asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the proposed new Carley Hill comprehensive secondary school in Sunderland.

The building project for this school was included in the preliminary list of major projects to start in 1975–76 as a replacement for three old secondary schools. The school building programme for that year is, however, still under consideration.

Will my hon. Friend keep this matter under urgent consideration? Is he aware that the education authority is greatly obliged to him for enabling it to abolish the 11-plus but that the present provisions are purely temporary improvisations and in my constituency we cannot have comprehensive secondary education in any real sense unless and until we get this new school?

I certainly give the assurance that we are keeping the matter under urgent review. These children have been suffering a double handicap in that they were among the minority who were still subject to selection in the borough and in a very old secondary modern school. I assure my right hon. Friend that as soon as a replacement programme is possible—and we are very keen about this matter—we shall bear in mind what he said about Carley Hill.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received a copy of the special survey of chronic absenteeism from schools carried out jointly by Sheffield Schools Psychological Service and its education welfare officers; and what is his policy towards its conclusions.

Findings from this survey and others are among the information being taken into account in the investigation my Department is undertaking into absences from school.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this survey dispels a public myth about education in Sheffield—that is, that the size of the secondary school has a bearing on the size of the absentee problem? Nor is chronic absenteeism primarily a problem of truancy but is rather one of attitudes in the home and the school. When will the Secretary of State equip teachers to recognise and to help children who are likely to become chronic absentees through personal and social problems?

My hon. Friend is correct in the two conclusions to which he has referred. In particular it turned out that some smaller schools had the worst rate of truancy and some of the largest schools had the least truancy. As to the work we are doing, the Department has prepared a statistical survey relating to a particular day in January—I hope to publish the results of that in a few weeks' time—and a wider study, which will be published later, in which other evidence will be taken into account. I think that there will be a number of lessons to be learned from these studies by everyone in the education service.

Would not the very considerable talents of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department be better employed in investigating the problems which really concern parents, such as truancy, the indiscipline in some schools and the maintenance of academic standards, rather than in reviving the sterile battle between comprehensive and grammar schools?

We are working hard on all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In congratulating him on becoming Shadow Minister of Education and giving him the traditional message of wishing him many long and happy years in that office, may I say that what he has just said tends to bear out the impression given, I am afraid, by his speech at the weekend—that we shall hear rather less from the Opposition Front Bench about educational values and rather more about some of the murkier parts of the folklore of the Conservative Party.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now collect information from local education authorities about the arrangements they make for the teaching of adult illiterates.

My right hon. Friend will consider this as part of the review of adult education statistics at present being undertaken in the light of the comments in the Russell Report.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that although some local education authorities are doing a great deal in this regard already, others are doing absolutely nothing? As was evident from my hon. Friend's last reply on this matter, his Department does not have a clue which authorities are doing well and which are not. Now that there is this interest in the problem, will he consider sending out a circular immediately to all local education authorities pointing out the good practice in this regard and how they can get on with the job straight away within their present resources?

It would be exceedingly difficult to send out a circular immediately because there are acute problems of definition in this matter. If statistics are to be collected, they must be meaningful. However, I undertake to examine the possibility of a circular in this area. We shall be discussing the matter with the main interests concerned, including local authorities.

Since prevention is better than cure, and since the existing large number of illiterates indicates failure in the education system, would it not be better for the Government to concentrate more on increasing the quality of education instead of messing around trying to put everyone in the same mould of comprehensive schools?

The genius of Conservative Members in dragging ther prejudices across the Floor of the House whatever the subject under discussion is quite remarkable. Of course we hope that the successes of the education service in the future will be greater than they were in the past. We hope for a continuous improvement of standards. That does not mean that we must disregard those who lost their chance through no fault of their own in the past.

asked the Secretary for Education and Science if he will promote Government legislation to provide for an adult literacy fund to promote adult literacy teaching in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of such a fund as part of his study of the recommendations of the Russell Report on Adult Education, including those on the needs of the disadvantaged.

