asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now agreed to co-operate in accepting children under the assisted places scheme; and how many children are involved.

A total of 220 independent schools are participating in the assisted places scheme in England. They are contracted to offer a maximum of 5,439 assisted places each year; 4,185 places were taken up in September 1981.

At a time when education cuts are appalling, from the bottom level to the top—the universities and every section of education are struggling to obtain more funds to educate our children properly—does not the Minister suffer some pangs of conscience when the so-called assisted places scheme gives public money to those who least need it—in fact, do not need it at all—thereby taking it away from the vast mass of children and having the bad effect of creaming off children from sixth forms throughout the country?

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have consciences. We must assess whether the assisted places scheme is successful in doing what was intended. If the hon. Gentleman was present on 16 December when this issue was debated, he would have heard the figures. The parents of one-third of the children who are taking advantage of the assisted places scheme are paying nothing, because of their low incomes. Another third of the children have parents who are in receipt of below-average wages. The hon. Gentleman said that public money was going to those who do not need it, but that is untrue. Only 6 per cent. of the places available under the assisted places scheme are going to the children of families earning 50 per cent. more than the average income. For example, no hon. Member, unless he has a vast tribe of children, would qualify for the scheme.

rose—

Order. The answer was as long as the supplementary question, and both were too long for me.

Despite what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, is my hon. Friend aware that many people, including myself, have personal reasons for appreciating the assisted places scheme that was operated in the past, because it gave them the opportunity to receive a breadth of education which would not otherwise have been available to them? I assure him that he will receive my fullest support and, I am sure, our party's in pressing ahead with the scheme. If he is able to make more financial provision available in the future, that will be additionally welcome.

I welcome my hon. Friend's question, and I am pleased to have his support. The aim of the scheme is to bring bright children, irrespective of their backgrounds, to schools with some of the most splendid sixth forms in the country.

Have any of the assisted places gone to children from Winton House school, St. Leonard's on Sea, whose headmaster, Mr. D. J. Cole, MA, LL.B, Jesus College, Cambridge, has recently written to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) threatening to use the Armed Forces against the next: Labour Government should they attempt to do away with independent schools?

That was quite an interesting and unusual question. I have had no discussions about schools in St. Leonard's on Sea or about the headmaster of Winton House school, who obviously is an original, whatever else may be said about him. If the hon. Gentleman hands me the press cutting, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will enjoy reading it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are taught in village schools; and how this compares with the figure for 1971.

The information requested by my hon. Friend is not kept by my Department. But, taking non-metropolitan English county primary schools with 50 or fewer pupils as a proxy, as most of these schools are in rural areas, there were 59,463 children in village schools in January 1981 compared with 56,860 in January 1975.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I am disappointed to learn of the reduction. As village schools are, in my opinion—I am sure that my opinion is shared by the majority of hon. Members—the backbone of village life, what will my hon. Friend and his Department do to maintain village schools throughout the length and breadth of the country?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a large part of the change reflects variations in the population. In the rate support grant formula and grant-related expenditure the Government have included a formula for sparseness in population, which makes a considerable difference. Circular 2/81 gives advice on the removal of school places and emphasises the importance of village schools.

When considering what to do with surplus schools or classrooms, should not local education authorities bear in mind their responsibilities for implementing the Government's "New Training Initiative"? Therefore, before taking any drastic decisions on the matter, should they not wait until the "New Training Initiative" is well under way?

That is an additional element that local authorities will want to take into account.

Does the Minister accept the high quality of teaching in village schools? Will he bear in mind the small demands that graduates at small village schools make on the remedial teaching programme? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be most careful before considering the closure of other schools in Cambridgeshire?

My right hon. Friend takes great care in those matters. Recent interesting studies, carried out at Cambridge and at Aston university, show the strengths of village schools, although there are problems when the numbers in a school drop below 50.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement of his policy on sixth form and tertiary colleges.

As my hon Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 1 December 1981, all statutory proposals relating to such colleges will be considered on their merits in the light of any objections; our general policies for education, including those set out in the draft circular issued for consultation on 24 November 1981; and all matters relevant to the case.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that his decision on Manchester, if he says nothing to supplement it, will be taken as a pointer that the Government would not welcome the development of sixth form colleges? Does he not see that the development of sixth form colleges is one of the ways in which some local authorities can best ensure good provision at sixth form level and combine that provision with further education resources? Does he want them to do that? Would he prefer it if they went back to a selective system?

