was put on the curriculum. People said that schools should be doing something about whatever seemed to be ailing society. As the number of cars on the road increases and the number of children involved in road accidents increased, so it was decided to have lessons in road safety. It was then discovered that many parents were inadequate, although there have been such parents throughout history. So it was decided that something should be done about that and that classes for preparation for parenthood should be included in the curriculum. Then there was sex education. The next thing was international understanding. Now people are saying that that subject should be put on the curriculum. There is no end to the demands made on schools in connection with the curricular content.

As a result of all those worthy demands and pressures, the essentials—the core that has been outlined by the Secretary of State—has been pushed aside into a gradually decreasing part of the school curriculum in a wholly unsatisfactory manner. That fact, allied to the examination system demands and the curious knock-on effect of one examination on another throughout the system, has distorted the whole school system in a ridiculous way.

I should like to make a practical suggestion. Perhaps on Wednesday mornings—or any mid-week morning—the first period should be set aside in all schools from year one upwards for extra subjects. If there is to be a lengthened school assembly during the week, let it be on a Wednesday, so that it takes up that first lesson. Minority subjects should be studied during that period. That would leave the rest of the week for the study of the school curriculum. Many of the interesting and compelling additions to the curriculum could take place after school, as happens now with the willing and generous co-operation of many teachers.

At fifth and sixth form level thoughtful use is already made of what is called minority time—time left after the main provision for time has been made—for examination subjects. I suggest that an allocation of time should be made throughout the school curriculum to cover the extra demands that may be put upon it. At the same time, these extra demands should be kept to a minimum in the interests of schools and the children's education.

Profiling has been mentioned. It is too early to come to a view on the place of profiling in the examination system. There probably is a place for it, but I would not see it as a replacement for examinations. I have not come to a final view, but we may eventually have results based partly on examinations as and partly on profiling. The ratio of the one to the other needs to be thought through. I would put profiling as a small part of the ratio at present.

We should remember the demands that examinations make on the nerves and the difficulties that some children and adults experience on getting through examinations at all. Profiling, if it has a function, could help those who find examinations difficult and nerve-wracking and are thus unable to give their best performance.

I should like to quote from an article by a lady of 80 who recently wrote about her education in a London school—St. Barnabas and St. Philip's primary school, Kensington—more than 70 years ago. She speaks of the way that she went on to university and became a first-class honours graduate. Of her old school she said:

"The school was called a 'higher grade school', a description long outdated. To a pupil it seemed like any other school in London except that it had a visiting French teacher. This woman appeared to be very old for she was grey, wore mauve blouses and used glasses on a long gold chain for reading. Her idea of teaching French was to give the class a long list of words for repetition, and as she was French they had the correct pronunciation, then to give the meanings followed by a passage containing the words for reading and learning by heart. Pupils who could not have given the present tense of donner were thus thrown in at the deep end, but somehow some of them began to swim with this Gallic tide and liked it."

She went on to touch on teaching techniques. She said:

"The school motto was from Ecclesiastes: 'The very true beginning of wisdom is the desire of discipline'. It hung in the hall facing the pupils each morning. It had a frosty sound to me as a newcomer whose idea of discipline was elementary. Later I came to know its true meaning and to read the last word as 'self discipline'."

Finally, she said:

"I suppose pupils remember best those teachers who took their favourite subjects or those who were eccentric in some way. Of the former there was Miss Edwardes who took us for Shelley in the fifth"—

Sherry!

Not sherry—Shelley, the poet.

I thought my hon. Friend said that he was taken for sherry. I was thinking that such advanced education accounted for his subsequent achievements.

That is an interesting observation. I was describing a lady who is now 80 years of age. What happened to her is in no way related to my educational achievements.

This teacher, Miss Edwardes, taught the pupils about the poet Shelley. I am sorry if it sounded like "sherry". It was the poet Shelley. Poetry was taught in the fifth. The writer says that Miss Edwardes was

"a little simian woman with a gold-crowned lateral incisor and an encyclopaedic knowledge; Mlle Permain, diminutive and fluffy-grey, known afectionately as Pussy, who taught French in the lower sixth by entering the classroom staggering under a pile of exercise books that reached from her outstretched hands to her chin and announcing before she had reached her desk, 'Eh bien, nous avons beaucoup à faire ce matin', and who then worked her class non-stop till the bell rang!"

I commend those qualities of teaching, school attitude and discipline on the part of teachers and children years ago. I note that the writer of the article went on to university—unusual for a woman in those days—and achieved a first-class honours degree. She went back to her former head teacher, who looked at her sternly and said "What happened to you? Did you get an upper second?" "No", she said. "Not a third", remarked the head teacher. "Not a third", said the writer of the article. After that the head teacher drew her own conclusion, and her face lit up with delight at the achievement of the child concerned because it reflected on the school and all that it stood for. I commend all that, both this morning and eternally in terms of education.

I apologise in that I was not present during the speech by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) who introduced this important theme. I apologise also for not being able to stay for the rest of the debate. This afternoon I shall be speaking more of less on this issue to the Association of University Administrators in Sheffield.

This important debate comes almost immediately after the Department of Education and Science has issued its most recent document on the core curriculum. I do not want to canvas the whole issue of the core curriculum, because this is not the right time. However, there is one element or paragraph in the document on the core curriculum about which I should like to ask the Minister. The Department says that it is totally committed to the broad range of subjects under the title of craft, design and technology.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) took me to task some time ago for speaking as chairman of the Select Committee in what he thought was a partisan way. I think that I shall have the support of the whole Committee for the remarks that I am about to make. Indeed, I think that I had that support last time.

Although the Government say that that they are totally committed to craft, design and technology, all the evidence that we have so far received is that those subjects are the most difficult to maintain in the curriculum. That is partly because the teachers of those subjects are difficult to obtain, even in the recession. Of course, they will be even more difficult to obtain if the economy should ever take off. If that were to happen, industry would scoop those teachers out of the schools. Therefore, that would make it even more difficult to keep those subjects going. Those subjects also demand a more generous staff-student ratio than other subjects. They generally take place in laboratories and require a ratio of about 1:18.

I should like to know whether the Department, in pursuance of this connection between schools and industry, is able to implement any special measures in the rate support grant—I know that it has no real control—to encourage schools to maintain these subjects in a difficult time.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers which took place in Brussels from 30 March to 1 April. My hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom Government.

Agreement was reached upon prices and related matters for the marketing year 1981–82, and I shall, in the normal way, be making full details available as soon as possible in the Library of the House.

The price negotiations took place this year with a background of farm incomes having fallen substantially over the last two years throughout the Community, and in the United Kingdom, as my recent White Paper disclosed, farm incomes declined in real terms last year by 24 per cent.

As I stated in the recent debate in the House, we had three main aims in these negotiations: to obtain some budgetary measures to contain the cost of the common agricultural policy; to take proper account of the interests of consumers; and to obtain appropriate improvements to benefit the stability and the future of British agriculture.

Important measures were agreed which will assist in restraining the future costs of the common agricultural policy. On the basis of a British proposal, the Council agreed on the need to ensure that the 1981 budget appropriation for milk was not exceeded and the Council of Ministers confirmed that it would take measures, should they prove necessary, to limit surplus production and contain budgetary costs. The 1981 budget provision for milk is fixed at 10 per cent. below that of the previous year.

Agreement was also reached to bring in co-responsibility arrangements for cereals in the marketing year 1982–83 which will provide savings estimated at £39 million.

More flexible intervention arrangements for beef will show savings of approximately £38 million, and in one of the areas of fastest growing expenditure—that of processed fruit and vegetables—arrangements were reached which will put a limitation on expenditure and show savings of approximately £40 million.

Therefore, in four areas of surplus or potential surplus, important new economy measures were secured.

The overall budgetary effects for the entire European Community in 1981 of the total package will be £186 million and in a full 12 months £596 million. Such an increase is equal to approximately 8·5 per cent. of the current CAP budget.

The Council took note of a Commission declaration which stated that there would be no need for any supplementary budget for agriculture for 1981, and that for 1982 the decisions taken in this package were consistent with ensuring that the rate of increase in agricultural expenditure should remain close to or, if possible, below the rate of increase in the Community's own resources, and the Council undertook to adopt in good time any further measures which should prove necessary to achieve this objective. With the support of the German and Dutch Governments, we recorded very strongly in the minutes of the Council our view that the rate of increase of agricultural guarantee expenditure should, from 1982 onwards, be markedly lower than the rate of growth of own resources.

For the consumer, I am pleased to report that we resisted Commission proposals supported by other member States to reduce the United Kingdom butter subsidy. We retained the beef premium, and, of course, the lamb premium schemes continue. Next year these three schemes will bring subsidies likely to be worth about £300 million of direct benefit to the British housewife—benefits that are not available to consumers in other countries in the Community.

The overall effect of the price increases will be less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. on the retail price index and approximately 1 per cent. on food prices as a whole, over the course of an entire year.

We also secured final agreement to continue special arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter and to the passing of the regulation providing refunds to the whisky industry.

The overall price increases will have an important effect on helping to restore farm incomes. The package will provide £325 million of additional receipts to British agriculture in a full year. I successfully resisted proposals by the Commission, strongly supported by other member States, for a revaluation of the green pound, and I obtained for Northern Ireland a special package of additional aid similar to that offered by the Commission to the Irish Republic. This will be worth between £8 million and £9 million.

We obtained agreement that there should be no clawback on exports of British lamb to third countries and an agreement that the management committee should consider arrangements to modify the current clawback provisions for intra-Community trade.

In total, therefore, the package agreed in Brussels was in compliance with all the requirements that I outlined to the House in the debate that we had prior to the price fixing. For the consumers we secured the premium and subsidy schemes, which are of direct benefit to them, and arranged a price fixing that over the course of the full year will increase food prices by only 1 per cent.

We built into the proposals important safeguards for the future, which will assist in further reducing the increasing cost of the agricultural policy, and we provided important increases in incomes to British agriculture without those increases being dramatically reduced by a revaluation of the green pound. We also resisted measures which would have discriminated against British farmers. It is a package that will enable the British food industry and British agriculture to continue to make an important contribution to the British economy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this settlement is profoundly damaging to the real interests of the British people? It is almost certainly the worst farm prices settlement to come out of Brussels since Britain entered the Community in 1973.

Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the £500 million increase in the nation's food bill will bear most heavily on poor families, who already spend a high proportion of their income on food and who are already suffering from high unemployment and the Government's cut in real benefits and a refusal to increase tax allowances?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that an across-the-board increase in common prices is a wasteful method of supporting Britain's farmers, and that the two hardest-hit sectors—pigs and poultry—will suffer as a consequence of the increased feed prices?

Above all, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his phrase

"important new economy measures were secured"

is sheer hypocrisy, and that the figure of £596 million which he quotes for the increased cost of this settlement does not adequately take account of the increased production and surpluses which will arise out of these higher prices, especially the increased prices on the Continent, in countries such as France?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the enormity of the future increase in Britain's budget contribution as a result of this settlement? Surely there is only one rational explanation for this deal, and that is that the Government have decided to sacrifice the interests of the British people to help to secure the re-election of the French President.

First, I should like to comment upon the suggestion that, in the hon. Gentleman's view, this is the worst settlement. Does he think that it is worse than that in the year in which the Labour Government increased prices by about 14 per cent., or that in the year in which they increased prices by 9·6 per cent.? In summary, in terms of this settlement, let us recognise that during the years of the previous Labour Government the proportion of the European budget taken by the CAP rose from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. As a result of this settlement, next year, on the Commission's estimates, it will come down to 69 per cent. Therefore, the difference is that under the previous Government the proportion of the total European budget rose dramatically; under the present Government it has come down substantially.

Taking the percentage increase in the CAP budget, in the last three years for which the Labour Government were responsible the CAP budget rose by over 20 per cent. every year. In the last two years for which I have been responsible it has risen by an average of 11 per cent.—half of the increase rate of the Labour Government.

I am surprised that with his knowledge of the Department in which he was previously a Minister the hon. Gentleman should take up the irresponsible, inaccurate remarks that appeared yesterday about the effect on food prices. For example, one read that beef prices were going up. Under the proposals, food prices will go up by 1 per cent. over an entire year. Under the previous Labour Government food prices went up by 1 per cent. every fortnight. That is the difference between the two Administrations.

With reference to across-the-board increases, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the details of the settlement, because there were no across-the-board increases.

The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned feed prices. In the negotiations over the last three days we reduced the increases proposed by the Commission on feed prices.

With regard to pigs and poultry, we have ensured that the increases in cereal prices are lower than the increases elsewhere.

As for the effect on the overall budget, it is very hard to argue that at a time when the Commission is estimating that input costs into agriculture are rising across Europe by about 12 per cent. an increase of 9 per cent. will stimulate food production. What we have here is a recognition that for two years farm incomes in Britain and throughout Europe have gone down faster than in other areas of the British and European economies.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the French elections, I can only point out to him that prior to the price fixing the French Minister of Agriculture and the French President both stated categorically that the primary aim of the price fixing was to see that the green pound rate of the British was substantially reduced because of the adverse effect that it was having on French trade. I am glad to say that the French failed in that respect, although, judging by the views of the hon. Gentleman, he would have liked them to succeed.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my warmest congratulations and the congratulations of the farming community not only on an outstanding personal achievement in reaching this speedy agreement but on reaching an agreement which will add a considerable amount of funds to a much haltered industry?

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us find that the predictable response of the Opposition has a distinct whiff of sour grapes about it, as it was the previous Labour Government who consistently abandoned and failed to defend our industry over many years? Will he also accept that there seems to be something of a paradox? Those who, on the one hand, would criticise my right hon. Friend if he failed to achieve any increase in prices, because that would be abandoning British agriculture, criticise him, on the other hand, for increasing structural surpluses of products.

Will my right hon. Friend say something about the horticulture industry? I understand that he had hoped to be able to make an announcement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I do not think that anyone can argue but that if we had not obtained substantial increases in farm incomes for British agriculture this year there would have been substantially increased unemployment not only in that industry but in many other industries, such as the fertiliser industry and the agricultural machinery and tractor industries, which have already had to make substantial redundancies and would have had to make far more in the future. Hon. Members cannot claim to be interested in full employment and at the same time want to reduce farm incomes in British agriculture even more than they have been reduced in recent years.

With regard to the horticulture and glasshouse industry, I apologise to my hon. Friend. I had been given to understand that the Dutch Government would be making their announcements about the changes in their fuel prices prior to 31 March. In fairness to my Dutch colleague, who was the President of the Council at the recent meeting, understandably for the last two weeks he has been totally engaged in the Community price fixing. I am informed by the Dutch Government that they expect to make their announcements within the next two weeks, and I shall make a statement after that.

Whatever play the right hon. Gentleman makes about minimum percentages, is he aware that the poorest sections of the community will find out, as they have from experience, that they will be obliged to agree with the Consumers Association that this was an outrageous settlement. There is no way round that. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to negotiate in that manner for the fishing industry, the death sentence has already been passed on it. What has happened to all the pledges that we have had that the CAP is to be altered at some time for the benefit of the United Kingdom?

I am sure that Scottish farmers will note the view of the right hon. Gentleman. They will take note that he considers that this is an outrageous settlement. They may consider it to be outrageous because the increases are not big enough, but they will now have clearly on record the view of the Scottish National Party on this issue.

With regard to the effect on consumers, I repeat that, alone of European countries, we have secured for lamb, beef and butter, premium subsidies on a substantial scale that are available in no other European country. For that reason the Consumers Association is totally wrong in its statement. Its statement is applied to Europe as a whole, where it says that there will be a 3 per cent. increase, and even that is exaggerated. But in this country, over the course of the year, there will be a 1 per cent. increase at the maximum. The right hon. Gentleman has said, therefore, that in his view Scottish agriculture should have been sacrificed further because of that 1 per cent. increase.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm and sincere congratulations of Conservative Members for not the worst but the best settlement that this country has ever achieved in Europe? Will he agree thaat the finest thing tht he has brought to those in need and the poor is a settlement involving an increase of only 1 per cent. in consumer prices?