I thank my hon. Friend for that somewhat encouraging reply. Is he aware that large numbers of people are prepared to give voluntary support to schemes of literacy teaching but need the essential back-up of local authority support in basic, rudimentary facilities? Should not we attempt to achieve this as early as possible?

Yes, Sir. I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with local education authorities in counties near London such as Bedfordshire on the subject of converting the London teacher allowance into a South-East allowance; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, as part of his review of the weighting allowance, he will investigate and make a statement on the staff teaching situation in Greater London.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, as part of his review of London weighting allowance for teachers, he will give consideration to revising the boundaries for allowances for teachers to ensure that teachers working in the same town will receive the same allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the current position on the payment of an increased London allowance to school teachers.

The Pay Board was asked as part of its review of London weighting to consider the present boundaries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment expects to receive its report at the end of this week and will arrange for its early publication. It will then be for the Burnham Committees to review the London allowance for teachers, including the boundaries of the allowance, in the light of the Pay Board's report.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree that if the London allowance is increased on the basis of the existing boundaries it might bring more teachers into the capital from counties such as Bedfordshire, which are trying to help solve London's education problems? Since the cost of living in those counties is the same as in London, however, does he not feel that the allowance should become a South-East allowance? In that way we might attract more teachers into the South-East as a whole.

This is a complex problem, because wherever a boundary is drawn for an allowance of this kind there will almost inevitably be difficulties. I had better not comment on the merits of any particular solution because the Pay Board's report will be available in a few days' time and will be considered in the appropriate committees.

Over the last few years the London allowance and teachers' sala ries have been sources of great discontent. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is now being reflected in the difficulties of London education authorities to recruit and hold their staffs because of the way those staffs have been treated? Will he give some assurance that he will act swiftly to remedy some of these grievances?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that there will be speedy action after we receive the Pay Board's report. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the matter in the context of the problem of teachers' pay. Teachers have fallen behind for some years, which is why we have appointed a review body on the whole question.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his original answer, but is he aware that teachers in one part of Watford get the London allowance whereas those in another part do not? This is creating great consternation among teachers, which means that the town is unable to recruit them and is in fact losing them. Will he do his best to remedy that situation?

I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. He explained it graphically to me last week. As I said earlier, this is one aspect of the problem which will be a subject of the Pay Board's report.

Is the Minister aware that substantial leaks about the report appeared in the Press last week? Will he comment on their accuracy? Is he aware that many teachers were led to believe that the improved London weighting allowance would start during June? Will he confirm that this will be so?

I noticed the leaks. I would prefer not to comment on their accuracy. The starting date of any improved allowance is one of the matters on which the Pay Board could report and is open for negotiation within the Burham Committees.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from mature students since his recent review of student grants about the problems of obtaining discretionary grants.

Two letters have been received.

In the new county of Avon there is serious restriction on discretionary grants which will definitely hurt working-class students who need further education. Many of them missed out on the 11-plus and many left school to go to work without qualifications. Will my hon. Friend look into this to try to get an improvement in the grants position in the new county?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I certainly share his views that local education authorities should look sympathetically upon the needs of mature students when considering grants.

The whole question of parental contributions now presents enormous problems to students and their parents, largely because of the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will the Minister undertake to look into the whole question of parental contributions since we understand that the Labour Party is not in favour of selective benefits?

I do not see how parental contributions arise out of the question of discretion. Nevertheless, in the award announced recently we raised the ceiling of income below which a family suffers no diminution in student grant. We have done much better in this respect than many people expected, and certainly better than the Conservatives did when they were in power.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider reducing the grant payable to a married male student on the basis of contribution from his wife's income.

As my right hon. Friend said in answer to Questions about student grants on 14th May, a contribution according to income will be required in future from the husband or wife of a married student whose grant is not subject to a parental contribution.

Does my hon. Friend accept that to many students this will be an unacceptable proposal? Does he understand that as a result of this means test many married students will return to universities this autumn with a smaller grant than they had the previous year? Does he agree that the cost of removing this anomaly would be small when set against the overall grant? Will he undertake to consider this matter in the annual review of student grants?