In each case the decision will be made on its merits.

Is it not right that local authorities should bring forward proposals that are best suited to their areas and that the Department of Education and Science should be neutral as regards any different arrangements and rely entirely on the merits?

My hon. Friend is right. That is what we shall try to do.

Surely the implication of the Manchester decision is that the Secretary of State overruled his civil servants and majority opinion in the city of Manchester. Will the right hon. Gentleman put the interests of the few before those of the many in Birmingham regarding sixth form college proposals there or, at Sheffield, where a tertiary solution is being chosen? Will he persist in that attitude, even if the education policies of those local authorities are upheld at the forthcoming local elections?

I can only repeat that I shall take decisions on the merits of each case, bearing in mind objections and all other relevant factors. I remind the House that the Manchester decision highlighted the policy stated in our 1979 manifesto, that schools of proven worth should be retained. The draft circular reminds local education authorities of that policy and invites them to take account of it when formulating their proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to increase the number of degree and other high level courses being run in higher education colleges and colleges of technology to compensate for the bulge in the population aged 18 years in the mid 1980s and for the reductions in courses in universities and polytechnics.

No, Sir. The initiative in providing new courses of higher education rests with the institutions themselves. The Government's expenditure plans provide for the number of students on courses of higher education outside the universities—that is in polytechnics as well as other colleges—to remain above last year's level through to 1984–85.

Is it not crazy that, faced with a considerable bulge in the population that can benefit from those courses, the Government are cutting the number of courses at universities, polytechnics and higher education colleges, yet at a lower level they are providing courses under the youth opportunities programme? Would it not be better to continue to support traditional courses rather than to bring forward alternatives at a lower level?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the higher education sector cannot be exempt from the pressures to find economies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a post on the higher education board was not advertised nationally? Is he not concerned that that post was not advertised so that the best people, wherever they may be, could reply to the advertisement and not be selected by civil servants?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the post of secretary of the new Board for Local Authority Higher Education. After long discussions with the local authorities and other bodies we decided not to advertise because of the necessity for speed in setting up the organisation.

How many students in Scotland who have qualifications to fit them for university will be denied places because of the Government's cuts?

I shall be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman the figures that we can find. I shall write to him about that.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, far from adding courses, one of the major problems of the past decade has been that many high technology colleges, worthy as they were, have aspired to be universities, and in doing so have done a disservice to the students in both educational and financial terms?

Whether or not the difficulty is one of aspiring to be universities, there is a real problem in the unnecessary diversification of courses. The better application of resources may lead to more students being taken on more economically.

As the colleges have suffered more in the advanced further education allocations this year than the polytechnics, and as the Government want fewer students at the polytechnics than at the universities, where do they suggest that the students who are thus displaced will go if they cannot go to the colleges?

The reason why the colleges other than polytechnics have suffered more in the AFE distribution is that they did not make the savings required in the last two years. It would have been exceedingly unfair to penalise polytechnics because the other institutions had not been as efficient as them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will convene a conference of the major organisations concerned with adult education.

No, Sir. The Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education was established to provide a forum for discussion and advice in this important sector of education, and its membership broadly reflects the wide range of interests involved.

Is the Minister aware that if he were to call such a conference he would quickly be told that those in adult education have completely lost confidence in the Government? Does he agree that an essential first step is to make a legal basis for adult education and that the Government's prevarication in that matter is a demonstration of their lack of concern? In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman admitted that adult education played a vital role in a changing technological world. What is he doing to restore the devastating cuts that have been made in adult education?

I agree that the Government believe that adult education plays a vital role. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review group on the legal basis of further education asked for comments, which were received. We are grateful to those who collaborated. The position is being reviewed and plans will be formulated during this year. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the financial basis. In the revised expenditure plans for 1982–83 the total is £52·3 million, which is a considerable easement on the plans stated in Cmnd. 8175.

Does my hon. Friend agree that adult education can be a basis for a substantial move forward in training for those who become unemployed? With regard to the legal status, will he confirm, as he said in reply to a Christmas Adjournment debate that I initiated, that local authorities will support adult education as a statutory duty placed upon them? Will the Government do the same?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about those matters. I agree with both points that he made.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, having ruined the Health Service and industry, is now ruining education? Why the hell does he not agree to a conference to explain to the people of this nation that we need to put back what has been taken away from adult education?

I am glad to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in all his assertions. As I have already said, the expenditure plans announced recently have started to put back what had been taken away.