After a year in which farm incomes have been reduced in real terms by 24 per cent., to arrange a settlement in Europe on a commodity by commodity basis, and with appropriate premium payments and subsidies, so that there is such a minor effect on the British consumer and a substantial beneficial effect on the British farmer, is something that the whole country will applaud.

We welcome the statement. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman has achieved the absolute minimum to restore the flagging fortunes of the agriculture industry. We welcome the extension of the extra help to Northern Ireland and the protection of New Zealand imports.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the position of milk producers? What will be the average increase for them over the year? Will he give us an estimate of that?

The increase in milk prices over the year will be 9 per cent., so that the net figure will be 6½ per cent.

In case there are to be more misstatements in the press about the effect on milk prices, I point out that there will be no effect whatever on the liquid milk price in this country. To the extent that it assists the price received in the manufacturing milk sector, the pressure on liquid milk price increases will be that much reduced. That is the effect of the overall settlement on the dairy sector. I add to that the important provision that the United Kingdom obtained in the settlement—the agreement by the Council that the budget for the milk sector, which has been fixed at 10 per cent. below last year's figure, will be strictly adhered to.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has achieved the near impossible of bashing the British farmer and the British consumer in offering this settlement, which is a sort of sop to the French? Will he say whether the Ulster farmers' income will now be brought into line with the English farmers' income, which the Minister says is disastrously low?

That was a typically Irish remark, if I may say so, by hon. Gentleman. He will be delighted to know that I have already received the thanks of the Ulster farmers for the package that I have achieved for them. They will note that the hon. Gentleman is out of line. On top of the structural package that I agreed at a previous Council meeting but which was held up by the Italians, the package for Northern Ireland was approved. In addition, a further package of £9 million for Irish farmers was approved. For the consumers in Northern Ireland, there will be virtually no price increase.

On reflection, I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that his remarks were totally unfounded.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that Northern Ireland Members on the Official Unionist Bench are very pleased that he managed to get the package for Northern Ireland which was also proposed for the Republic? However, does he appreciate that the simple extension of this package will cause very severe problems not only at present but potentially in the future? Therefore, when may we have full details of what this entails? Will there be anything for the pig and poultry sectors, which are suffering very severely? Will there be anything towards the restoration of milk aid? Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the additionality factor?

The latter points are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As for the hon. Gentleman's general question, details of the methods will be placed in the Library. They include a range of proposals, some of which specifically help the livestock sector. For example, there is an improvement in the suckler cow premium for Northern Ireland which is financed 100 per cent. by the Community. As I say, it is a range of measures. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the original measure included proposals to assist marketing in Northern Ireland. But in total these two measures together result in a considerable injection of benefit to Northern Ireland farmers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole agriculture industry is grateful to him for having ensured the health of British agriculture by way of preference in the negotiations, despite the pressures on the health of certain Continental politicians? My right hon. Friend's stalwart defence of the green pound is the most fundamental issue at the moment. The whole package of increases which we have obtained for British agriculture could be nullified by any change in its value.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm for the efficient grain farmers of Lincolnshire that the co-responsibility arrangement for grain will ensure that there is a premium for producing good bread wheats and good malting barleys and that this co-responsibility arrangement is in no way related to the hated standard quantities?

I can confirm the latter point. We shall always see that the proper return is achieved for the quality producers who operate in the area which my hon. Friend represents.

As for the green pound proposals, I said earlier that it had been stated as the No. 1 aim and objective of the French Government to achieve a substantial revaluation and one which would have resulted in the disappearance of our advantage in that respect over a period of two years. They failed totally in their objective. It was an objective that they wanted to achieve because they knew that the present arrangement, in reversal of what had happened for many years, was positively advantageous to British agriculture and a considerable disadvantage to the competition which we experience from the Continent. Therefore, we were correct to stand by the proposals. If we had accepted the Commission's proposals on the green pound it would have meant the improvement in prices for British farmers being halved.

rose—

Order. In order to lessen the impact on private Members' business, I hope that the questions and answers on the statement will not run much beyond 11.30. If questions and answers are brief, I hope to call all those hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)? He compared the 1 per cent. increase which he claims comes from the settlement with a past increase in food costs relating to all reasons. Will he reconsider that? Unless he does, he will be open to the accusation of misrepresentation. Can he explain how an increase in farm gate prices of more than 8 per cent. is represented by only 1 per cent. at retail level?

First, let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman—I have said it already—that the Opposition are complaining that the result of this overall settlement will increase food prices by 1 per cent. over a full year whereas, under the previous Labour Government, food prices rose by 1 per cent. every two weeks.

For different reasons.

Of course, for different reasons. The main reason was that we had a Labour Government. I am glad to say that the rate of food price increases halved under the period of a Conservative Government.

rose—

What about the other half of my question?

The hon. Gentleman must not dictate. If my right hon. Friend does not choose to answer it, why should he?

Can my right hon. Friend shed a little more light on the milk arrangements? He says that there is to be a 10 per cent. cut in the budget support for milk in the year ahead. Surely the increase in prices, coupled with the adjustments to the green pound for the major Continental surplus producers, is calculated to produce a considerable increase in surplus production from the Continent. How are these two factors to be co-related?

If my hon. Friend considers the total milk increase he will see that the big adjustment in terms of the green pound which benefits incomes on the Continent is for Italy, which is not an important milk producer. For those countries which are important for milk production, there are increases which are between 2 per cent. and 2½ per cent. above the increases agreed in this report. Subtracting the co-responsibility arrangement, one is left with 6½ per cent. net. Even if one adds the 2 per ent. or 2½ per cent., with the current estimates of input costs for dairy production, it still represents a fall in incomes in real terms and therefore is by no means a stimulation to increased production. However, much more dangerous in terms of an increase in milk production, which is the reason why I insisted on the freeze on the budget for milk, are national aids for milk production. If, for example, the French Government continued to top up with income supplements to dairy producers, we could get an increase in milk production which would bust the budget. That is why I put in that provision.

rose—

Order. If we are to have answers as long as the last one I shall not be able to call all those hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye.

What is the estimated percentage increase in British farmers' incomes resulting from this settlement?

I am sorry; I cannot give the answer, for this reason. The hon. Gentleman asks for details of "incomes". If he means net incomes after costs, it is likely that the input costs of British agriculture will rise more this year than the £325 million extra in receipts. Therefore, in terms of incomes, purely on this settlement, there is likely to be a continuing fall in farm incomes in real terms.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the county of Dorset has per herd the highest number of cows of any similar English county and, therefore, that it is widely welcomed in Dorset that my right hon. Friend recognises so clearly the effect of the drop in farm incomes over the past two years? As a result, the increase of 9½ per cent. is the bare minimum that can be accepted for farm incomes because so much of the decrease has borne more heavily on milk producers than on grain producers.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will also accept that farmers in the Isle of Purbeck, because it has such poor land, will find it difficult even at this level to keep going. They had hoped for somewhat more than the 9½ per cent. that they are to receive.

I realise that with the increase in bank borrowings over the past two years and the fall in incomes in real terms, obviously a substantial adjustment was necessary if we were not to see a very real fall in British agricultural production. If that fall had occurred, it would have been replaced by foreign imports. I recognise that with these increases there are still considerable difficulties in certain sectors of British agriculture.

I have no fanners in my constituency, which is unusual for a Conservative Member. However, I have a substantial anti-Communist lobby, especially among the Jewish community, and I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that this settlement is not likely to lead to any further farm surpluses which could be sent to aid the cause of Communism in the world.

The position of the British Government has always been one of opposition to the export of subsidised food. I am pleased to say that one of the results of putting the firm limitation on the budget for the milk sector at 10 per cent. below what it was last year is that it will assist us in that objective.

As there are ways of providing for the necessary sustenance of farm incomes other than by increasing basic food prices by 9½ per cent., with consequent effects upon inflation, with consequent effects on the amount of money that we have to put into the Community budget, and with consequent effects on the amount of money which our housewives have to pay for that 30 per cent. of temperate foodstuffs which come from the rest of the Community, as my right hon. Friend has failed entirely to take the opportunity to change radically the hated CAP, with its manifest disadvantages for this country, as we gave a solemn commitment to the people on 3 May 1979 that we would insist that there would be no price increases at all on those items in structural surplus—and my right hon. Friend has unfortunately been unable to do that—and as he has been so completely compromised both in this and in future negotiations, is not the honourable thing for him to do to resign and let somebody else take over?

My hon. Friend is as good at this subject as he is on footwear. He has well-known and exaggerated views. I am sorry that his excitement and enthusiasm at being anti the Community even made him yesterday make factually totally incorrect statements upon press reports which were made before the Council of Ministers had concluded its consideration. Alas for my hon. Friend, we have a settlement which has a minor effect on food prices. Alas for him, we have a settlement which will slightly reduce Britain's contribution to the budget. The settlement starts for the first time to tackle a number of important areas of surplus. I am sorry that the settlement is so totally disappointing for my hon. Friend's propaganda campaign.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with one exception, Conservative Members are not in the least surprised at the opportunistic rejection by the Opposition of this fine settlement, or at the complete lack of interest in the farming community of the Social Democratic Party, whose members are absent?

We support my right hon. Friend in his stout defence of the achievements of the last couple of years which he has maintained for the farming industry, although he was helpful to the French and the Germans in the settlement. Is he aware that we look for a return offer of help and some enthusiasm from them when we reconsider the fisheries negotiations after the French elections?

I have always maintained that there should be no link between a fish settlement and an agriculture settlement. I am afraid that my colleagues from Germany and France would not share my hon. Friend's view. They wanted substantially to reduce the British butter subsidy, towards which they make a contribution in the budget. They wanted to insist on the revaluation of the green pound, which is giving British food producers an advantage over their European competitors. Their main objectives in those spheres were not achieved, so I do not think that they will share the view that I was helpful and co-operative. However, they know that it was a sincere negotiation in which every objective that I outlined in the debate prior to the negotiations was achieved.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the restoration of the butter subsidy will be of particular help to low-income families and pensioners in Britain? Will he further confirm that this satisfactory package which he negotiated on behalf of the British consumer was possible only because our commitment to the defence of the interests of the British consumer was matched by our commitment to the Community itself? Will he comment on the remark by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) that the domestic elections in France inhibited the negotiations? If domestic elections inhibit comment on the EEC, would not the Labour Party be permanently disqualified?

I agree. It was not much help to the French Government for their main objective in the negotiations to be rejected. The butter subsidy is unique and is enjoyed only by the United Kingdom. That continues. Newspaper reports that, for example, the price of beef would rise as a result of the settlement are untrue because of the beef premium scheme. Reports that the price of bacon would rise massively as a result are untrue because there is no intervention on pigmeat. Competition for the British bacon market will continue as it always has, based on straight market conditions. The settlement brings considerable benefit to British consumers.

Can the Minister confirm that when the butter subsidy was first acquired for the British people his party opposed my right hon. and hon. Friends who achieved it? Is not there an element of hypocrisy in claiming that as a jewel in his own crown? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is in danger of misleading the House by quoting the figure of 6½ per cent. increase for milk? There is already a 2 per cent. co-responsibility levy. Therefore, a 9½ per cent. increase plus an extra ½ per cent. co-responsibility levy leaves net a 9 per cent. increase this year over last year.

How can the commitment on the budget be achieved if extra butter is already in intervention storage and has to be sold with export restitutions? I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to say that we should be happy if next week's business were to be rearranged so that we might have a full debate in the House on the heroic capitulation by the Minister.

I welcome that suggestion. I should like to examine the achievements in depth.

When the butter subsidy was negotiated, for political reasons I was not responsible for statements made by the then Opposition. When I became responsible for the butter subsidy, I arranged at my first negotiation for it to be doubled. It is, therefore, double what it was under the Labour Government. The subsidy was one of the few achievements that the Labour Government could claim, but we doubled it.

The hon. Gentleman is correct about the co-responsibility levy. The increase in co-responsibility is 0·5 per cent. Before it was 2 per cent. basic. Therfore, the net improvement is 8½ per cent.

The 1981 budget for the milk sector is based on current experience. In the past year there has been a substantial reduction in butter in store. It has been put on to the world market at better prices than before. Therefore, the Commission is certain that on that basis it can keep the milk budget at 10 per cent. below what it was last year.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given the Leader of the House notice of my point of order.

During business questions yesterday, the Leader of the House said that he intended to move the motion for the Easter Adjournment on Monday. He also announced that during that evening, subsequent to that debate, which usually finishes at about 8 pm, there would be debates on the remaining stages of the Insurance Companies Bill, and on financial assistance to International Computers Ltd., in which many hon Members have an interest and will wish to speak. At the end of the day there is to be a debate on the EEC document on research and development in biomolecular engineering—a subject of importance to universities and science. It appears that that debate could take place at about 5 am. Is it right for the proper discharge of our duties that we should debate such a subject at such a time? Perhaps the Government will comment on that.

I allowed the hon Gentleman to make his point. It should really have been made yesterday during business questions. He could then have asked a question when the Leader of the House was present.

I shall pick up where I left off 38 minutes ago. I put one point to the Minister about the DES proposals for craft design and technology. The discussions about the curriculum, the schools-industry project in the Schools Council, the "Manifesto for Change" in the The Times Educational Supplement, and the "Education for Capability" document from the Royal Society of Arts, put great emphasis on the subject it is a bee in my bonnet because I am keen to emphasise that what everybody thinks of the three "Rs"—reading, writing, 'rithmetic—never really were the three "Rs". There was always a craft element and an element of doing things with one's hands in the original concept of the three "Rs". Somehow we must bring that subject back into the curriculum, which it never should have left. I hope that the Minister will consider doing something concrete in that area.

No representative of the Department of Industry is present, so perhaps the Education Minister could take note of this point. The Department of Industry has just announced a scheme under which schools that want a computer will be given a computer if they can raise half the money. The Department of Industry puts in half the money and the other half is meant to be raised from private sources. We are always happy to see Government money flowing into new projects in schools. However, there is a danger that, simply because some schools are in areas which are more affluent than others, computers will be concentrated in those schools which have parent bodies in which the parents can put their hands in their pockets and meet the other half of the cost. There are many secondary schools in which, because of the recession and because of the area in which the school is placed, parents cannot put their hands in their pockets and find the rest of the cost. Those schools will have to go without a computer at a time when in those areas it is important to foster retraining for industry.

I urge the Minister to reconsider the funding arrangements into which the Department of Industry has entered. It should consider whether it is possible to have a co-ordinated function with local education authorities. It should discuss the matter with those authorities so that the distribution of computers among secondary schools can proceed on a reasonably even basis and not on an uneven one.

Our difficulty is that no Government can guarantee the curriculum. That has been the whole problem of the Department of Education and Science over the last few years when it has been trying to intervene in the curriculum. All it can do is put money into the rate support grant and try to make sure that the compulsory religious education element of the curriculum is complied with. The Select Committee wants to take that issue seriously, as well as the other issues in the curriculum. We hope to receive evidence from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Westminster and the Free Churches about how they feel that element of the curriculum should be treated.

There is a difficulty about the curriculum as the examination system fixes it more clearly than anything else. All the people who have examined it say so. For the last 50 years the curriculum has been fixed from the point of view of degree level standards. The universities decide, quite properly, what should be the standards of a first degree. The Standing Conference for University Entrance, which is a powerful body, broadly fixes what should be the standard of A-level, given the standard of the first degree, and the three years to obtain it. By reference to that A-level standard, the GCE examination boards fix what should be the proper standard of O-level. Because O-level must correspond in broad terms to grade one of the CSE, the CSE boards are substantially affected by O-level standards. The net effect of this English system of fixing the curriculum by reference to examinations is that the curriculum is all too much fixed by the requirements of higher education rather than by the requirements of industry. Youngsters who have no intention of going anywhere near higher education are forced to go through a curriculum which is relevant to the needs of their fellow students who are going on to higher education but is of no relevance to their own needs.

