asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to announce his decisions in respect of sixth form reorganisation in Lancashire.

My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decision in the near future.

Will the Minister and the Secretary of State take into account when they make their decision the fact that while, understandably, some parents have anxieties about any changes, this reorganisation proposal, as it affects sixth forms in Blackburn, enjoys wide support? Will they bear in mind that it was moved in the county council by the leader of the Conservative group, Mrs. Pat Case and given support by the majority Labour group?

I am aware that there is bi-partisan support for the proposals for Blackburn in the Lancashire county council. I know, too, that the Lancashire county council is keen for an early decision and that it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the proposals are examined as fully as they can be.

When making any proposals, will the Secretary of State be mindful of the fact that in Lancaster there is tremendous support for all our secondary schools — our boys' grammar schools, our girls' grammar schools, our Church schools and our ordinary secondary schools — and that the people of Lancaster would rather leave things as they are?

We have no proposals before us for Lancaster, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will make her views known to us at the right time.

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers this reorganisation, will he also include consideration of the curricula of sixth form colleges, particularly with reference to the so-called peace studies being introduced in Labour-controlled Lancashire, as such a subject appears to be unnecessary in already overcrowded curricula?

We are concerned about peace studies everywhere where they are abused. All proposals for sixth form colleges are given deep consideration by the Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects records of achievement to be introduced for all school leavers; and if he will make a statement.

It is too early to say when records of achievement will be generally available. To speed progress I am proposing a programme of pilot schemes with support from central funds. A draft statement of policy will be published within a few days and copies will placed in the Library.

I welcome the progress by my right hon. Friend in this important matter, but will he asssure the House that these records of achievement will be an objective assessment of the child's performance and will be supplementary to, and not a replacement of, examinations?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

May we be assured that the Secretary of State's system of records of achievement will not be such as to make any child think that he or she is not achieving? We accept that the aim of the teaching profession and of the vast majority of people connected with education is to prove to every child that a good education means a good achievement, and that is a noble aim.

For once I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The idea behind records of achievement is to give an opportunity for a child's successes to be shown. I hope that the hon. Member will read the consultative document that I shall publish next week.

My right hon. Friend's concern for standards is well known. To what extent does he feel that records of achievement will help to improve them?

I hope that records of achievement, as they come in, will apply to children of all abilities, recording their achievements, both non-academic and academic, and that they will turn out to be particularly encouraging to those who leave school with apparently few achievements to their credit because there is no way of recording such achievements as they have.

Is it not true that most youngsters today are more worried about getting a job when they leave school? Many of them are asking, "What is the use of five O-levels, two or three A-levels, CSE examinations or records of achievement?" When they know that more than half of them will not obtain work and others will finish up on slave labour schemes — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is what the youth training scheme is. The Government should turn their attention to providing work for those youngsters and to giving them some motivation.

The hon. Gentleman has not studied the subject enough to formulate an effective question about it. The idea is for records of achievement to record achievements that are not academic, including features of character and of quality, which will greatly benefit those who seek jobs. Employers naturally wish to know about a youngster's character and ability, as well as about his academic achievements. The hon. Gentleman has got it precisely wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teaching of dyslexic children within the state sector.

Most children with specific learning difficulties are given specialised remedial teaching in reading in their ordinary schools. In addition, the majority of education authorities maintain remedial education centres for the few children who need to be withdrawn from their ordinary schools for remedial sessions.

Will my hon. Friend admit that there is a special problem with dyslexic children, and is it not disappointing that more progress has not been made by local education authorities in the training of teachers specifically to teach dyslexic children?

There are differing views about dyslexia, as my hon. Friend knows, but provision in individual cases is the responsibility of the local education authority for the area in which the child is reported.

Is the Minister satisfied, in relation to the Government's overtures on the Warnock committee report, that the teaching of deaf children in schools and elsewhere has been satisfactorily catered for?

This question relates to dyslexic children. However, there are a variety of opportunities for deaf children and provisions vary between authorities.

Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to the representations that he will have received from Billericay magistrates concerning a parent who came before them for not sending his dyslexic child to school because he did not believe that there were suitable opportunities for teaching the child in Essex?