By you.

Order. We must use parliamentary language. That was not even Welsh language.

Will the Minister think again about the reply given to my hon. Friend's original question about the convening of a conference with organisations concerned with adult education? Is he aware that if he convenes such a conference he will discover that new students in adult education are finding it impossible to carry on with that education? Is he further aware that if he agrees to such meetings with those organisations he will come face Lo face with the true facts and will see what the economies are doing to adult education?

I personally, and my colleagues, have had meetings with various bodies in adult education, and further meetings are planned. We attach great importance to them. However, the hon. Gentleman is profoundly mistaken. Enrolment in adult education in November 1977 was 1·7 million. In 1980 it was 1·6 million—a drop of only 100,000—and in 1981 the estimated drop is only 3 per cent. Adult education may have suffered a small drop, but it is in good shape. I remind local education authorities that, with the easement in the financial plans that we have announced, there is a strong basis for a viable and continuing adult education programme.

Does my hon. Friend none the less recognise that rather less than 0·5 per cent. of the total education budget is now spent on adult education and that one of the best services that he could do for adult education during his term of office would be to increase the percentage of the education budget, let alone other budgets, that is spent in this vital area?

My hon. Friend has a point. One of the results of the cuts in the adult education budget has been an increase in the average hourly fee in adult education, which in 1978–79 was 25p and today is about 51p in cash terms. Nevertheless, the continuing high enrolment shows that adult education is still excellent value for money. I think that that is generally recognised.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he uses to determine the standards of education achieved in schools.

I take into account not only statistical information on the performance of pupils, but also informed opinion, both national and local, and advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

I endorse the Government's desire to improve education standards, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the necessity for the reduction in book supplies by some education authorities and the inability to repair and maintain buildings by others does not stand in the way of achieving the improvement in standards to which he and I would both subscribe?

I do not think that they stand in the way, but it is an advantage if local authorities can so conduct their affairs, including their negotiations, that they have the resources allowed for in the recent allocation to improve book provision and to make some headway with maintenance.

Does the Secretary of Sate agree that there is a fundamental difference between standards of education and standards of measurable scholastic attainment? As the Government place so much emphasis on the latter, particularly on O-level and CSE results, what is he doing about measuring the former?

I think that in all our statements we provide that, so far as is practicable, assessment should go far wider than examination results, although they are an indispensable ingredient.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of paying too much attention to merging CSE and O-level examinations, he would do well to encourage schools and others in education to find ways of giving proficiency tests to those not expected to pass CSE or O-level examinations, as they could probably gain most from having targets set for them?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the substantial percentage of pupils who are not particularly academically inclined are not at present receiving a fair deal. In collaboration with the education authorities and the teachers the Government will do all that lies in their power to help to improve the deal that those pupils receive.

Besides relying on his own elitist Old Harrovian prejudices, of which he is usually so proud, will the Secretary of State guarantee not to interfere with the independence of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's assessment of educational standards and that its report will be published this year, as it was last year, and soon?

I make no apology for a prejudice in favour of a better deal for those receiving the least benefit from our school services at present, despite the efforts of a large number of devoted and effective teachers. The inspectorate's report is not yet complete. I shall make a decision about its publication when I have seen it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to introduce an order to bring the Education Act 1981 fully into force.

It remains the Government's intention to implement the main provisions of the Education Act 1981 in the early part of the academic year 1982–83 and to make commencement orders during 1982 for this purpose. One commencement order has already been made bringing section 14 of the Act into force from 5 January this year.

Will my hon. Friend be issuing further guidance notes to local authorities on this matter? If so, when does he expect to do so?

We hope to issue a second circular well before Easter. This will give guidance on the assessment of children with special educational needs, the making of statements on those needs and the arrangements for parental involvement in all those procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is his policy to reduce class sizes over the course of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's expenditure plans allow for the overall ratio of pupils to teachers to be maintained broadly at the current level, which is the best ever. Class sizes depend on decisions by local authorities and head teachers about the deployment of teachers as well as on pupil-teacher ratios.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is an appalling waste of skill, and a false economy, to cut the numbers of teachers employed, particularly as those who become unemployed must then be supported out of public funds? Does he further agree that it would be desirable at this stage to reduce the size of classes, particularly in sixth forms, where falling rolls have a devastating effect in reducing the choice of subject?

