asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the economic situation, he will make a statement on the priorities which he has established for educational expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement on the effects of public expenditure cuts on his Department.

I outlined my priorities for educational expenditure to the CLEA conference in July and since then advice has been given to local education authorities in the joint circular on local authority expenditure in 1976–77. At a time of severe public expenditure restraint, I attach greatest priority to the protection of the school system for those of statutory school age, and provision for those young people in the 16–19 age group who are making the transition from learning to earning. Priority must also be given to the completion of comprehensive reorganisation of the secondary school system and to ensuring that adequate special consideration is given to the needs of the educationally disadvantaged.

There has never been such a squeeze on national and local resources as there is under this Government. Why is the Minister making a special allocation of these precious resources to the comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education when many of its products—the 16–19-year-olds—cannot find jobs? Does the right hon. Gentleman not envisage a special rôle for further education in this field? What machinery will he set up or co-ordinate between the Department of Employment and his own Department to deal with unemployed school leavers?

The hon. Gentleman should take a little more care about his facts. There are few young people in the 16–19 age group who have completed the whole of their secondary education in comprehensive schools. It is a matter for argument that they might be better placed to obtain employment if they had.

Will my right hon. Friend remind local education authorities that when they draw up their local priorities they have a duty to provide free school meals? Further, will he agree that the situation highlighted at a school in Leicester in a recent report by the Child Poverty Action Group cannot be tolerated now or in the future, irrespective of the national and local constraints placed upon educational expenditure?

It is perfectly true that there is no justification for the deprivation of school meals. My hon. Friend the Minister visited Leicester last week, and a working party has also gone there to discuss the matter with the local authority. I am hopeful that a solution can be found to the problem in Leicestershire. I am in the difficulty that I have no powers whatever to ensure that the moneys for education voted by Parliament through the rate support grant system are actually spent by the local education authorities on education. Even if I suggested that I should have more powers of direction in respect of local education authorities, the whole of the Conservative Party would be up in arms.

Is the youth service still viewed by the Government as being on the bottom rung of the education priority ladder? If it is not on the bottom rung, what is?

We do not regard the provision of funds as being on a snakes-and-ladders basis. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a later Question on that subject. It is obvious that if priority is given to one sector other services will suffer. It would be quite wrong to give priority to everything. This is a matter of language and administration. I do not place the youth service as high, for example, as I do the provision of school meals.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet decided what he will do to restore free school milk for children from 8 to 11 years old.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is now the Government's intention to reintroduce free school milk for children aged 7 to 11 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to announce the reintroduction of free school milk for 8–11-year-olds.

In the present economic situation it is not possible to reimpose the obligation to supply free school milk to all children of junior school age. Subject to this, I am consulting the local authority associations about the possibility of modifying the existing arrangements.

What, exactly, does that answer mean? The Secretary of State for the Environment has been advising local authorities on ways in which they can sharply reduce their expenditures. Is not the inference of the Minister's answer that he is considering increased expenditure by local authorities? Is there not an incipient conflict here?

There is no incipient conflict. I am concerned to take from the statute book the proposition of 1971 that, in the context of school food, milk should be treated differently from every other kind of beverage and food, and cannot be supplied by local education authorities below not merely the cost but the cost plus the overheads. That proposition cannot be allowed to rest on the statute book. The consultations that I have mentioned have arisen on the question of the amount of additional funds that could be employed for the supply of school milk.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will cause a great deal of disappointment to many hon. Members, the more so as the Government have found themselves unable to reverse one of the nastiest and most despicable acts of the Leader of the Opposition? We appreciate the difficult economic circumstances, but there is nevertheless a strong feeling that the Government ought to reintroduce free school milk, particularly at a time of a high level of unemployment and when school meals are being drastically reduced in value content. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position sympathetically?

I met my hon. Friend's first point by saying that we needed to change the 1971 Act, to which he understandably takes great objection. I do not think that in the present situation it is possible to have a general reimposition of free school milk, but because I am anxious to improve the present situation I am having discussions with the local authorities, which will in part have to finance such an extension. That is the only reason for these discussions, and I hope that we can work out something which will improve the present position and make it possible, in the longer term, to return to the pre-1971 situation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that some milk is available this winter to distribute?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pay to that observation the great attention he usually pays to what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now announce his proposals for amending the law in respect of school transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he can now make a statement on his intentions with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Working Party report on School Buses.

Proposals for new transport arrangements have been sent to the local authority associations and other interested organisations. There is, however, no easy answer to the many problems involved, and I do not expect full replies to be available for some considerable time.

Considering that it is two years since the working party on school transport submitted its report, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that parents throughout the country are growing impatient with the long delay in introducing new legislation on this matter, and that they look to the Government to make up their mind even if the local authorities cannot make up theirs?

It would be wrong to enter into a completely different system of supplying school transport without full consultation with the local authorities. They have set up working parties to study my proposals and it is only reasonable to give them sufficient time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this question has become more urgent than ever in view of the remarkable rise in bus fares recently? Is he aware that numerous families are paying £6 and even £8 a week—which is a heavy impost—for their children to get to school?

I accept the serious nature of the problem, which is why I am trying to find a solution which does not add to public expenditure. It would probably mean that some who now get free public transport would make a contribution while others who now pay the full economic cost would get it below the full economic cost.

Bearing in mind the recent rise in transport costs and the Government's commitment to free education for all, will not the right hon. Gentleman recommend an interim measure whereby, until the local authority working parties have reported, the age level for the half fare would be raised from 14 to 16?