The magistrates' court in Billericay has deferred sentence in a particular case to await the outcome of an appeal to the Secretary of State. In the light of that, it would be wrong for me to comment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many proposed closures of secondary schools he has declined to approve since 1982.

Between 1 January 1982 and 30 September 1983 my right hon. Friend rejected 16 proposals which would have entailed the closure of 32 secondary schools. Some of those schools have been the subject of further proposals.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great disappointment caused by his decision to support the closure of Beaufort school, which is one of the most popular and over-subscribed schools in my constituency? How does he reconcile that decision with the Secretary of State's often repeated and justified support for the principle of parental choice?

I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. However, we must review secondary school provision in the light of falling rolls, and some schools must close if our objective is to be met.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why it is not possible to implement the appointment of school governors by 1 September 1984.

As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend's question on 4 November, the Government have been clear from the outset that the reconstitution of all schools' governmental arrangements under the Education Act 1980 would take some time to accomplish. Given the substantial task of administration, recruitment and training, good progress has been made with implementation to date. It would be unrealistic, though, to aim for completion by September 1984.

Why is it that the Government expect the privatisation of British Telecom within two years, or can mount an invasion of the Falklands within a few months, yet take five years to appoint a few school governors? As parental influence is at the heart of the Government's economic policy, does this not represent a surrender to the administrative convenience of the officers of his Department?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the abuses that occur in some local authorities. However, there is nothing to stop a local education authority requiring the creation of new governing bodies well before September 1985. The House should not underestimate the size of the task.

Is not the Minister underrating the problems of large cities? Although it may be practical for four schools in a small village to have the same governors, in a city such as Manchester, which has 250 schools, the task would require a great deal of administration and could cost up to £40,000 a year. Will the Minister repay that money, or does he expect the ratepayers to find it?

No hon. Member can accept the provision of one governing body for a wide range of schools. The practice in Manchester can be suffered for only so long, but then the authority must take action under the requirements laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the great value of having parent governors on school boards, and will he go flat out to ensure that they are appointed to school governing bodies as soon as possible and in advance of the date mentioned?

I have explained that there is nothing to stop a local education authority from embarking upon that course. From my experience I know that parent governors have a vital, positive and determined role to play in the running of a school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent proposals he has received to establish grammar schools.

The last statutory proposals to establish a new grammar school were published by Hereford and Worcester education authority on 29 January 1982.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that grammar schools are a valuable bridge between the private and public sectors of education, and that their destruction has polarised education in Britain? Will he do all that he can to protect existing grammar schools and to encourage the setting up of new grammar schools in the public or the private sector?

The grammar school has played, and is still playing, a distinguished part in the development of our schools system. Many people, including Opposition Members, were completely wrong to kick away the ladders that had benefited them before others could benefit from them also.

Did my right hon. Friend see the results of the poll in The Guardian last week that compared the public perception of the achievements of grammar schools with those of comprehensive schools? In view of the obvious importance that the public appear to attach to the education provided by grammar schools, does it not suggest that if their perception of grammar schools is so high, while their perception of comprehensive schools is so low, there is a case for an independent inquiry into the lack of success of the comprehensive system?

I understand my hon. Friend's view, but under the law the initiative for change lies with local education authorities. I can well imagine circumstances in which an education authority might consider that selection, and grammar schools as part of it, would benefit all children by enabling teachers to concentrate on stretching each broad band of ability separately. Although the initiative is with local education authorities, the holder of my office must decide the merits of each proposal, taking into account its effect on all concerned.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the major problem in secondary schools is that the bottom 40 per cent. of 16-year-olds feel like failures in those schools? He has already drawn attention to that problem. Will not the move to corral those children into failure schools entrench the problem even more deeply? Does he agree that that is a regressive step, and that the way forward is to develop a schools system that gives all our children a sense of achievement?