The cost of removing this requirement may be small in relation to the grant total, but it is significant. I do not accept that the taxpayer should be required to pay over and above what he would otherwise have to pay merely to support the wife or husband—because it works both ways—of families who are pretty well off. That is the rationale behind this proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the date of operation for the reduced level of teachers' superannuation payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in arriving at satisfactory arrangements to enable teachers' contributions to their superannuation scheme to be reduced from 6·75 per cent. to 6 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in arriving at satisfactory arrangements for teachers who entered the service after the war to count their war service, subject to payment of appropriate contributions as to half, for pension purposes; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have decided that the operative date of the reduction of the teachers' contribution to 6 per cent. should be 1st December 1973. The question of war service is complex and will be discussed tomorrow at a meeting of the Working Party on Teachers' Superannuation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the concession, though it seems to be somewhat limited. Will he explain what is so special about the date of 1st December 1973? Why did he choose it? Were not the teachers paying the 6¾ per cent. rate from 1972 until the actuarial review showed that the scheme was making a profit, and would not 1972 be a better date from which to operate the reduction?

The date is a compromise between the date suggested by the teachers' unions and the date offered by the last Government. The significance of 1st December is that it is the closest convenient date to 28th November, which was the date on which the House of Commons reversed policy on the matter. As to whether the reduction should have been backdated further, that aspect of the question, along with several other matters that have not been decided, has repercussions for other aspects of public service superannuation, which is why it has taken so long and why it has been so difficult to reach an agreed answer on these detailed points.

Will the Secretary of State treat the matter of war service counting for pension as urgent? These people were absent on urgent national business, and everyone would like to see them properly treated with their education pensions. Will the Secretary of State get the matter decided quickly and come up with an answer before the Summer Recess?

I hope that it will be decided quickly. There have been difficult and tiresome delays which I regret as much as anyone. On the general principle, the policy was changed in favour of the teachers on the initiative of the Labour Opposition in the motion they put down and which the House carried on 28th November 1973.

In view of the Government's avowed faith in retrospective legislation, will the Secretary of State consider backdating the reduced level of teachers' superannuation payments to the date when they found that the Government were making a great deal of money out of the teachers' contributions?

I believe that I covered that point in an earlier reply. We con sidered the matter and there were difficulties which I have described. The date I have now announced is an improvement on two successive alternative dates put forward by the Conservative Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding his policy on secondary education.

I have received many representations about comprehensive reorganisation, both in general and concerning particular schools.

Will the Minister clarify whether the Secretary of State's policy is the abolition of selection into secondary schools or whether it is the abolition of selection both into and within secondary schools?

The Government's policy is undoubtedly to abolish selection at all stages of the school system. The hon. Gentleman will know that the organisation within schools is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, although we are anxious that the selection and labelling of children will cease as quickly as possible.

May I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that the Government have no intention of altering streaming by law?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have strong views about streaming. At present the organisation within schools is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, although we are considering all aspects of this serious problem and from time to time we shall make our views known.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the exact legal status of the part of the circular which concerns itself with withholding funds from the voluntary aided schools? Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State has no legal power to withhold funds, and is that passage in the circular nothing more than a piece of rhetorical blackmail?

My right hon. Friend issued the circular with full legal advice from within the Department. He dealt with this subject at great length in the House. If the hon. Gentleman cares to re-read the circular he will find the suggestions and the advice to local authorities very clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the recently published survey of staff turnover in schools included temporary-terminal or supply teachers; and if, as part of his review of the weighting allowance, he will now investigate the incidence of teacher change for primary school classes in Greater London.

My Department's survey related to all full-time qualified teachers in schools, however employed. The London weighting allowance has been studied by the Pay Board. I understand that the board has examined evidence of teacher turnover.

I thank my right hon. Friend for answering the first part of the Question. Does he agree that it was high time that a survey was undertaken of the extent to which primary school teachers change schools? Does he appreciate that that factor is of great influence in the way in which primary school children take to learning and to literacy? If my right hon. Friend undertook such a survey or talked about it with Her Majesty's inspectors, we might get to the bottom of some of the difficulties that we now have.