There are the new examinations—the new I-level—and other influences on the schools. I do not know whether I speak for the Select Committee on this point, because it is a personal point of view. I do not disagree with the Government's attempts to make an impact on the curriculum. That has been happening ever since the Ruskin speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I hope that the Government can think carefully about whether they are interested in the needs of employers in industry and commerce—it is not just industry, because commerce is becoming industrial, too. One cannot think of industry and commerce as separately as one used to do. The curriculum should be considered on the basis of the needs of thse people rather than on the basis of the needs of higher education. That means talking to those in higher education and making them modify their requirements, as well as trying to make an impact on the schools.

If the Department of Industry's initiative on computers is the beginning of a movement in Government under which Government Departments put machinery directly into schools, I do not disagree with that strategy. However, there must be a method, if we are to put expensive hardware into schools, of making sure that that hardware does not gather dust and rust in a corner simply because there is not enough current expenditure available through the rate support grant to the local education authorities. Already there is much evidence that secondary schools are finding it difficult, with regard to teaching staff and ancillary staff, to make best use of their computers. It is a waste of money if one puts in the tools without making sure that the resources are there to make use of them.

I renew my congratultions to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. I apologise in that I may not be able to stay for the whole debate.

I join warmly with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on his motion and on the manner in which he introduced it to us.

These reflective occasions on Fridays are, rightly, not unduly party political. It is curious that in such a debate there is no Opposition Front Bench spokesman from the education team. I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs), who will speak officially for the Opposition.

There were two Opposition Back Bench interventions. The first was by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) who walked in and walked out. The second was from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who arrived at 10.30 am and has now walked out. He explained why he had to do so. He had a good reason for leaving. However, the team of Conservative Members who are interested in these matters has remained in the Chamber most of the time. It is strange that there should be so few Opposition Members, because these are important matters. One can gauge the interest of parties by the way in which they behave in such matters.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) is temporarily out of the Chamber. His contribution was of enormous interest. We know his great concern for the subject and the enormous skill that he brought to it in ministerial office. Many of us are sad that he is not still able to exercise influence within Departments and feel sure that his great skills will be brought into public service again. He raised fundamental questions. He started with a reference to the difficult question of the traditional sixth form and the sixth form college concept.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was criticised in some quarters for vagueness in what is called the Macfarlane report. It is unhappy that some ever called it a report. The cover does not say that it is. It is a review, and a valuable review. It did not attempt to come to a careful and beautifully set out conclusion, appropriate for every part of the country and every circumstance. Had it done so, it would have been criticised on that score. It placed before us under one cover a large number of the considerations that must be in our minds and considered the whole spectrum. My hon. Friend and all those who assisted him did education and training a great service. I appreciate having all the information available under one cover.

Under any Government in the foreseeable future we shall not have the finance to start afresh, even if it was considered wise, so we shall retain a variety of provision in different parts of the country, and will have to see how we get on, in the famous phrase. That is not necessarily bad. Educational establishments need a considerable time before one is able fully to gauge the effect of change.

I am not sure whether, for example, we have had sufficient time to gauge the effect on a traditional school of the removal of the sixth form. Schools in Exeter have had centralised sixth form provision in a technical college for a considerable time, and there are many other examples. However, I am not sure whether we have had sufficient time to evaluate and measure the effect on the remainder of the school of removing the top slice. Even if we came to a conclusion after watching a number of school generations—which involves a period of four or five years for each generation—we should probably not have the finance to put the matter back.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston is right. We can have imaginative and interesting schemes that attract a young person's interest when sixth form provision is in the ambience of a technical college. I take issue with my hon. Friend on one matter. He was overjoyed at the thought of the young at sixth form colleges in jeans. I do not criticise jeans. I am an old square, but not that much of an old square. In most modern comprehensive schools, the tradition is that sixth formers can dress more as adults, as an outward and visible sign of having reached a more mature age. In a purpose-built school there is also usually a sixth form block, although that varies enormously. That small detail of clothing is common to both.

I agree with my hon. Friend that, imaginatively used, there can be in the sixth form college a far greater spread than could possibly be achieved in the traditional school background. I remember talking to a young man who was studying German and cookery. I have no doubt that he is now a successful chef. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity of having him practise his German or cooking on me, but I hope that they are equally good. That is an idle example, but it illustrates the width of courses that can be provided.

I plead for caution. I do not mind not having one scheme or the other pushed down our throats, but as we contemplate the aspect opened up by the motion of my hon. Friend the Member of Cornwall, North, I increasingly have doubts—which I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in spite of having an imaginative and roving eye, will discourage—about whether we can make effective provision with present ministerial responsibilities. That point came out extraordinarily well in the forceful speech to which I have already referred of my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston, who has now returned to the Chamber. It was what was in my mind when I interrupted him to ask whether his interesting thoughts extended to the responsibilites of education. I understood him to say that, while all this was formulating in his mind and in the minds of his friends, they did not exclude consideration of those responsibilities

We have a plethora of provision. To take an example slightly outside the strict confines of what we have been discussing, on whichever side of the House we sit we are deeply concerned not only about unemployment generally but about the effects on the young in particular. The growing number of unemployed young, particularly those unemployed for some time, is our most grave social problem. Successive Governments have strained to alleviate the situation. I do not wish any remark of mine to be interpreted as being ungenerous towards the provision made, but one finds a variety of provision to assist young people, some educational and some not.

The boundaries of responsibility of the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science meet and are sometimes blurred in many areas—for example, the youth opportunities programme, the new community enterprises programme, the special temporary employment programme, the initiative known as community industry, even the job release scheme and, though primarily concerned with the other end of the age range, the temporary short-term working compensation scheme. We see the overlap especially in educational training.

I hope that this country made the right decision in the early years when training boards and all that they did were placed under the aegis of the Department of Employment. I think, however, that it would be accepted by all that they have always had a very considerable educational input and presence. I realise that we are dealing with an uncertain world with regard to training boards at the moment. Many of them, I think wisely, have very close relationships with the technical and other colleges in the disciplines with which they are concerned.

I therefore ask this question in a reflective way, this being the type of debate in which such a question may properly be asked. I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect Ministers publicly to reflect upon them, but Back Benchers certainly can and should. As part of the rethink about training boards that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will soon be empowered to carry through, and as part of some wider thought on the plethora of provisions for the young, in both employment and education, introduced in all good faith by successive Governments, should we not seriously consider the structure of Government with a view to moving towards a combined Department to embrace both education and training?

There is nothing original about that thought. There are very few original things in politics anyway. To my certain knowledge—and I speak with some knowledge on this part of the matter only—the idea has been around for a considerable time. Indeed, it was very thoroughly explored about 10 years ago. I believe that the pressures are now greater and the weaknesses of the separate provision more apparent than they were at that time.

I make it absolutely clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston that I am not "getting at" anybody in saying that. My hon. Friend put it far better than I could, and I shall read his words when Hansard is printed. He said, in effect, that we should not consider this from the point of view of any one persons's little empire. I gratefully adopt those words for myself. I am sure that that is absolutely right. It is understandable and natural that there should be some protection of existing empires on both sides. We are all subject to that human failing. I therefore believe that any change should be carried out quietly, at leisure, taking time to decide what is the right answer.

I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are pertinent and properly raised in a debate of this kind. Is he thinking in terms of an expanded Department of Education taking on the training responsibilities of the Department of Employment, or is he thinking of a major new, reorganised Department, drawing together all the functions of the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a train to catch and is anxious to hear my next words, but those were to be my next words. I am grateful for having been assisted in that way. It is nice to know that someone is listening.

Having stated the problem, I was about to outline my preliminary feelings on the matter. I am by nature averse to very big omnibus Departments. However brilliant those who head them—whether ministerially or in the Civil Service—it is extraordinarily hard to get an effective grip on them. I marvel, for example, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment can get a grip—as he certainly has—on such a vast organisation of 52,000 people. There are exceptional men such as he, but very few can do it. I suspect that the same is true of civil servants. Again, I say that without any personal criticism. On those general grounds, therefore, I am averse to a vast omnibus Department bringing together both Departments. Frankly, I am not sufficiently skilled in the detailed workings of the Department of Employment to know where the point of incision would come. I am pleading that we should look at this. It would be foolish to come to immediate conclusions before we even begin.

My initial feeling at this moment, however, is that in so far as we have a Department responsible for the way in which young people are educated—I say "in so far as" because of the peculiar and in many ways valuable dual system of local and central control in this area, but in so far as we have it, it is vested in the Department of Education and Science—and in so far as much of the valuable provision is increasingly found in colleges which at the centre are under the aegis of the Department of Education and Science, although administered at the circumference, at this stage of my own modest thinking I think that the Department of Education and Science should have added to it the responsibility for training. That is my personal feeling. I would not then wish to expand the empire of the Department of Education and Science into taking on all the other enormously important responsibilities of the Department of Employment. On this point, I am quite certain. There are major and very important matters related to employment policy generally, trade unions, employers' organisations, and so on, which surely must be for the specialists of one Department.

I do not wish to cramp my hon. Friend's speech, but I have had talks with people on the industrial side about this type of reorganisation. He must recognise that people in industry who are involved in training have a fixed view against the DES and believe that many of the problems arise because it is not sufficiently geared to industry. I think that they would be very upset if training were moved to what they see as an education Department rather than remaining in an industry-based Department.

My hon. Friend illustrates the kind of difficulty that exists. It is most important that we all keep an open mind on this. The answer to that might in part be that an increased input on the training side into the Department of Education and Science would change that attitude—which, as the lawyers say, I do not admit. Nevertheless, if it exists, the very fact of such an input might make a considerable difference. I accept my hon. Friend's point. As we all know, he has made a great study of this. Attitudes are very important. It is not just a matter of the dry bones of an Act of Parliament. I fully understand that point. That is why I have asked for reflection and thought upon this. There are enormous problems. There would have to be some rationalisation of salary structures, for example, and many other matters of that kind.

I have always felt that of all the sectors of our educational provision, the technical colleges—I use the old-fashioned phrase in order to be all-embracing—that is to say, the non-advanced work colleges, are the least appreciated in our education service. I think that it is right to say that to a great extent they grew up in response to local needs, and, in particular, to local industrial and commercial needs. Therefore, they are in tune with their local areas. I link my remarks with the important speech made by my hon. friend the Member for Beeston. He stressed local initiative and the importance of people working together. That is absolutely right. We have not exploited that area as fully as possible.

I accept that there are important local initiatives. Like other hon. Members, I welcome the recent publication—it might almost have been brought out in response to my hon. Friend's motion—entitled "Schools and Working Life—Some Initiatives". It is the Department of Education and Science at its best. It is not laying down firm patterns for every part of the country. That is good. It is not saying that there is only one way of doing things. Nevertheless, it seeks to draw our attention to some of the initiatives that have worked well so that the rest of us may read and learn.

In fairness to the teaching profession, which gets a good deal of stick, it should be recorded that many schools in different circumstances have effective links with industry. Increasingly, the teaching profession understands and appreciates that it is training young people for life. Advice is sought. I saw the initiative that was taken on Teesside. There was an imaginative headmaster in an area with a high level of youth unemployment and grave social problems.

For some time local commerce and industry have found it revealing to witness the problems of education. It is important that the teaching staff should understand the consumers' needs. Nowadays, there are close links and a lot of frank talking. There are one-day seminars to which busy men and women from industry and commerce give their time. Such frank talking is valuable to both sides. The teaching profession is sometimes lambasted too much. It should, therefore, be pointed out that such activities are taking place with great effect.

I fully endorse what my hon. Friend said, particularly when he spoke about secondary schools and technical colleges and the way in which industry is being brought in. That is also true of my constituency. However, I am disturbed by the lack of technical and scientific training that is given in primary schools. My hon. Friend will know that in religious teaching Roman Catholics often say "Give me a child until he is 5." I am not saying that nursery schools should be involved in such training. Nevertheless, there is a complete absence of training in the sciences in primary schools, although it is necessary for the technical education that should be given in secondary schools, technical colleges and universities. Does my hon. Friend agree that training should begin earlier, in primary schools?

I shall respond a little cautiously, for two reasons. First, I have no claim to be technically expert about teaching. It is important that we should be careful about such things. Secondly, I have some reservation about overtaxing minds at too early an age. However, I should like to discuss this subject at some other time with my hon. Friend.

There is an important duty on primary schools to prepare children's minds in terms of literacy and numeracy. I do not wish to give my hon. Friend the impression that primary school level—let alone preprimary school level—should just involve making patty-pans in the sand. I do not know whether it would be wise to impose such a burden at that preparatory stage. However, I accept that those in the higher classes of primary schools are older. I need to think about whether we should impose too great a standard of technical skills at that age. I have some reservations. I have no doubt, however, that we should prepare minds so that they are ready for the next stage.

I am sure that my hon. Friend has also met those who have become the holders of fine first-class degrees from major universities on highly technical subjects. He will also have met those who have completed a highly skilled form of training in industry. Such people say that they can trace their work, almost like a pedigree, to the early years of their lives. There is nothing worse than the slight sneer to the effect that anyone can teach a young child and that primary teaching is in some way an inferior job. It is sometimes implied that any untrained woman could do it. "Woman" is used as a term of contempt instead of respect.

The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made an interesting speech about universities. Many would agree with his general thesis. He said that at one time we went too fast. Indeed, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister in those long-ago days and I take my full but modest share of responsibility. There was an enormous feeling that higher education should be opened up to a wider number of people. However, it is easy to have hindsight. It was fascinating that the right hon. Gentleman should concentrate exclusively on universities. I hope that I am not doing him an injustice, but he never mentioned other important units of higher education, such as polytechnics. Those "animals" lie in the middle of towns. They did not go out to the green field sites. They take part in the industrial and commercial life around them. They make an important contribution to higher education, although many of us are anxious about the way in which some of them have developed and about the measure of control over courses. It was fascinating that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention those institutions.

I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak, so helpfully afforded to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North, to whom the whole House is much indebted.

I join the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in congratulating the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) not only on his fortune in coming top of the ballot, but on his choice of subject. To date I have consistently failed to come top of the ballot, but if I had done so I would probably have chosen for debate a similar subject.

The motion has provoked a wide-ranging debate that will make a useful contribution to thinking about the problems of the 16 to 19-year-olds. The recently published report, which covers the education of this age group, has been cited by many hon. Members. Its publication was awaited with great enthusiasm. However, it has been received with great disappointment. It has certainly dealt with many important issues covering the education of 16 to 19-year-olds, but there has been general disappointment that it has come to few clear-cut conclusions. Anyone is able to find something if wishing to prove a point about the education of this age group.

I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Minister for his contribution to the report in saying that I think that the report would have been better if it had resulted from an independent inquiry perhaps on the lines of Crowther or Plowden rather than from a working group combining central and local government. I believe that we would have got more interesting and perhaps more radical conclusions had it been an independent inquiry in the tradition of the other reports that I have quoted.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Government have consistently refused to operate the obligation in section 4 of the Act, namely, the establishment of central advisory councils for education? This would have been an admirable study for that statutory body had it been in existence and had the Government kept the law. It would have had the advantage of people who were not functionaries in the sense of being selected by the Department of Education and Science.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for drawing my attention to that point. I do not think that there is anything the matter with the terms of reference of the report on the 16 to 19-year-olds. It included mention of the expected technological change and levels of economic activity as being one of the concerns affecting the education of the post-l6-year-olds.

Some people say that this is the biggest single issue in education. I would not go so far as to say that. It is, however, one of the most important issues in education. My particular disappointment is that the report does little to tackle this term of reference that was set down for it.

The report provides a useful forum for discussion of many of the issues that it covered rather than being a programme for action. I fear that there have been many reports covering the education of the post-16-year-olds. The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) listed them. What we need is action rather than too many reports. I hope that the debate will begin to lead to more action and not to another set of reports on the issue.

One regret is that we keep talking, as I have done, in terms of the education of 16 to 19-year-olds. We should not consider them in isolation. Some of the problems that we are discussing also affect children aged 15 in their last year at school. Those intending to leave at the age of 16 may be out of the education system before some of the benefits that we are discussing can play their part in helping them. We need to look further back, but I do not intend to dwell on that point now.