As the hon. Lady knows, I agree with much of what she has said. However, the task of teaching a complete spectrum of ability in one class requires great skills on the part of the teachers, and it is just conceivable — I say no more — that the pupils to which the hon. Lady referred, in whom I am especially interested, might benefit from teaching that was stretched across a slightly narrower range of ability. The initiative is with the local education authorities. My duty is to consider each proposal on its merits.

Does the Secretary of State realise that, according to the same Gallup poll, a clear majority are against a return to selection? As we have seen at Solihull, and now at Richmond, there is little support, even among Conservative parents, for setting up new grammar schools. Will the Secretary of State tell his junior Minister to stop making weekend speeches to the party faithful knocking comprehensives, and to spend more time on what should be his ministerial duties — in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—in improving the quality of education for all our children?

I shall say no such thing to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has an important potential for influencing public opinion, will concentrate, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) did, on the success of the delivery of education in all schools and keep an open mind on which type of school is best for which children. The holder of my office has that invidious job in the face of proposals and objections to those proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline his plans for improving the quality of teachers; and how he intends to measure their performance.

My right hon. Friend's policies were outlined in the White Paper "Teaching Quality", Cmnd. 8836. It commends to those responsible for managing the teacher force a range of management options and strategies, including the systematic assessment of every teacher's performance.

I thank my hon. Friend for his informative reply. Does he agree that a further way to improve the overall standard of teachers when the school population is falling is to urge local education authorities to weed out from our education system the less desirable and less proficient teachers who are bringing it into disrepute?

We expect local education authorities to meet the challenge of falling school rolls by adopting positive policies that maintain the inflow of able recruits to teaching and ensure that teachers are deployed where they can best serve the pupils. Most teachers do a good job. I hope that LEAs will act resolutely to deal with the minority who do not.

Is it not a fact that throughout the population there are doctors and engineers who are not as good as we would expect — [HON. MEMBERS: "What about MPs?"] Everyone knows about MPs. Therefore, is not this question an attack on a profession that is striving to the best of its ability to educate our children? Does it not come from a source that seems to rejoice in ignorance and fails to understand that a large number of young people in secondary education——

Order. The hon. Member has asked a question.

May I finish my sentence, Mr. Speaker? A large number have attained high qualifications in the comprehensive schools but the University Grants Committee is not granting them sufficient money to enable them to go to university, even though they are entitled to do so?

In my experience, the people who are most concerned about poor quality teachers are teachers themselves.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the quality and development of teachers depends considerably on effective leadership from head teachers, and that effective leadership is undermined by political interference by some local education authorities? Will my hon. Friend condemn such practices?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I condemn such practices.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the proposed closure of the urban and regional planning department of Coventry (Lanchester) polytechnic; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend and I have received several representations about the urban and regional planning department of Coventry (Lanchester) polytechnic. The committee of the National Advisory Body has been meeting over the last four days and will not be recommending to my right hon. Friend the closure of any course in this Department.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that Coventry (Lanchester) polytechnic's urban and regional planning department has been saved at the expense of the planning departments at Leeds, Liverpool and Trent polytechnics, which appeared in the last three places of a ranking system of nine and have closed? Will he further confirm that urban and regional planning departments are being closed because his hon. Friends are cutting the money to local councils for housing projects? As no public housing is being built, the Government have decided that public planners are not needed.

That is a long question, so I am afraid that my answer will be slightly long. I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The committee of the National Advisory Body will be recommending the closure of town and country planning courses at Trent and Liverpool polytechnics and the Gloucester college of art and technology.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his decision about the Coventry (Lanchester) polytechnic will be widely welcomed throughout the midlands? Those of us who live there are aware of the good done by that college. I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful announcement.

Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting the Coventry (Lanchester) polytechnic. I am delighted to accept my hon. Friend's words.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that there is considerable concern that the Government are about to inflict on the local authority higher education sector the same sorts of cuts as were inflicted on the universities? Will he make a clear statement about all the proposals so that all the colleges that fear that their courses will be cut will have their fears put at rest now and not have to wait for information to come in dribs and drabs?

Order. The Minister may answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but the original question refers to Coventry.