I agree that my hon. Friend has identified an important subject. The experience in different schools varies disturbingly. The total turnover in primary schools in Greater London, as shown in the survey, was about 30 per cent. That is a higher percentage than for secondary schools. There is an enormous variation between schools. For example, among the 500 schools which gave figures the range was as wide as it could be. There were three schools which lost all their teachers in the course of a year and there were 31 schools which lost no teachers. I recognise that the loss of a lot of teachers at individual schools can have a serious effect on primary school education. That is one of the reasons for the urgency of the present London weighting situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had on the effects of raising the school leaving age.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of requests, to which he has not been able to accede, to exempt individual pupils in one way or another from the requirements of the existing legislation. Some teachers have expressed anxiety about the possibility of truancy or indiscipline resulting from the obligation of attendance, in some cases after examinations, on pupils who are not free to leave until the end of the summer term.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the anxiety to which he refers is widespread throughout the country and in all branches of the teaching profession? Does he feel that the time has come for a review to determine how schools can be helped to enable the pupils to make the best use of the valuable extra year? Perhaps that can be done through better work-related schemes and through the provision of more money to enable the schools to cope with the great problems that the extra year has created for them.

This is the first year of the increase in the school leaving age. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that before the leaving age was raised many suggestions were made about how to use the extra year. We are anxious to allocate extra resources so that all children may profit from the extra year. My hon. and learned Friend will not need to be reminded about the economic situation that we inherited from the previous administration. I remind the House that the Government are firmly committed to providing for every child, whatever label we may place upon him or her, a full secondary education course. That is the entitlement of every child. We are determined to give the resources to enable the teachers to make full use of that course.

Is the Minister aware that the full secondary course has usually meant that pupils have taken their examinations, either GCE or CSE, and have left at the end of May? There is an acute problem now because the staff at many schools do not want children not sitting GCE or CSE examinations to be at school. In many schools they have been more or less told to leave. At the same time they cannot get an employment card, which means that for two months they are wandering loose, which seems a dangerous way of occupying their time.

Yes, we are aware of of those difficulties, and the House will recognise that we are now consulting teachers' associations, local authorities and other bodies on difficulties that have arisen. The Government are anxious to do nothing to cause a greater distinction between those who are examination pupils and those who are not. There is enough segregation and labelling already. We shall review the replies that we receive. I suggest to the House that it is too early, the first year not yet having been completed, to make decisions about fresh legislation regarding the school leaving age.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some Opposition Members who are so deeply critical of the raising of the school leaving age would no more dream of taking their own children away from school at 15 than of flying?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would say to some Opposition hon. Members, particularly those who have a distinguished record in the education service, that there are thousands of children who are benefiting from the higher school leaving age. They are benefiting because of the dedicated and able service of teachers throughout the country. The House should be backing those who are doing such a good job for our young folk instead of continually suggesting that the education service is breaking down.

Does the Minister agree that there is evidence of disillusionment with the raising of the school leaving age in the staff rooms of secondary schools? Does he think that consideration should be given to the suggestion that more pupils should complete their fifth year of secondary education in technical colleges or in the schools of the Armed Services? Does he agree that it would be better if all the proponents of the raising of the school leaving age recognised the real problems of pupil indifference and resentment and did not seek to sweep them complacently under the table?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no desire on this Front Bench to sweep the very real problems under the carpet. The hon. Gentleman has been in the service long enough to realise that indiscipline and truancy did not begin with the raising of the school leaving age. There was indiscipline and truancy long before that. I wish that he would pay more attention to the facts or at least get a balanced view instead of knocking the raising of the school leaving age.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the rôle of the polytechnic in higher education.

The process of designating the 30 polytechnics is now complete. They form a distinctive sector of higher education with its own characteristics, where flexibility is the keynote both in range of subjects and types of course. They have already made impressive progress and it is the Government's intention to see that this continues. I attach particular importance first to their maintaining links with industry and commerce and generally contributing to the community which they serve, and secondly to their continuing to cater for all types of student by offering a wide range of courses, including sandwich and part-time courses at a variety of levels.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt in the polytechnics about their ability to meet the degree standards of the National Council for Academic Awards, underlined by—up to now—a lack of any clear future policy? Will he give a guarantee to the polytechnics that they have a clear future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—as providers of university-level education? Will he meet representatives of polytechnic teachers to discuss their salary and career structure?