The report highlights the important point that the sixth forms in many schools are small. It refers to 1,100 schools where the number of pupils over 16 was 50 or less in each school and points out that the 16-plus age group is declining. I believe that 1981 is a peak year for the number of 16-year-olds in the population and that by 1993 there will have been a decline of 34 per cent. in this age group, which will not be even geographically. The decline in East Anglia will be 22 per cent. whereas in Greater London it will be 38 per cent. and in inner London, I suspect, greater. The problem of the size of sixth forms in schools will be made considerably worse. Many schools may no longer be able to sustain a viable sixth form if the numbers decline as predicted.

In addition, there is the difficulty that many young people staying on in sixth forms after the age of 16 tend to take academic rather than vocational courses when the latter might be more beneficial to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made the important point, although more in the context of universities than of education below university age, that we emphasise industry too little and subjects like philosophy too much. I do not wish to go entirely along that path, but the late Sir Peter Venables said, nine years ago:

"I have an education, he has training, (she more or less) I have a degree or diploma, he has a certificate; One is a professional, the other merely vocational; I am a teacher, he is an instructor; We have a syllabus, they have a programme; Ours is a preparation for life, theirs is a rescue operation; I attend college, they a training centre."

Some progress has been made since 1972, but there is, alarmingly, far too much truth in that criticism of the whole thrust of our education system, certainly when our young people reach the age of 15 or more.

If we wish to get some sensible balance into education, we should not allow colleges of further education to impose fees for students under 18—quite the reverse. We should not discourage young people from having an education outside school, and we should not charge them. More important, we should go back to the discussion that was taking place in the education world. We should reconsider the merits of grants for students who stay on at a school after 16. This would redress the balance that is now very much to the disadvantage of children from working class and poorer homes.

I understand the Government's problem. Although we may be discussing some worthy aims in this debate, we are seeing cuts in education, including cuts for the very people we are discussing in advanced further education and in non-advanced further education.

One part of the report that I welcome is the statement:

"Educational considerations point strongly, though not without exception, towards the concentration of 18 to 19 years olds and students into large groups".

That is one of the key issues. I have referred to the declining sixth forms in schools. It should underlie our approach to education for these people. Whether we like it or not, quite a number of young people are voting with their feet. They are voting not to stay in schools because they prefer the more adult and mature environment of colleges. I hope that our education structure will move quickly to reflect this wish.

I understand that increasing unemployment among young people is keeping them longer at school than might have been the case if there were jobs for them. The number of post-l6-year-olds in schools compared with further education colleges may not reflect the true wishes and preferences of the young people themselves.

I should like to refer to preparation for work throughout the education system. The Minister, in a press release on 27 February, said:

"I want to emphasise the importance of links with industry and commerce. This is in recognition that nearly all young people will hope at some point to take up employment, and that it is an important task of the education service to fit them better for their future work".

That is a welcome statement, except for the implicit suggestion that although nearly all young people hope at some point to take up employment there may be some who will not and that, sadly in present circumstances, there will be quite a number who will not be able to do so. It is important, in providing an educational and training environment for the 16 to 19-year-olds, that we should help them at the point where they have to make their choice of career.

We should be concerned about how well informed these young people are about the jobs and types of career for which they might be suited. We should be concerned to ensure that they are well prepared for the job that they wish to do. We have to ensure flexibility so that young people can change their minds and so that they do not have to make decisions about their future jobs too early in their education. We need to be aware of the needs of the job market for the day when they leave education.

That puts a great responsibility on schools and colleges. Some have already moved dramatically and ably to meet those responsibilities. Nevertheless, doubts must remain. Therefore, it is welcome news that the Secretary of State has undertaken that there should be a study by a senior industrialist of the links between education and industry, a study that is long overdue. I hope that we shall soon have the benefits of it so that we may see more clearly what is happening about links with vocations in our educational institutions and schools.

The aim of vocational training must be to give young people an idea of what work means. Too many of those at school, though they may have two weeks' work experience, have little opportunity to obtain an idea of what the world of work means or to learn of the whole range of job opportunities and the types of jobs for which they may be suited. Vocational training should give young people experience of doing work and specific training for work. It should give them skills that are transferable rather than skills that will lead them only to one particular job. That is narrow training. They may change their minds, or the occupation that they choose may not be available.

Quite a lot of that can be done at school, but I noted with interest the welcome of the hon. Member for Beeston for tertiary colleges, a warmer and more enthusiastic welcome than was given in the recent report on education of 16 to 19-year-olds. I hope that we can go more positively down that path. Tertiary colleges would offer many advantages, but I fear that if the Government do not give a clear lead education authorities throughout the country will not move fast enough in that direction.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. His Secretary of State, Mrs. Williams, began the process. A draft paper was begun but was never issued to local authorities, urging them in that direction. There were too many pressures on the Government from local authorities and the teaching world, resulting in its being withdrawn in, I think, 1976.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that matter. I hope that the tentative example set by the Department then will be taken up with more enthusiasm by present Ministers than the report that I have quoted suggests.

I do not wish to rehearse all the advantages of such colleges, but I believe that they represent an exciting educational opportunity, being places where young people who will be academic and young people who are nonacademic can be mixed together, where young people do not have to choose between academic and non-academic education after the age of 16. Indeed, they can have a mixture of the two.

With the decline in the school population that is expected in many areas, and indeed is taking place, empty school buildings will be available. I hope that when the use to which they may be put is considered tertiary colleges will be borne in mind. They will enable young people to continue their education and make their choice of career at a later age a more informed choice, because of the great range of vocational and educational training that will be available.

Such colleges would also go a long way towards achieving what should be another aim—the encouragement of far more young people to stay in education beyond the age of 16. Our record is not good. We have the lowest number of young people in full-time and part-time education of any European country, and fewer young people who continue positive education and training when they go to work. The comparisons between this country and the other European countries are disconcerting and unsatisfactory.

It is welcome that about half the schools in this country have microprocessors, but our aim should be to ensure that every school and college has the facility to instruct young people in their use. We must train our teachers—not merely one or two in each educational institution, but many of them—to become familiar with microprocessors and confident in their use.

More years ago than I care to remember I was briefly a civil servant. That was before we had pocket calculators. I wanted to make comparisons between years and was using a slide rule—that old-fashioned, almost antique, instrument—when a more senior civil servant said to me "Does that thing actually work?" We have come a long way since then, not only in years but in attitudes; but in our attitudes to microprocessors we still have a long way to go.

Young people should be familiar with the use of microprocessors and understand their application and future role. Moreover, they should learn to use microprocessors in teaching other subjects. Familiarity with microprocessors would help in teaching other subjects and in making people more confident in the uses to which they can be put. We must make sure that computer sciences become more valued subjects than they now are in some schools and that they are studied by bright and less bright young people.

Unemployment has featured in many of the speeches this morning. The hon. Member for Beeston said that the youth opportunities programme was a remarkable achievement by the Government in that it would cater for nearly half a million young people by the end of the year. However, he failed to say that the Government's activities had made the expansion of the programme necessary because of the tragic increase in unemployment for which they are largely responsible. School leavers represent one of the fastest growing sectors of unemployment and it is forecast that they will face even greater unemployment during the next few years.

It is not idle to say that the vocational training and benefits that we seek to give young people in schools should also teach them how to cope with the possibility of being on the dole. It is difficult for young people when they leave school to come to terms with the fact that society is rejecting them and that they cannot find work. It affects their attitude to society. They may lose the will to work, or may turn to delinquency and crime. There is a responsibility on our education system—one that I hope will not last for too many years—to help young people to cope with the possibility of being on the dole, possibly even after a year on a YOP scheme.

Unemployment presents another dilemma. Some young people have no incentive to obtain qualifications because they believe that they will end up in the dole queue anyway. They ask themselves why they should bother. We must point out to them that the present levels of unemployment are not an inevitable feature of our economy and society. We must continue to encourage young people to increase their qualifications and to stay on in education so that, when there are jobs, they will be able to follow the kind of career for which they are best fitted and, by then, I hope, for which they have been trained.

There seem to be no reliable estimates of the present number of apprenticeships. It is clear that the number is going down. Estimates vary, but the present number appears to be about 150,000. There are other forms of training at work which might add to the number of people being trained at work in their first job after the age of 16, totalling about 240,000, but there has been a significant decline.

Apart from the decline in numbers, there are other problems. We do not have nearly as many apprenticeships as Germany. In Germany, the number of school leavers going straight into apprenticeships is about half the total. We are well below that.

There are other difficulties. One is the inflexibility of the age of entry into apprenticeships. Young people have to decide when fairly young whether they wish to become apprentices. They do not have a second go if they stay on for further education, because of the age ban. Some apprenticeships take too long for the necessary training. However, that is a problem for another day.

I should like to see closer links between education—higher education in tertiary colleges—and the concept of apprenticeships so that the first stages of training are in the concept of the education system rather than in the world of work. That will be of benefit to young people and employers. We should become more flexible in that respect than we have been in the past.

The debate has shown that great problems affect 16 to 19-year-olds. There are unequal opportunities for that age group compared with some who may go on to higher education. The resources available to this age group are meagre not only by absolute standards but compared with the resources available to the lucky youngsters who go on to higher education and universities.

We need a more comprehensive or integrated approach to vocational training and the transition from school work. We should offer education and training opportunities for all 16 to 19-year-olds and not leave some to fall by the wayside. We should make it a specific education aim to encourage all young people to stay on for education beyond 16 years of age, especially youngsters from working-class backgrounds who tend to miss many of the educational and training opportunities which are available.

Finally, we must make resources available so that some of the high aims which many hon. Members have been discussing in the debate can be made a reality. I hope that the Government will take note of the debate and will make the resources available so that we do not waste years in the lives of young people with an education and training system which is not adequate to their needs or the needs of the country.

It might be for the convenience of the House for me to intervene at this stage.

I welcome the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) to the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate him on his maiden speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box. I also congratulate him and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on representing the entire custodianship of the Labour Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Scottish National Party and the Welsh National Party. The arrival of the hon. Member for Newham, South has swelled the Opposition's ranks by 100 per cent. I am pleased that he is to take part in the debate.

I must administer a gentle rebuke to the hon. Member for Battersea, South. This is an important debate, not worthy of total partisanship. However, it echoes the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) that I did not write a report. I was pleased and honoured to chair a review group. It set out to be a review of 16 to 19-year-old provision, for the first time appraising what existed in England and Wales and drawing together some statistical evidence which is included in the appendix to the review. I pay tribute at this first opportunity to the contributions made by hon. Members of all parties, leaders of Labour and Conservative groups in the country, and officials from my Department and other Departments.

I welcome the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). The House, and people outside who are concerned about the preparation of young people for work, will be grateful to him for initiating this debate. I am delighted that it has been constructive so far and I look forward to further contributions.

The last few years have seen a growing recognition, both by the education service and by industry and commerce, of the need to reappraise the relationship between education and the wider world of work and to foster within the education service a better understanding and a greater respect for the process of wealth creation and the contribution that it makes to our economy, and thus to our society.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North recognises in his motion, we need to start with the school curriculum. As the House will know, there has over the past few years been a wide discussion of the curriculum in schools and the arrangements made for it by local education authorities. Just over a year ago my Department published a consultative paper "A Framework for the School Curriculum". The consultations of last year were wide-ranging and drew much constructive comment. They also showed that there was a wide measure of agreement about many of our proposals, although not with everybody and not about everything.

Last week my right hon. and learned Friend, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, published "The School Curriculum", which sets out firm views, not in any sense prescriptive but in order to guide and assist local education authorities and schools. A number of hon. Members have been critical of the fact that it is not more prescriptive and that it does not decree and order local authorities to include a certain percentage of so many subjects in each week. We all know the constitutional recognition that we have of the 1944 Act. If my hon. Friend, in his remarks, implied that he wanted a statutory requirement when he emphasised the importance of English, mathematics, religious education and language—and he might have included an additional science—that is precisely the thing which my right hon. and learned Friend has always pronounced upon and urged local authorities, schools and head teachers to observe at all times. It is a recurrent theme in our document.

I draw attention only to some aspects of the paper. We believe that the first requirement for secondary schools is that all pupils up to 16 should receive a sound, broadly-based education, which extends their capacities and which does not, through too early specialisation, restrict their career opportunities. The paper says firmly that

"the curriculum needs to be related to what happens outside schools"

and that

"pupils need better and more systematic careers education and guidance."

The paper also stresses that the education service and industry have much to contribute to each other. The schools certainly have a major role in preparing young people for adult and working life—hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to it at some length today. It is not a task which schools are able, or can reasonably be expected to be able, to shoulder unaided. Other important contributions are clearly needed. A two-way process of not just co-operation but detailed collaboration is called for.

Obviously, the education service has to seek better connections with, and understanding of, both local and national industry. Here I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who said that these should be community- and region-oriented. Certainly this process must be developed in each area, so both local and national industries must be involved.

I accept the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that it also needs to embrace commerce and business of every shape and size, and that they must be sensitive to the problems and objectives of schools and colleges. We hope that they will be ready to help them to overcome those problems and realise those objectives.

I know that some people have been worried that we mean that schools should do no more than provide training in basic skills to meet the minimum requirements of some employers. That is not what we mean. Employers have again and again made it clear in discussions with us that they attach great importance to young people's personal qualities as well as to the more academic aspects of education, and I believe that the paper strikes the right balance between the two.

I was encouraged to note that both my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham were pleased with the production of our recent booklet by Her Majesty's inspectors, "Schools and Working Life: Some Initiatives." It is an important contribution. It was published earlier this week. It describes 12 different examples of ways in which schools can prepare pupils for working life. The examples include a comprehensive school which co-operated with a local company in the design, costing and construction of a model leisure complex, and examples of work experience, notably where the experience is seen as an integral part of the pupil's curriculum across the full range of academic ability.

The report also includes a chapter about visits and secondments of teachers to industry. This subject will be discussed by representatives of my Department and Her Majesty's inspectors with representatives of industry at a meeting for which British Petroleum is acting as host, in a week's time, in order to consider more ways in which the greatest benefit may be gained from activities of this kind. That is an important contribution.

There are many examples of school-industry links, and I want to turn to that matter in a moment. Many areas of the country now have detailed collaboration between schools and industry, and many of them have been encouraged by the national bodies which exist to foster links between schools and industry—the CBI and its "Understanding British Industry" project, the Council of Engineering Institutions, the Industrial Society, Young Enterprise, and many others which have emerged in recent years.

Much of the value of the effort being put into the development of the links between education and industry derives from its variety. I have not time today to go into the details of everything that is going on, nor shall I attempt to acknowledge everything. But I should like to mention in particular the powerful stimulus that is being provided in many areas by the developing network of science and technology regional organisations—SATROs—under the co-ordination of the Standing Conference on Schools Science and Technology.

The Government give financial support through my own Department—and through the Industry/Education Unit of the Department of Industry—to the SATRO movement. My Department also gives support to "Project Trident", and the Department of Industry supports a wide variety of other initiatives. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry was present this morning at the start of the debate; but alas, like many other Members, he had to depart to go to a conference.

I want to refer briefly to the important contribution that the Department of Industry makes in this area and to give some examples of the initiatives which it supports alongside the education service. The Department of Industry naturally view these matters from its own perspective, but its interests echo very closely my own responsibilities in the Department of Education and Science.

The Department of Industry's industry education unit has two main objectives. The first is to improve attitudes towards manufacturing industry among all young people, regardless of their choice of career. The second is to encourage more of the country's young people—including the more able, but also others—to develop an interest in careers in industry and in the subjects and courses both in the schools and in the further and higher education system, which can open up the pathways into those careers.

The industry education unit is supporting many scientific and mathematical projects throughout the country. The unit has been supporting the University of Southampton in the production of a film about the challenge and the variety of engineering as a career. The film features young girls and young women engineers talking about their work and their background. It will be available for free borrowing by schools when it is completed during the summer.