The National Advisory Body has concluded its recommendations on course provision. Those institutions that are particularly affected and the press have already been informed. Communication of the other details will follow shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the University Grants Committee.

My right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with the chairman of the UGC, but no future meeting is arranged at present.

Will the Under-Secretary discuss the detrimental effect on higher education of the miserable 4 per cent. increase in student grants and the 50 per cent. cut in the minimum student grant when even the committee of vice-chancellors and principals urged a 22 per cent. increase as being necessary to keep pace with rising costs? Does he realise that those harsh decisions will cause a great deal of hardship to many students and, in some cases, may even make it difficult for students to continue their courses?

The 4 per cent. student grant increase is approximately in line with inflation. The number of students in the higher education system is the highest ever, which seems to march against what the hon. Gentleman said.

As it seems inevitable that resources available from public funds for the higher education sector will be reduced in the years ahead, what steps are the Government taking to encourage the flow of private resources into higher education?

We want greater diversity in higher education and we should like institutions to become less dependent on the public purse. We are considering ways to encourage that and I hope that the dialogue will continue.

Given the 32 per cent. reduction in the number of Commonwealth students in our universities since 1979, will the Minister discuss with the chairman of the UGC how to attract more Commonwealth students to our universities and colleges? Will he give special attention to the problems of medical students from poorer countries, many of whom cannot afford to pay fees of more than £7,000 per year for possibly five years?

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that according to UCCA there are 27 per cent. more applications from overseas students this year than at the same stage last year.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of his next meeting with the UGC to confirm that in the Government's view research and undergraduate teaching are not separate functions of universities but different sides of the same coin? Will he deny current speculation that the Government are considering proposals to divorce research from undergraduate teaching?

If my hon. Friend will allow me to add the word "scholarship" to his question, I can confirm that the chairman of the UGC shares his views.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission in relation to proposals that the education service should create a new programme to help the unemployed, and if he will make a statement.

I have myself had no such discussions, but the educational and training needs of the adult unemployed have been a subject of consultation between the Department and officials of the Manpower Services Commission.

If the education service were to create a new scheme to help the unemployed, would not that mean extra responsibilities for colleges of further education and thus a need for more in-service training for staff? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if local education authorities started spending on such a project the expenditure would be disregarded in calculating whether they were in a penalty zone?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that we are seeking various ways to encourage educational provision for the unemployed. We provided a further £2 million of taxpayers' money for adult education for that purpose in the recent announcements. On the second part of the question, I cannot predict what would happen in relation to hold-back in future years, for which rate support grant arrangements have not been adumbrated.

As children from working-class homes are least likely to remain at school and most likely to end up on YTS schemes in dead-end jobs—slave labour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) describes it — would it not make more sense to give young people the same amount of money to stay at school as is given to those on YTS schemes?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has taken into account all the complexities of increased public spending on the scale that he postulates. Even the Labour Front Bench, in suggesting such a scheme, was careful to ensure that the cost would be deducted from the fathers' and mothers' taxable income. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has taken that into account. I remind him, too, that a large number of young people feel that it is in their own interests to stay at school although by so doing they forgo the money available through YTS.

Will the Secretary of State remove the potential conflict between education authorities and the Manpower Services Commission by encouraging the commission to allow more flexibility in schemes for the unemployed by giving more support to the voluntary sector?

Conservatives are naturally sympathetic to the voluntary sector, but the hon. Gentleman's question is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment than for me.

Does the Secretary of State agree that everything emanating from the MSC, such as its recent NEDC memorandum, "Training Skills and Tomorrow's Need", implies devastating criticism of his Department's lack of action in providing education and training for the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed?

Both parties must share responsibility for the fact that, as we all acknowledge, training in this country has not been nearly so successful as we should all like.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards teaching ethnic minority pupils in their mother tongue.

Most teaching must inevitably be through the medium of Engish, but it is a view that for some children the use and study of their mother tongue can form a valuable part of a school's approach.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not concerned that the Inner London education authority spends far too much time and energy concentrating on mother tongue teaching rather than on teaching English?