I am delighted to see the evidence of adult literacy on the Conservative benches today. The hon. Gentleman is six weeks out of date. I have already met representatives of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers. As far as I know, the polytechnics have no difficulty in meeting the standards of the Council for National Academic Awards, to give it its correct name. When I was the assistant director of a polytechnic I found that in the polytechnic world we were making rapid progress and we certainly did not feel ourselves to be in any way inferior to the universities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the first part of his original answer will seem a little complacent to certain people in polytechnics? Is he further aware that the salary differential between universities and polytechnics is now wider than it has ever been and is posing appalling staffing problems for the polytechnics in getting the people they need to carry out the sort of policies he has outlined? Will he make sure that the inquiry into teachers' pay, which I understand includes further education and the polytechnics, takes this very serious situation into account?

My hon. Friend has largely answered the question for me. That is one subject which the review will examine. I hope that it will come up with the right answer.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how a polytechnic differs from a university in its rôle and distinctiveness?

That was part of my original answer. For example, I stressed the question of part-time students. Fifty per cent. of students in polytechnics are part-time. If the hon. Lady inquires she will find that no university has a similar provision. There are many other features. If the hon. Lady reads my answer she will discover what they are.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received to his speech to the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutes on 25th May in relation to increased educational opportunities for those aged from 16 to 19 years.

It is early days for specific responses to that general invita tion. But I have already had useful discussions with a number of interested bodies.

While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that it is considered essential to provide unsurpassed educational opportunities for those aged 16 to 19 who are likely to benefit from such instruction? At the same time will he consider whether, in the national interest, there is a case for reducing the compulsory school leaving age from 16 and channelling the money saved into providing better services to those who wish to remain at school and learn until, perhaps, the age of 19?

The Government certainly have no proposal to reduce the compulsory school leaving age. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt with that most capably a few moments ago. We recognise that there is a tremendous opportunity gap between what we do for those who stay on in full-time higher education and for those who do not. We further recognise that the majority of those who do not stay on do not get day release, block release or any equivalent. One of our priorities ought to be an expansion of opportunities in this area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in times of economic stringency it is invariably further education, and technical education in particular, which suffers decreased opportunities? Is he further aware that in our post-Imperial phase we shall have to rely a great deal upon good technical education? Does he realise that even within Labour Party committees there appears to be a bias towards universities and university students and away from further education?

I hope that my hon. Friend will not accuse me of such bias. I want to see a considerable improvement of opportunities in part-time education for those in the 16 to 19 age group, both for the economic reasons mentioned and, more importantly, in terms of the general educational development of young people.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the special review of teachers' salaries.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into teachers' pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made on arrangements for the general review of teachers' salaries.

I announced the names of the chairman and members of the committee of inquiry and their terms of reference in the answer given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemiston) on Friday 21st June. I am sure that hon. Members were very glad to learn that our old colleague Douglas Houghton had accepted my invitation to preside over this important committee. The committee has been asked to submit its recommendations as soon as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his personal influence to make sure that the outcome of the review is both speedy and fair? As he has now made clear that the Burnham Committee is to be involved, as usual, will he also be willing, at a suitable time, to take a similar initiative over a review of the Burnham machinery?

I have no immediate proposals to review the Burnham machinery. The hon. Member is correct to remind the House that the recommendations of the committee of inquiry will be reported to the Burnham Committees and their equivalent in Scotland. For statutory and, I think, practical reasons, it is within those committees that the final details must be worked out.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to announce the Government's action on the Russell Report proposals on adult education.

As soon as I find it possible.