The unit is also supporting teachers' in-service training. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to this important aspect of preparing our teachers for retraining. It also includes support for the in-service course, based on the Wigan education authority, to enable teachers to develop curriculum materials, and continuing support for the "Insight into Management" courses arranged by the careers research and advisory centre for pupils and teachers. It gives financial assistance to many other projects. The unit organises the "Young Engineer for Britain" competition. The competition is now in its fifth successful year and is gaining steadily in the prestige that it commands in the educational and industrial worlds.

In total, the industry education unit's budget grew from £558,000 in the financial year 1979–80 to £700,000 in the current year, and it will remain at this level in 1981–82. Within these totals, the support for the SATRO movement is growing from £86,000 in 1979–80 to £105,000 in 1980–81, and £175,000 for the current year.

In addition, much good work is being done, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise the important work that the Department is doing in trying to stimulate and foster this sort of link between the education services. But it can work only if it has the good will and devotion of all representatives in the community.

In recent weeks, we have been holding a series of conferences throughout the country, called "The Work of the Schools". We have so far had seven of the 10 regional meetings. I was happy only yesterday to chair one of the meetings, which covered six local education authorities in Preston. I was pleased to do so for more than the reason of avoiding an all-night sitting. I was happy to think that I was doing more useful work in fostering the links between the education service and the world of industry on that occasion. It was most encouraging to see in Preston county hall yesterday representatives of industry, commerce, the trade unions, the teaching profession and the careers service, all together discussing the important areas of microelectronics, school-industry links and the school curriculum. As I say, that was the seventh of 10 of the conferences that we have had.

But it will work only, when everyone becomes fully involved, and that depends upon the effectiveness of the head teacher, the careers teachers, the regional CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and all the other umbrella organisations.

There is one area which worries us to some extent. It is that there are many organisations now which have had a number of pilot schemes going on for some years. Although we are very pleased that 1,000 flowers are blooming, we want to try to see the emergence of a good hybrid before long. For that reason, we have requested the services of Mr. Neville Cooper, of Standard Telephones, to work with the director of education for Bedfordshire—Mr. Browning—on a six months' investigation to discover how many of these exercises are going on, what their objectives are, and what they have achieved so far. Mr. Cooper will report back to my right hon. and learned Friend in the late summer or early autumn of this year.

Curriculum development is also needed. We have encouraged the Schools Council to give special attention to the importance of the curriculum to working life. It has two projects, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham referred. He has been to Teesside, as I have, to see that Schools Council industry project working. I think that my hon. Friend will echo the enthusiasm that I have for that scheme. So often we have depended on the multinationals and the nationalised industries to be the leaders, and it is all important to embrace the smaller employers.

I was a little concerned in my dialogue with the late John Methven, Sir Monty Finniston and, before him, Lord Boardman—the latter two had been president of the ABBC—to discover that in many major areas of manufacturing industry the employers were not always members of the ABBC and that it was difficult to get at them through their umbrella organisations. So we are having to review what can be done there. The Schools Council industry project is dealing largely with the smaller business people of that all-important area. It is an almost unique area, which does not have the same sort of decline in the pupil population that other areas will experience in the next few years.

The meetings which my right hon. and learned Friend and my other ministerial colleagues are chairing throughout the country cover all local education authorities, and the three remaining conferences will be held in North London, Exeter and Manchester. We have covered every local education authority within the last six or nine months.

I want to touch briefly on the 17-plus examinations. I hope that the House will be encouraged by my reference, in an intervention, to the article which appeared in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week and my stressing that there is no intention of removing the 16-year-old examination. In January of this year, we asked the Schools Council to consider how an assessment of achievement might be introduced to embrace that 60–70 per cent. of our pupils who do not go on to further education after the age of 16, and to see how that might develop. The council will be reporting back some time in 1982. But I want to make it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of concluding the 16-year-old examinations. They remain, and that is clear.

Proposals for new 17-plus examinations were included in the recent consultative document, "Examinations 16–18". These proposals were framed with the very aim of helping the transition from education to work of young people of broad average ability. The hon. Member for Battersea, South touched upon it. This could be achieved by the encouragement of courses with a pre-vocational bias leading to an award which would be valued and seen to be valued by employers generally. When I chaired four of the seven regional meetings so far, I was impressed by the fact that, generally speaking, employers are not 100 per cent. aware of the syllabus and the status of our examinations. I hope that some of the dialogue which has now been initiated will encourage those who employ young people to walk 50 per cent. of the way and meet the education service in that area. That is long overdue.

The links between further education colleges and schools and other education institutions could be infinitely wider in each area. The elimination of barriers between the various institutions is long overdue.

Further education colleges traditionally have enjoyed close links with local industry and business. Many were founded to provide technical education for employers in local firms. Originally, that was often provided on a part-time basis in industry by day and in the local college in the evening so that industrial relevance was totally assured.

We have moved to a more formalised system of national qualifications, to greater reliance on day or block release for further education, and to a full-time professional teaching staff in colleges. It is possible that in some areas the links between colleges and industry have been weakened. The technician and business education councils, which have national responsibility for technician and business courses in further education, have taken steps to ensure that their programmes remain fully relevant to the needs of industry and commerce by seeking to involve prominent and experienced people from these fields in the design of courses and as members of their major programme and policy committees.

The Technician Education Council has also undertaken, in consultation with industry and with financial support from the Department of Industry, the development of course material on the design, application and maintenance of microelectronic devices. In the important area of computer studies, which crosses traditional subject boundaries, the two councils have formed a joint committee to design and validate courses.

Further education colleges provide all the first year off-the-job integrated training and further education courses for craft apprentices in the construction industry, and are major providers of similar courses for craft apprentices in the engineering industry. The design and the provision of these courses illustrates what successful collaboration can achieve.

The Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Art—the hon. Member for Lewisham, West—asked me about the training and retraining of craft design and technology teachers. He asked me about the importance that we attach to that and what our support would be. I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that we attach the greatest importance to the teaching of craft design and technology. However, alas, like the shortage of mathematics and science teachers, there is a shortage of good CDT teachers.

Since 1977 the Manpower Services Commission has made funds available to assist the training and retraining of teachers in mathematics, physical science, craft design and technology and business studies. That scheme will be continued in the academic years 1981–82 and 1982–83. The funds are administered on behalf of the MSC by the Local Government Training Board to provide training awards to people on the courses preparing to become teachers of the shortage subjects and by grants to local education authorities which release serving teachers. That is an illustration of the importance that we attach to the matter.

Numeracy and literacy have been mentioned. One of the weaknesses in our system is that we have forgotten the importance of the teaching of dexterity in our schools and colleges. Hon. Members might take me to task because we are not providing enough teachers of shortage subjects. For the last 25 to 30 years the education service has had vast amounts of money but still has not produced the necessary science teachers.

The new training initiative is important for 16 to 19-year-olds. The Government are committed to improving the opportunities for effective vocational training for school leavers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment told the House last November that the youth opportunities programme for unemployed young people is being expanded. Efforts are being made to increase and improve the provision of structured education and training for young people within that programme.

The programme of unified vocational preparation for young people entering jobs with little or no systematic training or further education is also planned to expand rapidly, from a modest pilot scheme covering about 3,500 trainees this year to a scheme covering about 20,000 trainees, or about 10 per cent. of the expected client group, in 1983–84.

I shall resist the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham to become drawn on the creation of an education and training department. He is allowed to speculate on what might be highly desirable, but I shall not reply or be drawn on that subject, so my hon. Friend will be disappointed.

I understand that later this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the Manpower Services Commission hope to publish a joint consultative document on training. That, amongst other things, will raise questions about ways of improving vocational preparation for young school leavers. The education service will, I know, want to play a full part in further consideration of that issue. The unified vocational preparation programme in particular has pointed up the possibilities which exist for a better integration of education and training for young workers which can contribute both to their personal development and to their work motivation and their contribution as employees.

Several hon. Members referred to the desirability of having representatives from the education service on the special programmes boards. In my dialogue with my colleagues at the Department of Employment over the last 22 months it has begun to emerge that the MSC acknowledges that in some areas there has been a shortage of representatives of the education service. It is hoping to put that right, as they are an integral part of the system. That would have the happy effect of resolving some of the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham referred in his desire for an education and training department. It is important to have more educationists in those areas.

I wish to allay some of the fears and anxieties expressed by the hon. Members for Lewisham, West and Battersea, South about microelectronics in education. The Department of Education and Science and the local education authorities will always play a full part in coordinating any programme for microelectronics in education. That will be a joint exercise and a joint venture. It would be pointless to deliver expensive equipment to any educational establishment if that equipment were not to be used, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said.

It is preferable to talk of "information technology", as it is in those fields where microelectronics and modern telecommunication technology come together that the full effects of microelectronics will be felt—in business, commerce and all kinds of office employment. The Government attach great importance to ensuring that this country obtains maximum benefit from the revolution in information technology.

The motion welcomes the Government's microelectronics education programme. I am glad that it does. I am also glad that the programme is rightly being recognised as vital to the future of our young people.

It is not easy to find the resources to sustain such a programme, and we could not have agreed to make £9 million available had the subject not been of such outstanding importance. I give a brief progress report. About £900,000 was spent in the first year of the Department of Education and Science programme in 1980–81 and some 34 projects were commissioned. About one-third of the projects were concerned with the training of teachers or LEA advisers—about 800 persons have attended pilot courses provided under the programme—one-third with curricular or software development and the remainder with the provision of information or with preliminary studies to lay the foundations for possible future work in the remaining years of the programme.

About 30 LEAs have been involved with projects so far undertaken in the first year, in the sense of being party to the submission of the proposals which were approved; but, of course, an authority can benefit from a project without being party to it in this sense.

For instance, the Council for Educational Technology has arranged six-week courses which have been attended by a teacher or adviser from each of 36 LEAs—one-third of the LEAs in England and Wales. The courses were specifically designed to equip the persons concerned to provide training for other teachers on return to their LEAs. Some people have been disposed to suggest that the sum of £9 million set aside for the programme is too little. I do not agree, but if it is a little, there are evidently ways of making a little go a long way.

Our decision to mount the programme was not intended as a criticism of the response which the education service has already made in many areas to the microelectronics revolution. A few months ago, HMI estimated that nearly half of all maintained secondary schools in England had at least one microcomputer at the start of this school year. Subsequent information suggests that the proportion is continuing to rise all the time.

We know of 12 LEAs with at least one "micro" in every secondary school. There are probably others of which we do not happen to know precise details. Moreover, according to our provisional figures, there were about 27,000 O-level and CSE entries in computer studies in England and Wales at the summer 1979 examinations, and I have seen some unofficial figures suggesting a further increase of around 5,000 in 1980, bringing the total to roughly three times the level of five years ago. A-level entries have roughly doubled over the same period.

These figures do not suggest any lack of interest and effort, but, clearly, much more remains to be done, particularly when one bears in mind that microelectronics involves a very great deal more than specialist examination courses in computer studies or computer science. Five years ago it would have seemed to most people fantastic to talk in terms of having a computer—and a powerful one at that—in every school. Now this can be contemplated with equanimity as a realistic prospect, and the real enthusiast looks forward to the day when there will be a microcomputer in every home.

I am grateful to the Minister for the interesting statistics, but are computers in schools for familiarisation, to train computer programmers, to give pupils an introduction to microelectronic engineering, or for all three purposes? We may be in danger of installing computers in schools not having thought through the precise reason for them.

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's experience is with schools in his constituency, but I believe that he has outlined all the applications for school computers. Familiarisation and recognition are important. Pupils may become computer engineers or programmers, but it is important generally to familiarise children with computers. That is why, next Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be launching the new provision of hardware scheme.

The House should not gain the impression that little or nothing is happening. I know from my travels that much is happening in schools, but microcomputers are not always available, so my right hon. Friend is launching the programme with the full backing and financial support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology and myself. It is a joint venture to provide a microcomputer in every school by the end of next year. The details will be handled by my Department and by the microelectronics education programme, of which we have a full-time director on secondment from Newcastle polytechnic.

On 4 February I asked my hon. Friend:

"if he will make a statement on the progress to date in the setting up of regional resource centres for the servicing of computer software requirements in schools."

He replied:

"local education authorities as part of the microelectronics in education programme … have been consulted and the Director of the programme will shortly begin discussions".—[Official Report, 9 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 296–7.]

Is my hon. Friend saying that the conclusion of the discussions is the opening of the campaign by no less a person than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Will that policy now be adhered to, in line with this motion?

The policy is in line with the motion, and we are also launching on Monday the strategy document that will be distributed to the education service for the detailed co-ordination of regional centres and other aspects of microelectronics in schools and colleges.

The programme is enormous. The provision of hardware will be all important. It will be a joint exercise with local education authorities providing the balance of the 50 per cent. funding. With regard to the education authorities, the fears of hon. Members must be allayed, because it is very much an education responsibility as well.

I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend yet again. I am well aware of the wide nature of my motion and I regret presenting him with such a wide brief to answer. I touched upon the question of voluntary aid. It is becoming increasingly clear that a larger number of companies are now handing over obsolete equipment to schools. Clearly, this will require further assistance from them to the schools to show them how to use it. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will keep under careful review any inhibition placed upon that voluntary aid by anyone who feels that the current legislation prohibits it?

The fact that the phrase "voluntary aid" is there means that the Department of Education and Science cannot intervene and decree what should or should not happen. I am happy that it is largely voluntary. It comes from the parents themselves, and alternative support and finance comes from industry. In my travels and in my dealings with the computer industry in this country, I have found that schools in regions where factories are located seem to do infinitely better than those in other areas. On the other hand, in some cases parents have given old black-and-white television sets to the schools. This provides a very good exercise in design and technology, as they have to be linked up with the handsets. The real purpose of the exercise is to help those schools that have not made such provision so far and to ensure that everybody has an opportunity of understanding it. My hon. Friend feels strongly about the voluntary principle, and this movement comes from within the schools—from parents' associations or however it may be best coordinated—and plays an important part in the life of the school, as indeed it always has.

I turn finally to the review of provision for the 16 to 19-year-olds. This is clearly an important contribution to an all-important age group. Many feel that we should perhaps be talking of an age band from 14 to 19 in some cases. But in this post-statutory period of education there are many problems. I shall not say too much about this, as time is on the wing and other hon. Members are anxious to contribute.

We shall see the most enormous change in the next 10 years. We have already seen the start of change. What is now needed is an open mind as local authorities begin to appraise their post-16 provision. One cannot fail to recognise that since 1971 successive Secretaries of State for Education and Science have approved the principle of the break at 16. The 105 sixth-form colleges and a dozen tertiary colleges, built up throughout the 1970s, have established the principle of the break at 16. I recognise that many tertiary colleges provide a better all-round, wider education, but one must recognise the importance of schools catering for the 11 to 18 age band, and in some areas those schools will remain. It is not for the Government to decree exactly what shall emerge in a given region or local education authority. Suffice it to say that Croydon, for example, has produced a report indicating that its post-16 pupil population will fall by about 40 per cent. by the end of the decade. Clearly, it cannot ignore what will be upon it in no time at all. The problem of small sixth forms will clearly be difficult.

I hope that hon. Members will feel that we have acknowledged some of the important points. I hope that local education authorities will acknowledge that they must now get on quickly and appraise what their post-16 provision will be. Many have already done so. The many who have not begun must now get on with that important exercise.

I conclude by saying that my right hon. and learned Friend welcomed the debate and the topic introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this all-important subject and confirm that the Government are set on the right course. This reinforces our determination to follow all these policies through.

I apologise to hon. Members, and in particular to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) because I did not hear the earlier part of the debate. I was particularly sorry to miss the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), with whom I share past professional responsibility for 16 to 19-year-olds. My professional responsibilities extended over a period of 14 years. I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will not think it churlish if I comment on the motion. It states its purpose as follows:

"To call attention to the importance of the school curriculum in preparing young people for work"

I do not deny that that is an important aspect of the curriculum. However, I hope that the hon. Member will agree that the curriculum is part of a school life that prepares young people for life. I do not minimise the importance of work provided that the community, and in particular the Government, adopt policies that make work possible. If we do not put our objectives in the correct sequence we may sometimes end up with something that we do not want. I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman will disagree, but I thought it right to comment.