The important principle that must be in every education authority's mind is that all children must leave school speaking and writing English fluently.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to express his support for the report published last week on community languages at 16-plus and make it clear that there is a role for a multilingual and multicultural approach in the British education system?

I certainly undertake to read that report. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters.

May I press my hon. Friend a little further? Does he agree that the style of positive discrimination often practised in ILEA schools is arguably racist in character and extremely harmful?

I am willing to be pressed at any time on this matter. I do not believe that the state should wholly take over the role of minority communities in maintaining the mother tongue and culture. Many parents prefer their children to receive instruction in their religion, language and other aspects of culture within their own community, and that is their right.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration the Government have given to the level of funding for the universities in the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend's written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 17 November said that recurrent grant to the universities on the UGC list for the academic year 1984–85 would be £1,265 million. My right hon. Friend will give a provisional indication of the level of funding for later years as soon as possible.

Does the Government's request to the universities to take additional students mean that the cut in student places was a mistake, due to which thousands of school leavers with university qualifications are on the dole, on YTS or taking jobs that should be available to young people without those qualifications?

The UGC has asked universities whether they are prepared to admit additional students within existing resources during the period of peak demand. I am sure that with good will a great deal can be achieved. The reduction in student numbers planned by the UGC has given some protection to the "unit of resource".

In assessing funding for individual universities in the coming year, will my hon. Friend make clear to the UGC the importance of the guarantee of free speech in our universities, in view of the ineffectual reactions of Birmingham and Manchester universities to evidence of lack of free speech in the recent past?

Responsibility for student discipline lies with the institution concerned. In universities, the procedures are prescribed in statutes and in ordinances. For polytechnics and colleges in the maintained sector they are contained in the articles of government. In addition, of course, students are subject to the law.

May I press the Minister to make clear when the long-term funding of the universities will be made known? Will he accept that it is impossible for universities to budget on a year-to-year basis as his Department is insisting?

I note the merit of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The information will be given as soon as possible.

Does the Minister's statement make it clear that the Government are going back to supporting the Robbins' principle that all pupils who achieve two A-levels should be entitled to higher education? Will he support the views expressed by the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science that 22 per cent. of the age group should benefit from higher education?

Given greater efficiency and economy, the Government's present expenditure should enable demand for higher and further education to be met at the lower boundary of the Department's projections.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grant was made available to Lincolnshire county council for educational purposes in the last yearly funding period.

Lincolnshire received £6 million of grant in support of expenditure on mandatory student awards, and £36,000 urban programme grant, in respect of recurrent expenditure on education in 1982–83. On the basis of an estimated budget of £173 million, the authority's entitlement to block grant in support of expenditure on all services in 1982–83 was nearly £96 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the severe problems faced by Lincolnshire county council and others which include constituencies such as mine where the school population is spread over 170 villages and 700 sq miles? Will he improve funding to Lincolnshire county council, and other county councils that are similarly placed, to overcome the sparsity factor and save village schools, which are vital to rural life?

My hon. Friend made a similar point in a recent Adjournment debate. Grant-related expenditure calculataions make allowance for higher relative costs in sparsely populated rural areas by means of a calculation relating observed patterns of school size and expenditure on school transport to a measure of relative sparsity of population.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will intensify the training and experience in child development within the teacher training course in order to overcome learning disabilities in children.

The coverage within initial teacher training of the different ways in which children develop and learn and of methods of identifying children with special educational needs will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend in his current consideration of the content of initial training courses and the criteria against which they should in future be assessed.

I am grateful for that reply, but the Minister has made my point. He has said that training in child development is not available within the teacher training system. Is he aware that the work of Professor Schonell and Mia Kellmer-Pringle, who were pioneers in that area, is largely ignored within the teacher training colleges and that children with learning difficulties and disabilities, such as dyslexia, are not recognised early enough and given the help that they need?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. I recognise the importance of identifying learning disabilities early so that children may be helped to overcome them. Initial and in-service training, as well as teaching experience, all have their part to play in helping teachers to respond to that particular and important need.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are some physical disabilities in children, such as rheumatoid arthritis and related illnesses, which may restrict the physical abilities of the child but in no way curtail or inflict themselves upon the child's mental ability, and that all too often teachers and schools do not take that fact into account?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his interpretation. Much more needs to be done, and much more will be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the West Midlands college of higher education.