I cannot agree that it is right for the Government to ignore the number of pupils in schools when assessing the number of teachers who should teach the falling number of pupils. We should seek a balance between the interests of taxpayers and the need to make further progress in reducing class sizes.

In these matters is not a measurement purely in terms of class size thoroughly unrealistic? Is not the ratio of those who teach to those who are taught the key factor? Is there not therefore much encouragement in what my right hon. Friend said in his original answer?

Yes. I thoroughly agree with what my hon. Friend, with all his experience, has said. The deployment by the head teacher of the teachers available, in some cases to cope with small remedial classes as well as with larger classes for those not requiring remedial lessons, must also be taken into account.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some very useful information about the reduction of class sizes was given in last year's HMI report, which his predecessor published so that he could be examined by the Select Committee about the facts in it? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that his statement today that he has it in mind not to publish this year's report, presumably because it may contain embarrassing facts that he does not wish the public to know, runs clean against the pledge given by the Leader of the House that all Ministers would be as helpful as possible to Select Committees in providing all the information at their disposal? Finally, is he aware that when he comes before the Select Committee on 10 February, if the report is not public certain conclusions may be drawn?

I am glad to pay tribute to my predecessor, who took the pioneering step of publishing—voluntarily, and under no pressure from the House—the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. No Minister in the Labour Government apparently thought of or acted upon any such willingness to lay the facts and the opinions of HMI before the House. I look forward to my next session with the hon. Gentleman's Select Committee, whether or not the report is available or published by that time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in schools arises from the fact that when the best teachers are promoted to be heads of departments they cease to teach and become administrators? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that something should be done to rectify that?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope to take an early opportunity to emphasise the point that he has just made.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to take further initiatives regarding educational opportunities for the 16 to 19 years age group.

My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the education of the 16 to 19 age group. A number of further initiatives are planned, including the development of a new pre-vocational qualification for 17-year-olds in both schools and colleges. An announcement will be made about this shortly.

In the light of the important initiative on training announced by the Government before Christmas, is it not extremely appropriate and urgent that steps should be taken—as a balance on the educational side—to secure the more wholehearted attendance of young people at school up to the age of 16 and their continued attendance after that age?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know is interested in these matters. Both the new pre-vocational qualification and the youth training scheme are complementary and in no way conflict.

Does not the Minister think it far better for most youngsters to continue their studies from 16 to 19, than to be out of work? As many working class parents cannot afford to allow their children to do that, will the hon. Gentleman introduce a scheme of grants for such children that is far higher than the child allowance scheme? Indeed, that is Labour Party policy.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is our wish that more youngsters should stay on at school after 16. I am glad to say that, for various reasons, about an additional 10 per cent. are staying on already. I am aware of the problem of grants, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the discretionary educational maintenance allowances that can be made by local authorities to help those in need.

Following the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep in touch with the Secretary of State for Employment, who these days is spending millions on a form of education for school leavers—training? Does he not feel that his Department should be able to make a greater contribution to the education of those school leavers by means of opportunities in tertiary education?

I reassure my hon. Friend that there is close collaboration between the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science. He will recognise that, to put it bluntly, the education service is supplying the education for the YOP and the youth training scheme.

Does not the Minister recognise the need to co-ordinate the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, be they in school, college, at work or unemployed? Is it not remarkable that the Department of Education and Science, to the dismay of the whole education service, seems to have opted out of the area for which, just a few minutes ago, the Secretary of State said he had great concern—the education and training of the less able pupils?

The distinction between training under the Department of Employment and education under the Department of Education and Science is a matter for the machinery of Government and not for me. However, collaboration is working not too badly at present and I have every confidence that with the youth training scheme on the one hand and the new 17-plus, or certificate of prevocational education, on the other, we shall see these two marching in step and complementing each other.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the cost effectiveness of education in inner city areas.

Many of the local authorities concerned are spending at or close to their grant-related expenditure assessments for education, which take account of the socio-economic problems of inner city areas. A few are spending far above their GRE. The report by Her Majesty's inspectors in 1980 on the biggest of these, the Inner London Education Authority, suggests to me that savings could be made in some cases without damaging the quality and range of education offered.

The Secretary of State has said that expenditure can be reduced without damaging the quality of education in inner London, but he and his predecessors have consistently refused to set out those reductions. Will the right hon. Gentleman slate them now, or give an undertaking that he will do so in the future before, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, requiring the ILEA to reduce its expenditure in real terms on any part of its service?