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Official Report, he will see that I said very much the same thing.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He may well agree with my next point, which is probably uppermost in people's minds. In the past 10 years or so there has been national concern about the results of our education system, in so far as they can be apprehended by those who wish to employ its products. Education is intangible. Its quality is extremely difficult to measure. All hon. Members will have heard comments from employers on various aspects of the problems involved in employing young people. They cannot be dissociated from the signs of the times or from attitudes for which education establishments are not entirely responsible.

I turn to the Macfarlane report, or, perhaps I should say, the review. In official life we usually refer to reports by giving the name of the chairman or the chairmen. Whether or not the Minister likes it, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is landed with it because of his function in its preparation.

I certainly like it. However, I think that it is a little unfair on the other 20 people who took part in this important review group.

The hon. Gentleman had better wait until I have finished my remarks. My criticism of the report's foreword arose from the suggestion that, together, the Government and the Council for Local Education Authorities should

"Form a joint group to consider the problems faced by local education authorities in providing for 16–19 year-olds"

I do not dispute that an administrative review is needed. There are many different types of institution, and that leads to administrative problems. However, we are not starting in the right place. All education and learning starts with the individual.

It would have been healthier if the review had started with the needs of those between 16 and 19 years old. It might then have produced a better administrative review. If the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) or the Central Advisory Council for Education (Wales) had been in existence, it might have had the wisdom to start at that point. Earlier, I pointed out that the Department of Education and Science, in its educational arrogance, was flouting the law. The Prime Minister constantly stresses the importance of maintaining the law. On 22 October 1971 she spoke from the Dispatch Box and refused to implement section 4 of the Education Act 1944.

The right hon. Lady did so on the ground that the section was no longer needed—that if advisory committees of any kind needed to be set up we could whistle them up officially at the drop of a hat from the Department of Education and Science. For example, those whose names feature at the end of the report could be collected by officials and Ministers and made to reply.

That is not good enough. That attitude has besmirched the reputation of the Department and successive Ministers of both parties. The Central Advisory Council, as set up by statute, could bring to Ministers' attention anything that it wished. Adopting the alternative form of advisory structure, which successive Ministers have done, no doubt on advice, has meant that they will investigate only matters that are brought to their attention. There is a big difference.

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman feels heated about this problem of the Central Advisory Council. The matter was raised in 1975 by the Select Committee on Expenditure, and the then Government said in reply to its report that they doubted the value of a standing body on a whole area of education.

I have no doubt about that. That is the trouble. Parliament says that there should be such a body. When it considered the 1944 Education Act there was a long debate about the matter. It is the law of the land. What the hon. Gentleman has just said endorses my view. I feel heated because our education problems, including those of young people aged 16 to 19, are due to an air of unreality in our attitude to education—probably not in the House, which wisely put that provision in the Act—but among those not only in the Department but in local education authorities. I do not criticise them as individuals, but, as a classroom teacher with 14 years' experience, I know what I am talking about.

The trouble is that too many chiefs have had too little experience as Indians. That means that many of our education documents and much of our education debate start from the wrong place. It is no wonder the debate often reaches the wrong conclusions.

It would be unreal for the House not to realise the general context in which the education of 16 to 19-yearolds as a cross-section of the community must be placed. Not only is there a great variety of institutions, which we have already heard about; the ages between 16 and 19 are, perhaps, those at which all of us in our time, and all young people to come, are liveliest. Young people then are at their most free, and they have minimum social responsibilities. They have near their maximum discretionary expenditure in relation to later respon-sibilities. It is a time of self-discovery, when a variety of recreation and challenges provide opportunities and alternative attractions to those of full-time education. Futhermore, it is a time when their ideals and attitudes to the world community can be at their best.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves what motivation there is between the age of 16 and 19 for young people to continue in full-time education or to take advantage of day release courses. Anyone at the chalk-face of education—I know that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker—knows that motivation is a key factor in any education process. While the Minister is right to mention the curriculum and to talk about hardware and all the other things that the administrators provide, there is one thing that administrators can never provide—the motivation to learn. Education is not so much about teaching as about learning. Unless one starts from that and takes account of the need for motivation to learn, all our debates, all our reports, and all the things that go on at Queen Elizabeth House may as well not happen.

A great deal of research indicates that the most important motive for learning among young people is evidence that their courses are relevant to work.

I could not agree more. The matter, however, goes wider. It may not simply be a question of work. I suggest that it is life—the mature living of life and not just isolated segments of life. Fortunately, as teachers will know, one of the greatest aids to his art is the curiosity of man. If one can produce or at least uncover innate curiosity, particularly among young people of this age, one is half way towards motivation.

All our organisation and assumptions of the 16 to 19 age group are bounded by the traditional form of education for that group, namely, the grammar or secondary school sixth form. The sixth form is traditionally oriented towards O- and A-levels and all that is associated with them. The point, rightly made by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), is that O- and A-levels are largely an abstraction of the future and rarely connected specifically with any occupation. One of the great difficulties of teachers is creating proper motivation, other than a wish to earn a higher salary or a supposed wish to earn a higher salary—it does not always work out—for O- and A-levels and, perhaps, repeat O-levels, second time round, for the 16 to 19 age group.

If one has that motivation and a successful A-level set of courses, the educator faces the problem of providing sufficient motivation for all the matters that should be covered in the period of education for 16 to 19-year-olds. I include day release sixth form colleges, polytechnics and secondary schools. The problems are similar because the people are similar. It is difficult sometimes in "successful" grammar or comprehensive schools to get young people to believe in and take notice of periods of their education which may be made compulsory but are not for examination purposes. In the end, they may be the most valuable parts of the course. To get young people to recognise this, if they are sufficiently motivated in O- and A-levels, is sometimes extremely difficult.

A much larger number of people are not taking A-level at all. They are sitting O-level retakes, or some of the new examinations that have proliferated in the last few years. They obviously feel second-class citizens. They feel themselves very much bracketed in the "I" and "They" comparisons. There are also those people in the 16 to 19 age group who are not involved in full-time education at all. We have a pattern of attitudes, I am afraid, that persists from the last century.

The relevance of work has been mentioned. One of the things wrong with the country today can be traced back to a single question. Why was Oundle different? The great independent and private schools that set the pattern for all secondary education in the inter-war period and have also set the pattern of general aspirations for a great deal of the post-war period were founded in the nineteenth century. Only one of them, to my knowledge—it happened really by accident—under its great headmaster, Mr. Sanderson, realised the importance not only of literacy and numeracy but of the ability to manipulate and of the ability to understand scientific and technical matter so that a person became a well-rounded and educated person.

Only Oundle did that. None of the other schools gave it the same importance. I believe that many of our problems today, and perhaps the present psychological hang-ups in the education of the 16 to 19-year-olds, spring indirectly from that source.

Our concern is not just for work. I am glad that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North agrees. Any attempt to test education solely on the basis of suitability for work is not enough. Nor is it enough, by courtesy of large firms or the Prime Minister, merely to spatchcock patchwork attempts to induce an understanding of technical matters. I welcome that, but I suggest that there are many other aspects of education which are more important and which have perhaps been neglected. It just so happens that that need is more visible because of the obvious needs of employers.

The curriculum alone is not the answer. Some people in education remember the personality and vivid words and phraseology of Dr. Lincoln Ralphs—the former education officer for Norfolk. I remember his saying at a conference "Parents want education. Children want education. Do not believe it. They do not want education. They want negotiable erudition". There is a big difference. If we measure education too closely by the requirements of work we are in danger of producing a machinery for the production of negotiable erudition, rather than of education as a whole.

I am not sure that it is the curriculum that is at fault, either. I put it higher. We need an efficient and proper process of total education in the secondary years—roughly the 11 to 19 age group—to produce well-rounded and responsible persons who have a minimum range of skills but are capable of learning for themselves. They need sound mental limbs, but all too often they leave school with crippled limbs, on crutches. As a result, they are never capable of developing or learning for themselves. Some employers complain, not that the skills are not there, but that they are unable to produce facilities that elicit and build on the latent personalities of their employees.

The country has been aware of these matters for some time. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister, he initiated a debate at Oxford. Oxford was not necessarily the right place, but Ruskin College was the right place. He said that there should be a great national debate on all the aspects of education that were causing concern. Then Shirley Williams decided to have a national debate. Unfortunately, unlike the House, she did not pose any questions. We always debate a matter upon a Question. Alas, Shirley Williams, despite promptings, decided to have a great national debate without asking questions. I am not saying that if she had asked questions she would have got a good answer, because the right questions need to be asked, and they never have been asked.

I suggest that we shall not get ourselves right, either in great reports on 16 to 19-year-olds or in pamphlets on the school curriculum—which are limiting and on which I shall not comment—until we develop a proper rationale and system of secondary education as a whole in such a way that it meets the total education and other needs of the community. In my 14 years as a teacher, and in subsequent observation, alas, we have not done that. Unless and until we do, we shall continue to feel dissatisfaction and experience problems with any part of the secondary school age range and with the process as a whole.

The debate has been useful in identifying some of the deficiencies, but they cannot be dealt with unless we look at education in its totality and meet the needs of the individual at the age concerned.

I intend to intervene briefly, partly because other hon. Members wish to speak and partly because, after the all-night sitting, I am in danger of becoming the first Member of Parliament to fall asleep in the middle of his own speech.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on his introduction of the motion and the way that he presented his argument.

Several hon. Members made their contributions against the background of employment trends and patterns in our communities. It is important that the Department of Education and Science and those in the education service should take steps not only to equip students with new talents and skills but in some way to give them the ability to shape our industry in a positive way for the benefit of this country in the next 20 to 40 years.

I am sure that the reason for the debate was the recognisable need for it after many years of examining the problems facing this country as an industrial community. I share the concern about the need to orientate students in the age group concerned towards vocational courses. It is important to start this process as soon as possible. I am conscious from personal experience and elsewhere of the need to start early. It is important to shape the industrial elements of life at an early age, not as early as the primary level, as one hon. Member suggested, but at about the age of 14, because there is a knock-on effect in education.

The personality of the teaching staff often creates a certain type of curriculum. That will lead a student to choose subjects for O-level examinations which lead to the choice of subjects for A-level examinations and thence to university or the polytechnic. The danger is that, having started in that way, inevitably those who have a bias towards the arts and sciences may find themselves going down an avenue that they may not in later life have chosen to follow. The loss to the community of people with ability in both arts and sciences—especially the sciences—is one that we cannot afford.

It is also important for us to change the attitude of those in education for that reason. It is important that the industrial moguls in our society should be brought into the schools at an early opportunity.

The paper on the curriculum says that the curriculum needs to be related to what happens outside school. In page 18, at paragraph 53, it says that an increasing number of local education authorities and schools have recognised the importance of establishing links between the education service and industry.

I entirely approve of that sentiment. It is important for a number of reasons. For example, it would help to correct the mismatch between those in need of work and those who provide employment. It would also enable the entrepreneurial skills of local business men to be exposed to children at school in order that they can understand and appreciate the problems of industrial life. It would also give students access to places of work and to the high-growth technological industries that are springing up in a number of our communities.

I now refer to the problems of apprenticeship, and not only apprenticeship in the formal sense but apprenticeships in which people are embarking upon a course of work which involves the application and absorption of certain skills. I am conscious that a number of people are not taking apprenticeships not only because there are fewer of them, due to the economic situation, but because they are reluctant to embark on a commitment of perhaps four years, when their contemporaries at school are getting jobs which pay very much better in the earlier years.

It is important that we should accept that a person aged 15 could well appreciate and benefit from being permitted to take part in a course which would take him from the school and place him in the industrial environment. Whilst under carefully controlled conditions, he could absorb some of the academic subjects that he would have taken had he been at school, but also begin to appreciate some of the skills of the craft in which he aims to become qualified. Clearly this would be a way out for students for whom the traditional academic path would not be right.

The first year, or the last year at school, whichever way one views it, thus spent would need to be planned in such a way that the progression from the academic pattern of earlier years to the industrial application of new skills would be gradual. Thus, the variables of an apprenticeship course would be available to a student at an earlier time, and the first year would then count as a contribution towards the completion of an apprenticeship course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) referred to the co-ordination of training among Government Departments. I entirely endorse his views. There is a great need to examine training, especially, but not only, in the Department of Education and Science and in the Departments of Employment and Industry. After all, resources are limited and ought to be spent in such a way as to avoid expensive duplication and to obtain the best results for all concerned. Any coordination of training would necessarily lead to the application and maintenance of national standards. Local training, too, would benefit from the setting of such micro-standards.

I refer finally to the aspect of hardware, software and office aids in schools. A number of schools have access, through the efforts of parents or through local authorities, to the micro technological instruments that are available today. Clearly many schools do not have such access. Many firms from time to time reject and dispose of pieces of equipment which are no longer useful to them. They dispose of them at a book value or notional value and sell them where they can. It might be a good idea to encourage the Treasury to give some tax advantage to firms which present to local schools equipment of that type which can be used to simulate the work place. In that way, the schools would have a variety of equipment which would enable the skills about which we have spoken today to be given to children whilst they are still at school, and thus give them some idea of the sort of skills that they will need when they leave school to commence work.

This has been a most interesting debate.

The shortage of time requires a major telescoping of the issues. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made a very telling point when he implied that the great debate had, if anything, been far too great. But that, of course, is the nature of the way in which we organise education in this country.

We ought to pause every now and then to ask ourselves why we do it in that way. Other countries seem to have a different pattern, which is more decisive and more determined in terms of the objectives and the function of education by the decisions of central Government. We ought to ask ourselves whether the British way is the right way.

On the one hand, we see the strength of the system—the partnership—with the freedom to have variety. The converse is the very weakness of the system, with the Department of Education and Science constantly having to review matters, produce documents, have debates and regional conferences and so often repeat the obvious.

Having lived with the system for many years, first as a teacher and then specialising in this place, I end with a very deep sense of frustration. Take two examples: The Secretary of State for Education and Science in the previous Labour Government tried to get teacher-training in-service programmes. There is also the question of unified vocational preparation, which is an experimental pilot programme that we have had since 1976. When are we to make some firm decisions? When are we to decide on the most important actions to be taken?

Clearly one must have broad education, but the pressures to keep expanding the curriculum in all directions are enormous. Surely the time comes when we have to ask what are the real objectives that matter today; whether the balance has been drifting too far in a particular direction and ought to be brought back.

The most important need now facing British education is to grasp and to cope with the tremendous problems arising from rapid technological change, not only in this country but world-wide.

From 1970 to 1978, there was a loss in this country of 600,000 jobs involving limited skills. We shall face an increasing decline of semi-skilled and low-skilled jobs over the next decade. Yet some 3 million young people will leave our schools with next to no skills. That is the crucial issue.

In the wider context, the world manufacturing base is changing very fast. It is constantly requiring new skills and a more mobile work force. Our education system has a critical part to play in that process, but unless it adjusts itself the nation will be the loser. It is, of course, tragic for the people concerned, but we shall also lose as a nation. That is the area on which we have to focus our attention, and it is the task of the Government to set the objectives and to set the pace.

Unfortunately, over the years the DES has shown an incapacity to establish firm goals and an unwillingness, and sometimes an inability—because it has to operate through the rate support grant—to provide adequate action. That is why people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and others say that we need a new structure, a new department of education and training. I have great sympathy with them. But, as has been said in the debate, attitudes are fundamental. People in industry feel that the education world has not been sufficiently attuned to its requirements over the years or to the nature of the work place in general.

In looking at British educational history, one comes to the conclusion that we work in 30-year cycles. This sort of debate took place in the 1870s. It took place again at the turn of the century, and then again in the 1920s. David Eccles tried to revolutionise our technician education—he succeeded to a very great extent—and to make greater vocational provision in the 1950s. Over the last few years we have had the same debate once again.