May I say that I find it only just possible to thank my hon. Friend for that reply? Is he aware that many of us have felt that for far too long adult education has been the Cinderella of education? May I ask him to sketch out for us, albeit in a few words, the kind of priorities the Government and in particular his Department attach to adult education?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question because it gives me the opportunity to say that my right hon. Friend and I attach the highest importance to adult education. We are making as much haste as we can, consonant with getting it right and consonant with the present public expenditure situation. Since the Russell Report was with my right hon. Friend's predecessor 15 months ago and she did precisely nothing, I can give the House a solemn assurance that I have no desire to rival her in seeking an entry in the Guinness Book of Records for monumental inactivity.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Open University is playing an increasingly important part in adult education, an area which is being starved? Will he give the assurance that in future he will consider greater financial assistance for this important sector of education?

I am always happy to assure the House. I will consider further assistance to what is perhaps one of the greatest creations of my party when last in power.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people, in spite of the lack of educational opportunities years ago, are making a contribution towards the nation's economy? Will he therefore treat the matter with more urgency than he has done in the past?

I should find it difficult to treat it with more urgency than I am doing. I entirely share my hon. Friend's view.

Will the Minister give an assurance that he is considering urgently the recommendation contained in the Russell Report relating to the funding of students who are attending long-term residential colleges and in particular to the recommendation that grants for those students should be mandatory?

We are considering and will consider this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the fact that the number of GCE A-level entries and passes have not risen at the rate which was earlier forecast, he will consider the appointment of a new committee on higher education to review the recommendations of the Robbins Report.

No, Sir. My Department has these matters under continuous review.

Does the Minister agree that as the calculation in respect of the number of students taking two A-level subjects made in the Department of Education and Science planning paper No. 2 in 1970 is out by 11 per cent. over two years, a new committee on higher education should be appointed, particularly bearing in mind that many people have changed their minds about the Robbins Report, including Lord Robbins himself, on the question of grants and the disability of a gap in education between the time when pupils leave school and enter university?

No, Sir, that does not affect my original reply. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the importance of the Robbins Report. Its importance lay in establishing principles which should be observed in determining the proportion of students who were able and willing to go on to higher education and for whom places should be provided. The importance did not lie in the report's statistical appendices, which must be subject to continuous review year by year.

Would not some of these problems be overcome if we got away from the binary system and appointed a higher education commission to deal with both further and higher education?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's oft-expressed view on that subject. I will certainly consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, as part of his review of teachers' salaries, he will consider the possibility of assisted housing for young teachers.

The independent committee of inquiry will be free to consider any question it regards as coming within its terms of reference.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he ask the independent committee to bear in mind that a major disincentive for young teachers coming to the South-East is the cost and scarcity of housing? Will he press for discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment so that they may co-ordinate their efforts to tackle this problem?

This matter is mainly for the local authorities concerned. I am glad to note that in the recent past several local authorities in the London area and elsewhere have made greater provision for houses to let to teachers, and other local authorities have given special help with mortgages. If housing were to become a general part of remuneration it would have to go before the Burnham Committee for negotiation, and, as I said in my original reply, the review committee could recommend that if it so wished.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit thick that we should have that sort of exhortation from the Opposition when only last week they did their best to prevent the Greater London Council from having money with which it could purchase houses all over London and thereby contribute to the solution of this problem?

Yes, it is fascinating in this political period to observe the constant expression by the Opposition of good intentions on every subject under the sun and the way in which they try to frustrate the Government and Labour-controlled local authorities in making social progress.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome the appointment of the commission under a distinguished former Member of the House, Lord Houghton, to review teachers' salaries? Is he aware that interim relief could be given through the provision of housing and that this is particularly urgent for women teachers whose salary increases have been at only half the rate of those for manual workers—38 per cent. as opposed to 75 per cent.? Will he urge local authorities to exercise the powers they already have in favour of teachers?

Yes, Sir. Some authorities are doing that, and that is why my hon. Friend's question was relevant. The GLC is trying to give assistance to the Inner London Education Authority on this problem and so are several outer London boroughs. As Secretary of State for Education, I should like to see as much as possible done by local authorities, particularly in areas of teacher shortage.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Industry at Mansfield on 8th June about State ownership of industry represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Industry at Mansfield on 8th June on the subject of the State's rôle in industry represented Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry on industry and nationalisation at the Nottingham miners' gala at Mansfield on 8th June represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Industry on public ownership on 8th June at Mansfield represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Industry at the Nottingham miners' conference on the efficiency of the private sector of industry on 8th June 1974 represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry at Mansfield on 8th June on public ownership represents Government policy.