No. I shall not do the ILEA's job for it. In recognition of the problems that inner London faces, our assessment allows for 30 per cent. more expenditure by the ILEA than the average urban education authority, but the ILEA is spending 40 per cent. above that 30 per cent. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the 7½ per cent. economy that we are seeking from it is moderate and well within its power without doing damage to its educational quality or range, taking into account the ILEA's excessive spending above the level that has been judged suitable for its special problems.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this very day Manchester city council, which covers the inner city of Manchester, is employing headmasters without schools at an enhanced salary, because they are being appointed for schools that cannot possibly operate until he has given approval to the scheme before him? Is that not an example of a lack of cost effectiveness, is it not illegal and will he do something about it?

The advice that I have been given is that the Manchester education authority has made these appointments and arrangements for pay conditional upon the decision to be made by me on its new proposals, when the objection and consideration periods are over. On that understanding, and on that understanding only, I understand that its action is not in itself illegal. That is a quick reaction to the information that I have been able to gather since I was told what had happened.

Is it not true that while Manchester city council has been waiting for many months for a satisfactory conclusion and a decision from the right hon. Gentleman, he has been holding secret meetings with Conservative Members at the Tory Central Office? Has the right hon. Gentleman held such secret meetings? If so, is that proper as, in a sense, he is in a quasi-judicial position?

It was, Mr. Speaker, no doubt wrong of me to answer a supplementary question about Manchester following a question about the ILEA, but I am paying for it now. Yesterday, at the Central Office, I was handed a letter after the information about which my hon. Friend has just asked had been made available to the press.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many overseas students enrolled in British universities this session; and what was the comparable total five years ago.

Provisional estimates are that 15,000 new overseas students entered the universities of Great Britain in 1981–82 compared with 17,700 in 1976–77. Both figures include students domiciled in European Community countries, who are now charged home fees.

Are not those figures reasonably encouraging, in view of the fears voiced about the effect of the new fees charged? Will my hon. Friend at least look at the ridiculous anomaly whereby we now charge all Commonwealth and foreign students full-cost fees of up to £6,000 a year, while all students from the EEC and the French overseas territories get an automatic subsidy of about £3,000 from the British taxpayer? In view of these encouraging general figures, will the Minister sort out this rather silly anomaly?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the overall drop is encouragingly small. The Government are studying the Melbourne communiqúe, which referred to student mobility. A further encouraging sign is that students from the developing Commonwealth are still increasing, probably as a result of Government-to-Government scholarship schemes.

Was the Department of Education and Science consulted about a Home Office decision to refuse to renew visas for overseas students if they had been provided with short-term accommodation by local authorities and given a rent rebate? Is that not scandalous? What representations will the Minister make to try to get that decision reversed?

I shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me details of the case, and I shall reply to him later.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is evidence that certain universities are dropping their standards in order to maintain the level of overseas students? Is not that the worst of all possible worlds at present?

I have heard those suspicions voiced. I am not convinced that that is happening yet, but we shall keep a close eye on the position. I have no doubt that universities will be loth to drop standards.

A 21 per cent. drop in enrolments this year is described by the Minister as "encouragingly small". At which figure does he become discouraged? What would he say is suffering most as a result of this fall in numbers—the institutions to which the students would have gone and the home students still there, or our relations with the countries from which the overseas students would have come?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, like many arts graduates, is not sufficiently numerate. There is not a 21 per cent. drop. The provisional figures show that there may be about a 3 per cent. drop this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest available figures for the number of secondary school children who are absent on any one day from school without a reasonable explanation.

A national one-day survey in 1974 revealed that in maintained middle and secondary schools in England and Wales 87,400 pupils—2·2 per cent. of the total—were absent from school without a known good reason.

Does my hon. Friend agree that hard core truancy can be the seed-corn of juvenile crime? Is he not, therefore, alarmed that in some inner city areas truancy is as high as 25 per cent.? Does he agree that the existing measures may not be adequate or serve as a suitable deterrent? Will he consider looking further into the matter?

I know my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. In 1979 there were 3,700 prosecutions in England and Wales, mostly for truancy. The education welfare service is responsible and I hope that local education authorities will make sure that it plays a responsible part.

Can the Minister, or one of his colleagues, supply the necessary information about how many Members of Parliament are absent on any given day without reasonable explanation? I am certain that the figures will show that the absentee rate is higher here than it is in the schools.

To judge from the usual state of the Benches opposite, the hon. Gentleman can supply that information better than we can.