That is why we need to go far beyond documents such the one on the school curriculum, which is a mere bromide. It has emerged after a great debate which has taken place for five years in a formal sense but which started long before that. It was the Prime Minister who, when she was at the Department of Education and Science, set up the Bullock commission. The document on the school curriculum takes us not one iota further than the Bullock report or the feelings in the early 1970s on science and mathematics. Obviously a firmer line is needed. "Déjá vu" ought to be the slogan emblazoned across the doorstep of Elizabeth House, because we go through the same process time and again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) made a very telling point. We do not want an organisation with people propounding objectives from the centre. I am arguing for a firmer set of objectives in the national interest, but what matters is what happens in the school—what the teachers do, the motivation of the children and the role at the local level of both school and industry. That is why the organisational aspect has to be considered at that level. I am not arguing that structure is everything, but structures often get in the way of progress, and that is most certainly the case today.

In my view, things have not moved sufficiently in some of these areas. It could be argued that it has made tremendous achievements in many parts of the country as schools and local education authorities work to establish links. I pay tribute to all those people who have sat on working committees and liaison committees and who have been involved in all the rest of the apparatus. But we have to ask, with what effect have all these business men sat on all these committees over such a long period? At last my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has set up a review to discover what are the good practices and where we can learn.

Overall, however, my feeling is that we work in a nebulous way—the British way as opposed to the way in which all our competitors work. We really need some sort of instrument similar to the special programmes unit of the MSC. Sad though it is for me, as a teacher, to say it, the MSC has worked so much faster and more competently and has seen action taken at the end of the day far beyond what has been achieved in the education world. We need some sort of local executive arm—some person with authority and resources who can ensure that what is discussed, and the schemes which are devised, have real significance at local level. We must not go on just talking, reviewing and producing paper on the scale that we have.

We need further co-ordination amongst all our areas of education, and not just within the 16–19 programme, which is crucial. We go on, with the YOP scheme and the UVP and all the other schemes, patching up what is essentially a weak building. However, it is not just that of which I complain. It is the way that we relate the different education sectors themselves. The polytechnics and even the universities can play an important part as resource centres for the rest of the system.

In a sense, that comes back to structure, but not in the perverse way that some people seem to believe. Local education authorities seem to imagine that they can have a locally responsive institution putting on courses that local industry wants and meeting the needs of the community only if the local authority owns it. That is nonsense. The faster that the polytechnics are removed from the hands, the whims and the financial fickleness of the local authorities, the better. One has only to visit Robert Gordon college in Scotland, which is funded directly by the Scottish education department, or Crewe, where we have a direct grant institution, to realise that they are doing wonderful work relating to companies, putting on courses that individuals and young people want and meeting the needs of the communities. It does not matter where the money comes from; it depends on the teachers, the staff, the guidance and the creative ability of those who are running the institutions. The nature of the funding—the carrot-and-stick relationship that Governments have to our education institutions—needs a closer look and an overhaul.

We cannot afford time. I come back to my central theme. We have gone through this sort of debate many times in recent political history. It has gone through this on over generations. It even dates from the last century. When I look at other countries and see their successes, I cannot help feeling that there is something wrong with our system. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) spoke about our examinations. We have geared our education system primarily to the country's academic higher education needs, whereas the bulk of our young people do not want, do not need and do not intend to go into higher education. Above all, therefore, we have to ensure that the bulk of our young people, both the secondary school years and linked in a coherent way to the immediate post-school period, have the practical provisions which meet their needs as ordinary people having to cope with ordinary jobs in a world which is changing rapidly and in which, unless we get cracking now, they will be left stranded.

This is the first occasion that I have had the opportunity to address the House with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair. I echo the support that hon. Members have extended to you. I congratulate you and pray for God's continued blessing on your service in the House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on his good fortune in the ballot. His constituents are well served by him. That is evidenced by the subject that he chose to debate.

The issue is one of the most important facing the country. It covers politics, unemployment, young people and the future of our education system. It is ironic, and a condemnation of them, that members of neither the Liberal Party nor the Social Democratic Party are here to take part in this important debate. They are the people who say that they will form a Government. Their absence is indicative of their enthusiasm for the real issues.

Earlier in the debate we heard a simple pearl of wisdom when it was suggested that mathematics, religious education and physical training should be mandatory features in the school curriculum. On 1 April 1980 I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he would include in his discussions the need for proper provision for religious education in schools. I received an assurance and was told that the position of religious education in schools was covered by the Education Act and the Secretary of State had no plans to change that.

I do not regard the products of our education system merely as people who obtain degrees or not. I regard them as the country's assets. In the same way, I do not look at an engineering company's statement of accounts and believe that its assets are in land or machinery. The assets of an engineering company are people, just as a country's assets are people.

I was delighted when the debate turned to a subject which is close to my heart, since I walked the avenues of the engineering industry for 17 years before I came to the House. If I were granted one wish it would be that the Finniston report should not be allowed to gather dust. Dudley, in the West Midlands, is a metal-based constituency. It is at the heart of Britain's engineering industry. There is a crying need for engineers and for the continual training of engineers.

The role of education is not only to educate. It has been suggested that people should emerge from education "rounded off" and able to take their place in the world, not only because they have qualifications but because they are able to stand in society.

Education is not only concerned with the education of people and the issuing of qualifications, many or few; it is concerned with the moulding of character. Character in young people is lacking in many respects. The motion concludes by saying that there should be

"closer collaboration between industry and commerce and schools and colleges."

If the Minister of State can only grasp that truth, if the educationists can see the future in it and if industry and commerce will accept the challenge, we can have a united education system related to industry and commerce. This magnificent debate will have been well worth while if it produces nothing else but that pearl of wisdom.

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to take steps further to curtail the bureaucracy of the water authorities.

It is exactly six months since this subject was debated at the Conservative Party conference. That was perhaps the most sincere and heartfelt debate of all at that party conference. In tabling the motion today I am asking the Government to give a progress report on their thinking since that debate last October.

Last October the Government said that they were considering how the charging system could be made to work more efficiently and fairly. Direct billing has brought home to people the cost of water. At the same time, it has increased the unfairness in the present charging system. Rateable values, on which the present system is based, take no account of the amount of water used. When one considers that one-quarter of all households in the United Kingdom are made up of single persons, one realises that it is on them that the greatest unfairness falls.

As a whole, the general public do not complain about the service given by the water authorities. I accept the concept of the authorities dealing with both clean and dirty water throughout the watershed. I do not complain about the size of the present water authorities. I pay a special tribute to the management of water authorities at divisional level. Whatever one may say, local managers are in touch locally and they are approachable. They are expert at bidding for almost more than their fair share of the budget. I am grateful to the managers of the Lincoln division and the Lincoln sewerage division for the great attention that they give to Gainsborough constituents.

In addition to the growing unhappiness about the charging system, the underlying concern is not about the water supply but is based on a distrust of the management structure. Water is a major business today and it should be run as such. There is no complaint about the executive management, but the proper non-executive control is lacking. That bureaucracy which has been built up in the water authorities must be considered, even if it means legislation. I could best describe it as a mule—neither a horse nor a donkey. It is a mixture of local government representatives and Government-appointed members—the Thames water authority has over 60 appointed members. The Anglian water authority has up to 40.

The idea that the public receives a better service by increasing local authority representation on the water authorities is a red herring. Local government representatives on the water authorities are already finding it difficult to find out what is going on and difficult to attend meetings. In Wales they complain about the distances involved and they have no hope of controlling the bureaucracy.

The water authorities should be run like a public company, with a board of between five and seven directors. They should be run as a proper business. Local authority representation should be achieved by having in each area a watchdog group appointed by local councils, with the right to elect one member to the main board.

I am sure that the Minister will make great play of the fact that a foray by firms of accountants into the water authorities has produced a substantial reduction in what might have been the water rates in the coming year, but that in itself shows the weakness of the system.

What company would be satisfied with outside auditors? One expects them to come in if cash is missing or if it is believed that someone has had his hand in the till, but no one suggests that that has happened with the water authorities. Because the directorate is not correct, it has been necessary for an outside firm of accountants to do the job which, in any proper company, would be done by the non-executive board and the audit company.

My case hinges on the fact that the water industry is well run but badly managed. The time has come to examine the management structure of the water authorities and to run them as the proper business that they are and not with a mixture of local authority representation and the appointment of ex-politicians to look at them.

I support the general tenor of the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), but I wish to draw specific points to the Minister's attention so that we may have the Government's views.

The Northumbria water authority, in my constituency, is a gigantic organisation, consisting partly of Government-appointed members and partly of local authority members. It does a good job. The difficulty arises because the authority has inherited from its predecessor an out-of-date system for commercial and residential tariffs. People in Northumberland pay far too high water charges. They are acknowledged by the authority to be excessive, but when I visit the authority in its sumptuous premises in Gosforth the people I speak to agree that the tariffs are anomalous but say that they were inherited from the authority's predecessors, before the 1974 legislation, and it has not had time to change them. From discussions with the Water Council and interested persons generally I understand that that is the picture throughout the country.

These massive organisations are making substantial profits—and some show signs of great extravagance—while residents and commercial organisations have to pay substantial water charges, wholly unrelated to the cost and consumption of water. Will the Government consider recasting the whole system of charges, which authorities agree is anomalous? Will they introduce charges based on consumption rather than on rateable value? Will they look more carefully at water authorities' finances, as they are making excess profits which prove that their financial forecasting and investment programmes are abysmally wrong? Water authority officials go on expensive trips abroad. The water authorities' prime duty is to give customers a satisfactory service at a commercially-sensible rate, but I have dozens of stories from disgruntled constituents who are being fleeced left, right and centre by water authorities, which at the end of the year produce a balance sheet showing a substantial profit.

The finances of water authorities must therefore be examined very carefully. I dissent from the hon. Member for Gainsborough in this respect only. I am not sure that the role of local authorities can best be served in the way that he described.

The difficulty is this. As the legislation stands, the Government are powerless to intervene in the administration of water authorities except through the appointment of individual members of the authorities. I remember this vividly from the time of the Labour Government, when I saw the then Minister about this very problem as a result of representations that I had received about excessive water charges in Northumberland. The Minister at that time told me that he was unable to intervene in any matter at all because he did not have the power to intervene on questions of tariffs. That is an appalling state of affairs. The public interest cannot be served by the Minister because he is powerless to intervene on behalf of constituents who, rightly or wrongly—and very often rightly—feel that they are being overcharged. Under the present legislation, the Minister's power is limited to the appointment of a few members of the authority.

The recent very serious dispute between the management of water authorities and trade unions representing the workers graphically demonstrated the extent to which management was out of touch with the feelings of the workers. The water industry has a long and honourable record of industrial relations. I believe that there has never been an official industrial dispute. The recent dispute was unofficial. It resulted in a derisory pay offer to a number of trade unions representing workers in the industry by a management that was totally out of touch with their feelings. Had the matter been handled differently, the very serious industrial dispute that was on the point of occurring might have been avoided altogether. Happily, the matter has now been resolved, as the Minister knows—but no thanks to him, because he was unable to intervene, and no thanks to the management of the water authorities.

The Government must therefore deal with a number of issues. I am sure that the country would like to know what the Government's thinking is. I believe that local authorities should continue to play an active part in the administration of water authorities. There is an argument for saying that their role should be different from what it is at present, particularly with regard to representation on the authorities in question. The time is long overdue when the Government should have a direct say in protecting the consumer in the water industry and in controlling the financial affairs of the management of water authorities. At present, there is no protection for the public, due to the absence of the powers that I have described.

I shall be brief, as I am sure that we wish to hear from the Minister. I shall take two minutes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) on introducing this short debate, as there is great concern among our constituents—both private individuals and business people—about events in the water industry over the past couple of years. Last year Members of Parliament were inundated with letters of complaint about the enormous increase in cost when direct billing was undertaken y the water authorities. In many instances this was attributed to the cost of direct billing. Certainly the charges were very much greater than they had been when they were paid through the local rates. Not unnaturally, there were considerable expressions of distress from many consumers at the great increase in costs. Hon. Members on both sides of the House took up this matter strongly with the water authorities. Hon. Members have no power to table a question about the charges of the water authorities. The motion gives us an opportunity to raise this important point.

This year, again, the cost to the ordinary consumer has escalated considerably. I see that the water authorities have also introduced standing charges—this has never been done before—for water and for sewerage. I join my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) in asking the Government to look seriously at this matter. It is time that the consumer was considered. The Government and the water authorities will do themselves a great deal of good if it is made evident beyond doubt that they are looking at efficiency and the service given to the community and to industry—provided at reasonable rates.

Many people on low incomes are greatly concerned. In the past, water charges were attached to the billing of ordinary rates. Those in great need could get relief on that basis. I understand that they can no longer get relief from their water rates because they are billed directly by the water authorities. It has to be made clear beyond reasonable doubt that when old-age pensioners and others are called upon to pay high water rates which will cause them considerable financial difficulty they will have the opportunity to get a rebate.

At this late hour in the course of the time permitted, the House will understand that it will not be possible for me to deal in full measure even with the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and Gillingham (Sir. F. Burden) and the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), which reflect the need for a wider debate on the problems affecting heir constituents in relation to water authorities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough on raising this issue. I have no doubt that there will be further reference to it in the future. This will enable more hon. Members to participate in the discussion. I understand the reason for their interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham raises the matter of relief on charges. I remind him that water charges are charges for services provided. Rates are a tax for which a rebate is an appropriate method of deduction for those unable to pay. As in the case of other charges—gas and electricity and so on—relief is available through supplementary benefit or DHSS provisions. It is not a matter for the authorities to give a rebate.

I understand the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, to be that the present structure does not suggest adequate management control. On the other hand, the House has heard from the hon. Member for Blyth the view that there should be greater intervention by the Government in controlling prices and charges. There is, therefore, this immediate dichotomy. Either we set up an authority which is well managed and can manage its own affairs or we seek an even greater degree of nationalised control of water undertakings to make them more directly accountable to those in the House or to Ministers.

At the time of the restructuring of the water authorities the view was taken—a view that I fully support—that the authorities would become as independent and as effective in their operation as their ability could ensure. Within that structure, the House at the time passed a Bill which included representation from local authorities as the major route by which local consumers could obtain service and/or redress.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made clear, the element of consumer representation via local authority representatives on water authority boards has perhaps not produced as great or as close a relationship as might have existed. The hon. Member for Blyth was also keen to see stronger consumer representation. I must tell them that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services made clear at the Conservative conference in October last year, we expect and require representatives from local authorities to be an informed and informative channel of communication. If they cannot do that, we shall have to look closely at that point.

I accept that consumers within the areas served by the authorities must be aware of what the authorities wish to do. Likewise, the authorities must be aware of the need to satisfy consumers. It is undoubtedly true that in the past year or two, as direct billing has been adopted, consumer reaction and involvement has demanded a sensitive system and relationship.

I stress the skill and dedication with which authorities serve the public in their respective areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough rightly paid tribute to the services that the Lincoln authority had given to his constituents. Authorities provide extensive services to practically every household in the country. They provide essential services in terms of water purity and reliability. In addition, authorities are now taking in hand the essential disposal of effluent and sewage.

For the first time, those who are directly billed—I do not refer to those who have received bills from water companies—by water authorities are fully aware of the costs of the services that are being provided. One problem has been that for a long time consumers have assumed that water was a cheap and disposable commodity that came out of a tap for 365 days a year without any problem. They did not want to know about things that were flushed out of households. We are having to recognise that water provision and the disposal of water in its effluent form is costly. Understandably, if regrettably, consumers must pay for it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took due note this year of the importance of the ranges of charges that are proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, somewhat cavalierly, he used a team of consultants to satisfy himself that further changes could be made in the water charges that many authorities sought to expose. That does not suggest that at that time the water authorities were exceeding their management function in imposing such charges.