I have been asked to reply.

Is it not alarming, at a time when the business community is already demoralised as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's anti-business Budget, that the Secretary of State for Industry should contribute to the nation's crisis of confidence by threatening to demolish the rest of the free enterprise sector? Will the Prime Minister dismiss the saboteurs on his Front Bench, or will he resign to make way for a Government that will be strong enough to solve the country's problems?

The largest factor contributing to the reduction of confidence this year was the three-day week, for which the Conservative Party was entirely responsible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is any demoralisation in the House it is among Conservative Members who are trying to find a bogey man? Does he also agree that 75 per cent. of the country's economy is run by private enterprise and that during the last two decades this country has not progressed as fast as have other Western countries because of inadequate management and investment in industry? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in future plans we must make certain that industry is run on behalf of the people?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Conservative Party must have a bogey man in every election. Clearly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will be the bogey man in the next election. My right hon. Friend has simply reiterated the proposals which were approved overwhelmingly at last year's Labour Party conference, published in our manifesto and included in the Queen's Speech.

Will the Lord President undertake that the promised Green Paper will be published in the lifetime of this Parliament and that when it comes[Interruption]—it will specify not only those industries which are thought appropriate for take-over by the National Enterprise Board but also those companies—[Interruption]—which are thought appropriate for participation in the so-called planning agreement system?

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I could not hear a word the hon. Gentleman was saying.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Lord President was unable to hear what I was saying, would it be in order for me to repeat my question?

The hon. Gentleman may repeat his question.

Will the Lord President undertake that his promised Green Paper will be published during the lifetime of the present Parliament and that, when it does come, it will give the details not only of those industries which are thought appropriate for take-over by the National Enterprise Board but also of all the companies which the Government envisage could properly take part in the so-called planning agreement system?

The Government will publish their proposals in the next few weeks. They will be in the form not of a Green Paper but of a White Paper—and they will be firm. The White Paper will not contain a list of firms.

As the Opposition are already fighting their election campaign on the stunt of State control, which will backfire in much the same way as the "Reds under the bed" stunt at the last election, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to call their bluff and recommend going to the country next month?

I am sure my hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he said, and I shall convey the last part of his supplementary question to the Prime Minister on his return.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will provide time for the White Paper "Gosplan" to be fully debated in the House before the Summer Recess?

No, Sir, I cannot promise that, but before any legislation comes before the House it will have an opportunity, perhaps in the autumn for two days, to discuss the proposals fully.

In view of the fact that this is a serious issue involving almost the future of our nation, if the two barometers of confidence for industry are first investment and secondly the share price index, is it not wise to look at the rate of investment in the latter part of 1973 and the first quarter of 1974 and at the share index in November last year? Do not those figures indicate that the lack of confidence in British industry is related not to the present Government but to the policies of the Conservative Government?

Investment in plant and machinery and in manufacturing industry fell 20 per cent. during those years, and for 1974 it is not likely to be very much better. This is an appalling state of affairs and it is the subject to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry devoted most of his Nottingham speech. The Conservative Party will not apply itself to this problem.

In the absence of the Prime Minister, an absence we all understand, perhaps the Leader of the House could help the House on one matter. Is there no way under Clause 5, subsection (1), or whatever the number is, of the Labour Party's constitution that would enable the Prime Minister to wriggle out of the commitment of the Secretary of State for Industry—in exactly the same way as yesterday in the national interest he wriggled out of commitments in respect of nuclear tests?