In view of the connection between truancy and crime, has my hon. Friend noticed that, unfortunately, of those who cannot read, many become criminals from the age of 15 onwards?

I accept that my hon. Friend may have a point. I have no knowledge or information on the correlation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions in 1981 he has met the chairman of the University Grants Committee.

After assuming office in September, I had four meetings with Dr. Parkes in 1981.

At those meetings does the constitutional position remain that neither my right hon. Friend nor his Ministers intervene in detailed decisions by the University Grants Committee? If that is right, does it not show that those voices in the university sector that are baying for the abolition of the UGC are speaking against the very interests of the universities?

What my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question is true. In no way have I or my hon. Friends sought to intervene in the decisions of the UGC.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the UGC will he take up with him the results of the UGC decisions in respect of the technological universities, including Bradford university, on which the future wealth of the country depends? Is he aware that in the case of Bradford a cut of one-third in the budget means the closure of nine to 14 technical departments and the decimation of the infrastructure of higher education in West Yorkshire? Will he give that matter serious priority?

I shall still not intervene with the chairman of the UGC. It is a fact that the technical universities have fared differently. Some have come off with light cuts, and others with more. The university of which the chairman of the UGC was vice-chancellor before he became chairman of the UGC has fared badly.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Netherlands ambassador. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous public concern that has arisen over sentencing in rape cases, following the failure of the Crown to proceed in the recent Glasgow case and unsympathetic police interrogation of victims, as was shown in a television programme last night? Will she add to the welcome statements of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice an indication of the seriousness with which the Government view the matter? Will she say whether she is prepared to carry out a review of the application of the law in rape cases and whether she will encourage police authorities to set up special units to deal with this odious crime?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. It is vital that women should have confidence in the ability of the law to protect them against this violent, detestable and—I use the hon. Gentleman's word—"odious" crime, and to ensure that persons are found guilty should they commit it.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the circumstances in which a Conservative Secretary of State has approved the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which insulate our lucrative retail banking system against competition and at the same time allow banks to use their profits to buy banks abroad in countries that believe in competition? In any event, has not this inquiry raised subjects of such importance that they should be decided by the Cabinet and not by some commission?

Clearly there was room for more than one view on the difficult issues raised by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's consideration of the bids for the Royal Bank of Scotland. The commission was itself divided on both bids. The decision rests not so much with the commission as with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. It is a quasi-judicial decision. He can consult other colleagues about it, but the final decision is his.

As it appears that the country and the House may soon be confronted with the terrible total of 3 million unemployed, may I ask the right hon. Lady to ensure that the statement on this matter is made to the House next week, when the figures are to be announced? Will she also tell the House what changes in Government policy she proposes at the same time?

The statement will be made in the usual way, as it is always made, in the morning, from the Department of Employment, giving very full details of the figures. I shall be here, as usual, to receive questions.

As the right hon. Lady has indicated that the figures may be passing this terrible total, will she arrange for the statement on such a major matter to be made in the House? Will she also take into account the fact that, speaking a week or two ago on this question, she said that there were some economic measures affecting these matters that she would like to have carried through were it not for Parliament restraining her? What were those measures? Would they have added to the total unemployment figures?

No, I have no present intention of changing the arrangements for making that statement. The right hon. Gentleman will be very much aware that on each occasion when the unemployment figures have risen—and they also rose, tragically, in his time, although not to the present levels—the statement was made in the same way, by announcement in the morning through the Department of Employment. The statement will continue to be made in that way. I have no other statement to make about this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a major statement about help for work and training for young people. Some of those provisions came into operation on 2 January. Further changes are due to be made in the job release scheme in February, and the whole training scheme will come into operation gradually over the coming months and years.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to read press reports of plans approved by the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry for that country to take a massive leap forward in technology based on the increased use of computers and robots? Does she agree that in this country too much of our thinking is rooted in preserving the industrial practices of the past and that the way ahead to greater prosperity and greater employment in Britain is for all responsible leaders to encourage change, innovation and flexibility?

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. It is essential for the prosperity of British industry, and for the future prospects for jobs, for British industry to adopt the very latest technology and to be ahead in doing so. It is notable that those countries that have clung to outdated working practices and outdated technologies have the higher levels of unemployment; those that have been among the first to embrace new technology have the lowest levels of unemployment and high measures of prosperity.