The committee of the National Advisory Body has been meeting over the last four days and will be recommending to my right hon. Friend the closure of courses other than teacher training for 1984–85 intakes at West Midlands college of higher education.

Is the Minister aware that that answer will be received with dismay in the west midlands? Is he further aware that there is the strongest and most determined opposition to the proposals, which could well lead to the closure of the college? Did not the all-party deputation which met the Minister convince him of the strength of feeling held by all on the local scene—in Walsall, Sandwell and within the black country—who believe that the recommendation is wholly wrong and can cause great injury both to higher education in the west midlands and to the area itself?

I recognise that any such decision, if confirmed in due course by my right hon. Friend, must represent a blow to the morale of those concerned locally. The objective of the National Advisory Body's exercise has been to protect and sustain provision, in the west midlands as elsewhere, which is likely to contribute most to the scientific, technological and industrial future of the country. It is difficult to argue that on that criterion greater priority should have been accorded to the preservation of the non-teacher training courses at the West Midlands college.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what is causing most concern in the west midlands is the fact that if these courses are closed the whole college will cease to have a real purpose? Will he ensure that the future of the college as a whole is considered and that no closures take place until a proper assessment has been made of all the facilities of the college?

The question raised by my hon. Friend is potentially an important issue, and any answer about the ITT allocation at this time would necessarily be speculative.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

I have been asked to reply.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that the pressures for public expenditure to increase are now so great that the burden on the taxpayer and the public cannot be borne without considerable strife? Will he therefore undertake to initiate a wide-ranging and open debate to ascertain how we can afford all the many services which the public now demand?

I thank my hon. Friend for his initial comment. He is right. There are always strong pressures to increase public expenditure. Since the early 1960s, under successive Governments, public expenditure has risen from 33 per cent. of the GDP to nearly 43 per cent. today. This issue is now the subject of a public debate. I very much welcome that and hope that it will stimulate serious contributions from many quarters — from the academic and business world as well as from Parliament.

On the question of burdens, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the cuts to be made in benefits to young people living at home are part of the Government's family policy?

It is not, but it clearly is a subject that can be much more profitably debated at length tomorrow.

Can the right hon. Gentleman, from his position of great responsibility and authority, say whether those cuts are intended to encourage young people to work, or not to work, or to stay at home, or not to slay at home, bearing in mind that the cut can be as much as £13·10 a week in the income of a family and a young person, which income is already very small?

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. This argument can be much more sensibly deployed in the context of the full debate tomorrow.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a general feeling of nausea over the latest appalling massacre in Armagh? Will he please emphasise to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the absolute necessity of reinforcing security measures in the Province?

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House when he talks of a feeling of revulsion at the shootings on Sunday. Meanwhile, as he will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is at this moment in the Province and is doubtless consulting the appropriate authorities about how best to deal with the security situation.

To what extent was Government business distorted on Friday morning? How many Ministers cancelled or curtailed their engagements? Does the right hon. Gentleman know about the briefing note, which I have in my possession, which was circulated to Conservative Members telling them how to respond at the end of the debate on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill?

rose——

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to rephrase his comment that the Leader of the House knowingly decived the House.

Withdraw.

In what way have I offended the House, Mr. Speaker? May I suggest that the Leader of the House misled the House?

The events of Friday clearly excited a great deal of concern and emotion, which was understandable. It is not the first time that such matters have been debated on a Friday and Governments have subsequently been accused of employing a payroll vote.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.

I have been asked to reply.

When the Select Committee on Procedure is established, will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing a pre-legislative stage, similar to the Special Standing Committees, so that hon. Members will have an opportunity, for a limited period, to seek advice and question witnesses?

We already have something approximating to that procedure for certain legislation. I cannot designate the matters that might be referred to the proposed Select Committee. The House must make such decisions.