From one of the biggest wrigglers in Britain, that is a bit thick. The Prime Minister wriggled out of nothing yesterday. He explained the position of the nuclear deterrent and NATO absolutely clearly. It was the Leader of the Opposition's memory that was defective. My right hon. Friend's proposals have been described in his speeches. We do not want to wriggle out of these things. They are an essential part of our policy and after the next election we shall implement those policies.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the public speech he delivered at a rally of Labour women in Swansea on 9th June on the EEC.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech at Swansea on Sunday 9th June on the Common Market in the Library.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy to the National Conference of Labour Women at Swansea on 9th June.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in that speech the Prime Minister described European negotiators as tough fighters for the interests of their own countries? Does he not think that this must be the overriding objective of the Foreign Secretary in his conduct of renegotiations, whatever the advice and pressures on him, and that it is also urgent to see the renegotiations in the perspective of Western Europe's will and ability to survive if it is to make a concerted and meaningful contribution to world peace and welfare?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in making his comments was referring to a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that we were endangering their lives. I do not know what he meant by that. The Prime Minister was right to say that they are tough negotiators and we intend to be equally tough in renegotiating the terms.

Although we are always pleased to see the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, could the House be given an explanation of why the Prime Minister is absent today? If he is in Brussels, could he be reminded that this is the place where he should be? Perhaps he could arrange to be in Brussels on a Wednesday or a Friday.

We all understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the EEC, but he must not get pathological about it. The House has always been courteous to Prime Ministers when attending meetings of this kind.

Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the fact that he should closely study the activities of the newly-formed European Group of Labour Members of Parliament on the question of the Common Market? Will he remind him that two important motions were carried last night, by rather more than a two-thirds majority, suggesting that we should have a special Labour Party conference on the Common Market regarding the referendum after renegotiations have been completed, and that we also propose that no Labour Members of Parliament should go to the European Assembly at Strasbourg? Will he also tell the Prime Minister that one of the next motions may well relate to the stopping of the payment of £20,000 to the European Movement?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I can assure him that the Prime Minister carefully scrutinises all groups, subgroups and individuals in the Labour Party. On the question of putting the results of the negotiations to the British people, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It certainly will be through the ballot box.

Will the Leader of the House answer the question which I put to the Prime Minister last week? Is not the Common Market the best hope we have, in the light of the failure of Sunningdale, to get the North and the South of Ireland together and to enable them to work together?

It is an interesting point of view. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will bear it in mind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister in his speech referred to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears to be deeply concerned that our partners in Europe should not be injured in any way by our attempts to renegotiate the terms of entry? Will he take steps to convey to the people of this country that the Opposition's concern is more for people of other countries than it is for people in our country?

I have already referred to the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the 17 delegates from Europe. The right hon. Gentleman said some amazing things. For example, he said that we were endangering their lives; he also said that a minority Government were not entitled to renegotiate the terms. May I remind him that we intend to renegotiate the terms and to put the results of that renegotiation before the British people? They will make the decision—[Interruption.] It may be an election, it may be a referendum.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the news that the Prime Minister scrutinises all groups in the Labour Party leaves us uncertain whether to sympathise most with the Prime Minister or with the groups?

asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a tribunal of inquiry to examine the cases of corruption arising from the Poulson trial and associated matters.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Royal Commission does not go far enough and that a tribunal of inquiry under the 1921 Act is imperative in the light of recent court decisions? Is he aware, further, that those of us in the North-East find his reply disappointing, especially as it comes from one of our colleagues in that area? Does he recollect that Mr. Justice Waller at Leeds Crown Court made reference to

"an army of paid lieutenants"

Certainly it warrants consideration by the police. But the point is that tribunals of inquiry under the 1921 Act are confined by the statute to definite matters of urgent public importance. [Interruption.] We consider that the inquiry now proposed should review a much wider area than it would be appropriate to entrust to a tribunal of inquiry. Therefore we take the view that a Royal Commission is the right way of proceeding.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that whatever inquiries are made into this matter will include inquiries into the illegal or corrupt claiming of election expenses in by-elections in the North-East—and make it retrospective?

Without notice, I do not know whether that will come under the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I too intend to try to raise the same matter.

In order to save the time of the House, I propose, unless there is any objection, to put together the Questions on Motions No. 1 to 7 relating to statutory instruments.