How much is it now envisaged will be spent on the Polaris rockets? Will the Prime Minister confirm that this sum will allow the life of the Polaris missile to be extended into the year 2000? Would not that be the best option, rather than proceeding with the extremely expensive Trident missile?

I am not quite sure which aspect the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. The Polaris weapon is being re-motored, as he knows. From time to time changes have to be made in this weapon system, and re-motoring is now being undertaken until the Trident is due to come into service. There is also another matter, about which the right hon. Gentleman will know. The cost of Chevaline was £1,000 million. These steps will extend the life of the Polaris and the submarines until Trident—which is a much more powerful weapon—is due to come into service later.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the figures published yesterday, which show that the numbers employed in the Health Service have increased by 67,000 in the last two years, and that the numbers employed in central Government have increased by 38,000 over the same period? Is my right hon. Friend's policy of reducing waste in the public sector and eliminating overmanning going according to plan?

I know that my hon. Friend's figures are absolutely impeccable, as usual, and that he will have taken them from some particular Government document. During that period the numbers in the Armed Services rose by some 20,000; the number of nurses rose by 21,000 and the number of doctors rose by 1,000. I am sure that my hon. Friend will approve of those increases. The numbers in the Civil Service bureaucracy, over the period that my hon. Friend mentioned, have dropped by 40,000. They have now dropped by 52,000. As we take out the area health authorities, the number of bureaucratic jobs in the Health Service will further be reduced.

Will the right hon. Lady take time today to consider the announcement made by Marconi Radar yesterday to the effect that 700 people are to lose their jobs as a result of cancellation of contracts by the Ministry of Defence for the GWS-25 tracker radar? As the lightweight version is intended as a replacement, will she put an end to the indecision of the Ministry of Defence over the rival bids of a Dutch company and Marconi, so that the work can go to Marconi and thereby reduce and mitigate the full effects of these redundancies?

This question arises from time to time. We try to buy British, as far as we possibly can, commensurate with efficiency in British industry and with suitability for the task under consideration. The hon. Gentleman must take up the precise decision with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 19 January.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

I welcome the Government's determination to encourage concessionary fares for elderly people. Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider again the possibility of granting tax relief to companies giving their staff season tickets for public transport? This would seem to be a much more sensible way of providing subsidies for public transport than the present ad hoc system.

As my hon. Friend will know, where employers buy or help with season tickets for employees, the employers will secure tax relief for that purpose, but there will be a charge, if it is a gift or a partial gift, on the tax of the employee. At present we have no plans to change that. It would be extremely expensive if tax relief were to be given for all travelling expenses, and no Government have embarked upon that. It is a personal choice where one lives, and that is one of the reasons why the present position has been adopted.

While the Prime Minister is talking to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about concessionary fares, will she also try to find time to interest him in the railway dispute? Will she try to get through to him the fact that pay and productivity issues in this dispute are entirely separate and distinct—[Interruption.]—as is amply evidenced and documented in the proceedings of the Railway Staffs National Tribunal and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service? Will the Prime Minister also get the Secretary of State for Transport to appreciate that since it is the British Railways Board that has broken its agreement—[HON MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—and since it is the British Raiways Board that broke off the productivity talks, the only way to settle this dispute is for the British Railways Board to pay the 3 per cent?

I do not accept what the hon. Member has said. I believe that the parties are still with ACAS. The hon. Member will remember that it was as a result of the good services of ACAS that that arrangement was reached earlier in the year, and I believe that it is right that ACAS should resolve it. In the meantime, I call the hon. Member's attention to what Mr. Terry Duffy said about the strike in an article in one of the Sunday newspapers this week. Speaking about this particular strike, he said:

"Their strike action has caused suffering to thousands of my members. Many factory workers, unlike office workers, do net get paid if they cannot get to work."

Will my right hon. Friend be discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the call from a large section of British industry and many on the Conservative Benches for Government support for carefully costed capital projects in labour-intensive industries? Would not such help be a constructive and traditionally Conservative way of encouraging the free interprise system and getting the economy expanding rather faster than is at present envisaged?

Yes, and my hon. Friend will have heard me say many times that we have also to look at the total of expenditure. We have to get the total of expenditure either from taxation or from borrowing That is really the only way to do it, Therefore, we must look at the total—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Print it".] Printing is a Labour device. I may say that it is usually overmanned as well. Many of us wish to make certain that current expenditure is kept as economical as possible and that wage claims are kept as moderate as possible so that there may thereby be room for that capital expenditure that my hon. Friend and I both want.