Reverting to the events of Friday, will my right hon. Friend ignore the synthetic indignation and histrionics of Opposition Members and recognise that their eagerness to turn up and vote for measures that are wasteful and unworkable simply increases the determination of Conservative Members to vote against them?

There is no doubt that any move to introduce contentious legislation, albeit in private Members' time, will provoke considerable opposition.

Is it the practice of chief constables in the United Kingdom to refuse to meet elected representatives of the people, or is that a custom that has grown up latterly in Northern Ireland?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Given the sensitive position in the Province, I must confine my remarks to that assurance.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

I have been asked to reply.

Now that the House has, for a second time, agreed to a timetable motion for the Telecommunications Bill, is not the case for a review of Standing Committee procedures beyond doubt? I accept that the House must decide what matters should be referred to the proposed Select Committee on Procedure, but will my right hon. Friend use his undoubted influence to ensure that such an important matter is bought to its attention?

There is clearly a wide feeling in the House that that matter might be considered by the proposed Select Committee. However, as I have already said, that must be a matter for the House to decide.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on material which emanated from the Department of Employment yesterday, which showed that had inflation since April 1978 been taken into account in raising the allowances of those on the youth training scheme they would now be receiving £33·90, and that had the value of average earnings been taken into account they would now be receiving £37·60? Taken with the question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, does that not show that there is a deliberate Government campaign to cheapen the value of labour of young people, both unemployed and in work?

That question touches upon all the wider and interrelated issues that will be debated tomorrow. Without being struck down with undue humility, I do not think that it is a topic with which I can deal adequately.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the press that certain National Health Service officials have taken early retirement, pocketed the money and then been re-hired? Does he agree that that is reprehensible and must be stopped, and shows that the Government are right to look closely at the way in which the NHS is spending its money?

I would not immediately assume that the press reports are accurate. However, there are many areas in which we could secure better value for money within an operation on so grand a scale as the NHS. We deceive ourselves if we think that that is not so.

When the Prime Minister returns, will the right hon. Gentleman draw to her attention—as a former Secretary of State for Education and Science—the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), supported by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and to which I have received a written reply, about the closure of the West Midlands college of higher education? Will he specifically ask the right hon. Lady to study the alternatives for the students who rely on that college? She will find that there are no alternatives. What are those students supposed to do?

I shall undertake the representations requested of me.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.

I have been asked to reply.

In thanking the Leader of the House for that helpful reply, may I take this opportunity to draw his attention to the unemployment rate in parts of central Liverpool, where more than 45 per cent. of the people are out of work, and to the fact that throughout the whole of the city of Liverpool one in five people are unemployed? What will the Government do about that?

Government aid to the Merseyside area stands at more than £250 million, which is a demonstration of our commitment to that area. The other central factor that can assist the regeneration of Merseyside is a recovery of the economy generally. That recovery is now in its initial stages. If we persist with our policy, it will come to fruition.

Did my right hon. Friend read with pleasure and partisan delight today's announcement that Mr. Tony Benn will be throwing his hat into the ring for the Labour nomination at Chesterfield?

As my answers have been somewhat elliptical up to now, I must tell my hon. Friend that there is no ministerial responsibility for that matter.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

I have been asked to reply.

When the right hon. Gentleman next sees the Prime Minister, will he ask her to consider, with the Secretary of State for Energy, whether, in view of the traumatic period through which it is passing, the British coal mining industry should be subsidised to the same level as British agriculture?

The hon. Gentleman is right to infer that there is a considerable Government investment programme in the coal industry, which is testimony to our commitment to coal as part of the range of fuels available to our national economy.

Further to the earlier exchange, will my right hon. Friend also discuss with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the tragically negative move by the Official Unionist party in leaving the Assembly? However horrific the incident may have been, it would be wrong for the Official Unionists to undermine the Assembly by staying away. Are they thinking again, and is it possible that they will return?

Whatever one's views about the membership of the Assembly for which the Government and the House voted, in view of the current circumstances of the Province and the immediate reaction to the deaths on Sunday, there is as much of a role for reticence as there is for offering advice to the Official Unionist party.