The Government had to take the view that it was necessary to proceed in that way. The consultants' report that resulted from the exercise produced a significant consumer saving. Overall, the average of regional water authority main charges was reduced from 19·4 per cent. to 13·3 per cent. In England and Wales, consumers saved about £86 million as a result of the exercise. That is indicative of two things. First, there is a need to recognise that charges are now a major item in household budgets and are a significant item in planning. Secondly, it must be recognised that the costs of water and sewage disposal are sufficiently high to be recognised by the consumer as a major impost. Whether we move to metered supplies or continue to base charges on rateable value, water and water services will continue to represent a significant cost. There is no getting away from that.

What the Government are seeking to do is to see that those costs are correctly levied and that they reasonably reflect the authorities' power to obtain a satisfactory return on their capital and keep within their tightly controlled borrowing limits. That brings me to the 10- point plan that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services announced last year. We have taken action to provide tight financial limits and to set financial objectives for the authorities. We consider that local authority representatives must be more effective in providing an informed and informative channel of communication between authorities and the areas that they serve. But we remain convinced that independent authorities of the kind set up under the Act are the best way of ensuring that regional variations—

I begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Minister for detaining him here on a second consecutive Friday. I hope that it will not become a habit for him.

I thank my hon. Friend for the trouble that he has taken to look into the subjects that I wish to raise. I also apologise to him if I overrun slightly, because I wish to put some matters on the record. I shall keep my detailed remarks as brief as possible, and I may have to overlook what I had hoped to say about my constituency. However, I make no apologies for raising this important subject of meat hygiene, which goes far beyond the scope of the Food and Drugs Act 1955.

Gerald Durrell, in his most amusing book "The Bafut Beagles", reports that, as I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist), who served in the Cameroons with great distinction, the natives there describe all meat as "beef". It is not simplicity of language or thought that has led evil men to profit from passing off other meat and unfit meat as beef. Their motive is profit. It is an exceedingly lucrative trade, and a longstanding and increasing trade. That is why I have sought to raise the matter in the House.

The people concerned are taking advantage of the development of technology, in the shape of processed foods and the freezing of meat, to exploit loopholes in our regulations and in their supervision. The whole business has been described by one environmental health authority as a nationally organised racket and a national scandal. It is not simply a local matter. My researches have led to reports from Yorkshire, Wales, the South-West, Kent, Surrey, Bedfordshire, my own Midlands, and Cheshire. I am sure that if I had had more time I should have been able to uncover more sources.

It is not my intention in any way to sensationalise the matter, nor shall I name names under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. I pay tribute to those journalists who have taken the interest and trouble to uncover the matter. I refer in particular to the articles that appeared over a number of weeks in The Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror and Municipal Engineering. I also pay tribute to those public-spirited and interested environmental health officers, including my own in Redditch, and their supporting committees, and to certain port health officers.

My interest in the subject started in my constituency, where a canning factory was found to have included in its canned meat pies meat that was not that which appeared on the label. Further tests are currently in progress to see whether the meat was unfit for human consumption. I should add that the tins in question were withdrawn immediately from the point of sale.

A long trail leads from the processors, through cold stores, to Smithfield, to dealers, and then either to knackers or to importers. I believe that hundreds of tonnes of contaminated meat are being blended into a wide range of convenience foods, and even finding their way to the butcher's slab. Indeed, I have heard reports of supplies to hospitals and old people's homes.

The best estimate that I have been able to obtain is that the annual trade may amount to about 10,000 tonnes internally, and about 5,000 tonnes imported per annum. Those could be conservative estimates, because I know that a recent firm in Fulham that was prosecuted accounted for 1½ per cent. of the total meat trade.

The loopholes that I have mentioned cover the knackers, the processors, horsemeat, enforcement and port health. I shall try to deal with the loopholes in that order. First, however, I want to draw attention to the lack of interest in this important subject that afflicts some of the responsible health committees and officers and that has led to a lack of interest by the police in following up incidents that merited prosecution. I want to draw attention, also, to the inadequacy of some of the current test procedures and, finally, to the inadequacy of the penalties. From what I have said it will be appreciated that many of these matters can be improved readily and quickly by stronger administrative action, although I fear that further legislative action may also be required.

The loophole involving knackers concerns the lack of regulation over their activities and—even more important—the dropping of the requirement that unfit meat should be stained. There is now no practical means of tracing the destination of meat once it has left the knackers. I give an idea of the profitable nature of the trade. A knackered cow is worth approximately £10, but a cow that has been dead for only about six hours can fetch as much as £135. Indeed, a horse in Southall market can fetch £300. Those are prices that no pet food manufacturer or processor could pay.

Finally, on the subject of knackers, there is the importance of separating knackers from slaughtering and, possibly—this is a matter that needs further consideration—from the transport of meat. There are premises near Bradford where, on the same site, there are a slaughterhouse, a knacker's yard, a pet food manufacturer and a maggot producer. So the House will readily appreciate the difficulties that are involved.

There is a lack of power for health officers to enter the premises of processors. In a meat sterilisation regulation there is a lack of definition of what constitutes a proper processor. In the EEC very few processors have to be strictly controlled. It is a matter for further consideration—I am not pressing it this afternoon—whether we should seek to impose greater control over knackers and reduce their numbers, or over processors. In the meantime, processors should be defined. They should have to produce records of the origin of the meat that they process and its weight. I shall return to the idea of monitoring domestic consumption of meat.

At the moment there is no need to mark and there are no powers to seize horsemeat. Records are not kept of horsemeat or its quantity. The fact that horsemeat, or kangaroo meat, is going into a product does not necessarily mean that it is unfit. However, it is impossible to be certain without records and if there is no separation.

I refer now to enforcement powers and the actions of environmental health officers. As I said, this trade is widespread. The meat is surprisingly mobile. Consignments will travel great distances and go through various cold stores before processing or consumption. Environmental health officers are hampered by their inability to act outside their own boroughs or districts.

In county areas there is a separation of powers. The county has the trading standards officers and the districts have the environmental health officers. Environmental health officers do not have power to take samples. The sampling powers under the meat regulations do not correspond with those in the Trade Descriptions Act. Therefore, there is a loophole, because there is a shorter time for taking and reporting on samples. I revert there to the tests.

There is a loophole in port health in the trade traditionally going through the Irish ports. Ireland was part to the United Kingdom in 1875 when the Port Health Act was passed. Therefore, there was no requirement for ports involved in the Irish trade to have port health officers. Since then, by convention, there has been exemption for the Irish trade because of the Irish vote. As a result, ports concerned with the Irish trade have not been licensed by the Department. Apart from having no port health officer, there have been no facilities for the proper inspection of meat.

There has been a considerable trade from Ireland, the nature of which became apparent only when a shipment had to be diverted to Pembroke dock. In August 1980 a port health officer discovered two shipments of unfit meat, and in March this year a further shipment was found not to comply with the regulations. I understand that 40 containers a week—about 800 tonnes—go through in this way.

Ireland should be put on the same footing as the rest of our EEC partners in this respect. I see no objection to that, because Ireland will not allow meat to come in, and refused to take back the two consignments to which I have referred. There is an added inducement in the case of Ireland in the matter of the EEC levy, which is not levied on unfit meat. That was what the March 1981 case was about.

There are also some anomalies in the case of Scotland, where the meat sterilisation regulations do not apply and there are differences in the meat inspection regulations, which have led to a growth in the cross-border trade from that country—if I may refer to it in those terms.

Therefore, as a result, I believe that extra powers are needed. I believe that we should consider once again the staining of unfit meat. We must consider the separation of knackers and slaughterers. We must define and provide for control of processors; for the marking of horsemeat and the keeping of records; for better sampling powers for environmental health officers; for the improvement of tests; for making it illegal to be in possession of unauthorised meat stamps; and, most importantly, for the marking of the plain cardboard boxes in which this frozen meat travels up and down the country and in and out of stoves. There is no distinguishing mark on the boxes as to content, origin, weight, or whether the contents have been processed.

I have no time to go into further detail or to cover my constituency points. I have been trying to show that there is abuse, that it is a serious matter, and that something must be done about it. I believe that there is scope for a great deal by tightening up now on enforcement. I hope that this short debate will have increased the consciousness of those who should be involved in this matter. But I fear that some additional legislation will be required, and I would urge that it be kept as simple as possible.

Finally, I ask my hon. Friend to institute some kind of monitoring of the domestic consumption of horsemeat and other meats and to report to the House in due course on what he has been able to achieve.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on raising this matter—although, like him, I hope that he will not make a habit of this on Friday afternoons.

The Government view with great concern recent developments concerning the activities of a small part of the meat trade. I welcome this opportunity to explain the Government's views on it.

I do not propose to talk about individual cases today, although several, of course, have featured recently in the press and have been the subject of contact between individual local authorities and my Department. I am aware that one such case is connected with my hon. Friend's constituency. However, in some cases, evidence is already sub judice or may shortly become so; and, anyway, I think that it will be more profitable to concentrate on the more general issues involved.

I must emphasise that the Government have no enforcement responsibility in this area. Enforcement of the various pieces of legislation is entirely a matter for the local authorities at district level. I am most grateful for the firm action which many local authorities have been taking in recent weeks, and the Ministry has helped some of them by the provision of technical advice on particular lots of meat. We can give such help only if local authorities ask for it.

The safety of the consumer in England and Wales is protected by the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and by regulations made under it, including the Meat Inspection Regulations 1963, as amended, the Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) Regulations 1977 and the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations 1969.

The effect of this legislation is that meat sold for human consumption must have been produced in licensed slaughterhouses, which are subject to detailed hygiene requirements; it must also be examined by an official inspector and passed as fit for human consumption. Similar requirements are applied to imported meat under the Imported Food Regulations. It is an offence under the Food and Drugs Act to sell unfit meat or knacker meat for human consumption. There are also specific provisions applying to the sale of horsemeat for human consumption which in effect amount to a requirement that it should be made quite clear to the purchaser what he is buying.

To complete this brief summary of the legislation, the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations 1969 require, subject to certain limited exemptions, that all unfit meat, whether produced in slaughterhouses or imported, and all meat from knackers' yards, should be sterilised before entering the chain of distribution. These regulations are intended to ensure that unfit meat and knacker meat does not contaminate at any point in the distribution chain any food intended for human consumption. They also, of course, reinforce the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act on unfit meat.

I have gone into some detail on the legislation because it is necessary to appreciate that there already exists a considerable body of law on this subject. In fact, all the alleged activities of unscrupulous meat traders featured in recent press stories are prohibited under the existing law, and the fact that the recent activities of local authorities have yielded a number of actual and possible prosecutions has shown that the law is enforceable.

However, one of the difficulties, particularly in enforcing the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations, consists ofachieving effective methods of enforcement when meat is conveyed across one or more local authority boundaries. This requires close co-operation between local authorities, and I understand that there have recently been welcome examples of such co-operation, which I hope will be built on in the future.

The other point which I should like to stress before dealing with the possibility of amendments to the legislation is the contribution which purchasing departments in the meat industry are already making to reduce these problems through proper vigilance and quality control. This is something which is already widely practised by companies in the meat manufacturing industry, and I understand that the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association has issued a code of practice to its members giving them additional advice on writing safeguards into purchasing contracts and on making checks on goods received.

We have already received some suggestions for amending the present legislation, including a set of proposals from the Environmental Health Officers Association designed to make it easier to detect malpractices and to enforce the law. These are being considered urgently. However, we also think it is necessary to obtain views from the many other organisations which might be affected by changes to the legislation. These include the various sections of the meat trade as well as a wide range of other interests, such as pet food manufacturers, zoos, and processors of unfit meat. We have therefore asked for early comments on the way in which the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations have been working, and have said we would also be interested in any general comments on other relevant legislation.

We hope to have replies from all interested organisations by the end of April, when we shall consider the possibility of proposing amendments in the light of all relevant factors.

My hon. Friend has today made a number of suggestions for amending the legislation. These, too, will all be carefully considered. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate why I cannot give him definite answers today. I should however, like to make some general comments.

My hon. Friend's allegation concerning quantities is a matter of considerable interest to us. I hope that if he has managed to pick up any hard facts he will convey them to my Department. We do not think that the problem is of the size that he states, but if he has evidence on it we shall, of course, consider it.

A number of my hon. Friend's suggestions related to the better identification of unfit meat so that it is more difficult for it to be passed off as fit meat. We shall consider the possibility of reintroducing some rule regarding the staining of unfit meat in the light of all the comments we receive. We shall also look carefully at other possibilities, such as stricter requirements on the marking of vehicles and boxes containing unfit meat at all stages in the distribution chain. Also, we are ready to examine the other suggestions which my hon. Friend has made, for example, for making even stricter the existing provisions on the sale of horsemeat to which I earlier referred. However, it is important to bear in mind the problems of enforcement of such marking requirements, especially on premises in which there is no regular local authority presence. It will not help much if by imposing tougher requirements we simply impose greater burdens on the legitimate trade while leaving loopholes for the unscrupulous.

My hon. Friend made a number of suggestions which appear to require changes to the Food and Drugs Act, for example, control of processors of unfit meat, which presumably would involve some kind of licensing or registration, alteration of the time limits for prosecutions, extension of the powers of environmental health officers, and increased penalties. All such proposals would have implications which go much wider than the control of unfit meat and would affect the law applying to food generally. As the House will know, the Government have decided that there should for the time being be no major revision of the Food and Drugs Act However, this decision does not automatically rule out any amendment which might be indicated, and I can give an assurance that we shall look on its merits at any proposal which would help to achieve improved control over unfit meat. I cannot, of course, give any undertakings about finding parliamentary time.

Scotland has its own food and drugs legislation, similar to that for England and Wales, but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations do not apply in Scotland and there is no equivalent legislation there. The possibility of introducing similar regulations in Scotland to close possible loopholes in the law is obviously one of the matters which the Government will have to consider.

As for possible deception to evade levies on imports, the transport of fit meat and unfit meat in the same container would not be permitted under our imported food regulations or under EEC directives. My Department, however, is aware of allegations that imported fit meat may have been misdescribed to Her Majesty's Customs in order to avoid the monetary compensatory amount charged on imports into the United Kingdom. All products are subject to checks at the point of entry to ensure that they are properly described. It is perfectly logical that different types of product should attract different rates of levy and subsidies.

My hon. Friend said that there might not be powers to seize unfit horsemeat. There definitely are such powers, just as there are for other meats, if it is unfit. That is the key point.

My hon. Friend also referred to what sounds like a miraculously efficient site near Bradford. A great many activities seem to take place on the same site. We agree that such premises exist. However, each part of the operation has to satisfy the relevant legislation, and it should not be assumed that abuses occur. If we decided to ban having slaughterhouses and knacker's yards on the same sites I am afraid that it would require an amendment to the Slaughterhouses Act.

If I have time I wantto deal with the question of imports from the Irish Republic. I think it is necessary to distinguish several different aspects. First, as regards animal health rules applying to imports from the Irish Republic, it is true that, because of its disease-free status, meat may be imported into any British port without the specific licensing requirements which apply to other member States. But the public health requirements for imports of fresh fit meat from the Irish Republic are exactly the same as for imports from other member States, and follow closely the rules of the EEC directive on this subject. Imports of such meat are subject to checks by public health authorities. In some ports this task is made more difficult by the lack of suitable inspection facilities, and an inspection may be deferred to an inland destination.

Imports of unfit meat from the Irish Republic are subject, like other unfit imported meat, to the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations. A recent incident revealed differences between ports in the application of the requirements on the labelling of imported unfit meat released from ports for sterilisation elsewhere. We have given advice on the correct application of the rules which involve the labelling of each package.

I hope that I have been able in a very short run through this complicated subject, which my hon. Friend was correct to raise, to clarify the Government's approach to these problems. In the short term, the answer must lie in continued strict enforcement by local authorities and close vigilance by the meat industry. In the longer term, we shall be considering with all interested organisations whether effective enforcement can be improved by possible amendments to the existing law.

We consider this an extremely important and highly sensitive matter, to which we should give our closest and most urgent attention. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to explain the Government's general position.