This is strictly a matter not for the education authorities but for the transport undertakings. It would, of course, involve the transport undertakings requiring a further subsidy in place of the fares that they would forgo. But this is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Does not my right hon. Friend understand that unless haste is made in making changes in the present unsatisfactory arrangements we shall have many repetitions of the recent case of a 14½-year-old girl being turned off a bus because she could not pay the adult fare? Apparently, youngsters are being treated as children by local education authorities but as adults by the local transport authorities.

I am not sure whether the girl was making a journey to school or elsewhere, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of the case, I shall see what I can do—subject, of course, to the restrictions on my power.

Is it not sad that a former Minister of Transport should be so indifferent and complacent about the virtual breakdown of the school transport service, particularly in rural areas? Is it not time that we had some indication of his attitude, first, on the whole principle of giving parents a right to public transport and, secondly, on getting rid of the anomalies of the present law relating to distances and fares?

It is to deal with the present anomalies that I have made my proposals to the local authority associations. To get rid of those anomalies will mean that some who now get free transport will have to pay. That is the essence of the difficulties. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's strictures, I must remind him that he was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science for a longer time after the report was received than I have been. Within six weeks of taking office, I put my proposals to the local authority associations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Bus Company operating in Ribble, in the Lancashire area, has increased charges for children from one-half to two-thirds of the adult fare, which in many cases is costing local parents one-fifth or one-sixth of the total family income on getting their children to school? This will have an impact on the charges of the county, which is paying above the three-mile limit for children to get to school, which means a subsequent charge on the rates.

I appreciate the problem, but my hon. Friend has put his finger on the difficulty. What we would like to do—greatly extend the provision of school transport—would greatly increase the rate burden, an anxiety which has been expressed to me by the local authority associations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement of Government policy on public lending right.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on Government policy towards public lending rights.

As I assured the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 15th July—[Vol. 895, c. 444–5.]—progress is being well maintained, and the Government intend to bring forward detailed legislative proposals as soon as possible.

Since the hon. Gentleman has already promised the House solemnly, three times, that legislation would be introduced this Session, what reliance can be placed on his promise today? When these proposals do see the light of day, may we have a guarantee that it will be principally a loan-based scheme, financed from the Exchequer and not by the local authorities, and that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to get the measure on the statute book before the rumour in The Guardian that he is to be replaced by a noble Lady is fulfilled?

On the serious part of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I point out to him that I have made clear to the House on several occasions precisely why we decided to change our plans in this matter. We could easily have introduced legislation in the present Session, but it would have been totally unsatisfactory. We could have introduced the legislation which he himself was proposing to introduce, but that would have been totally unacceptable to the authors. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has changed his tune and wants a different type of legislation. The legislation which we shall introduce will be acceptable to the authors, and we hope to have the plans before very long. I am awaiting the final report of the technical investigation group. When that report is received, we shall proceed further.

Any system of public lending right will involve several million pounds of expenditure by ratepayers and taxpayers. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that when he brings forward his legislative proposals they will not be wholly welcomed, particularly by the many people who dislike the idea of there being a massive State subsidy for unsuccessful authors?

As the hon. Gentleman will have observed by the reaction to that supplementary question, many hon. Members on both sides of the House do not agree with him and will welcome the legislation when it comes forward, which I hope will be before very long.

Will the Minister come clean and tell us how much money will be involved in producing meaningful awards for the authors whom we all want to help? How much per year will the Minister provide for the scheme?

The Bill, when it is introduced, will provide the answers which the hon. Gentleman seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up a working party, in collaboration with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, to make a special study of student accommodation other than purpose-built halls of residence.

I have no plans to do so at present.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect for building large halls of residence is not very bright, and that considerable strains are likely to be placed on housing accommodation in the big industrial university cities? Is there not a case for an examination of the general problem of student accommodation, particularly in respect of the point that has been raised that householders who offer this accommodation could become liable to capital transfer tax?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the problem, but I do not know that the proposal contained in his Question, for the setting up of a working party, would necessarily get us much further. The purpose-built halls of residence are not universally popular with students, and very few are demanded now. Equally, neither students nor those concerned with homelessness are anxious that students shoud be given preferential arrangements under the Rent Act, so it is a case of trying to deal with the problem in each locality. As we both have the privilege of serving the same city, my hon. Friend knows that in Sheffield the university has combined with the polytechnic, the City Council and other interested bodies to form a housing society, with a view to seeing how best to resolve these problems, and that pattern could well be followed elsewhere.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in constituencies like Cambridge potential student landlords and landladies are being frightened off both by capital transfer tax and the Rent Act 1974? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. Labour Members must realise that. Will the Minister support the efforts to improve the situation which some of us have been making with the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, because the Government are not taking this problem seriously enough?

I should be very happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman. We need to pool all possible ideas, but the difficulty, basically, stems from the chronic shortage of housing accommodation in many places.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by the inquiry into the governing of schools announced by his predecessor.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made by the inquiry into the governing of schools announced by his predecessor.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by the inquiry announced by his predecessor into the governing of schools.

The committee has held a number of meetings, has invited evidence from interested organisations and individuals and from the general public, and has started a series of visits to selected areas in England and Wales.

Is the Minister prepared to declare now that in judging the report which the committee of inquiry will produce she will look particularly at suggestions for improving the participation of parents in the control of the kind and style of education in the schools to which they send their children?

I am sure that the committee will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. We do not try to prejudge what a committee is doing. The committee's terms of reference are very wide, and I am sure that his point will be considered by it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority is to be given to nursery education in the future allocation of resources.

I have already made it clear that in the period of severe restraint which lies ahead the first priority must be to protect the education of children of compulsory school age. I was pleased, however, to be able to announce recently a nursery education building programme of £8½ million to start in 1976–77.

Have precise allocations for nursery education yet been made to individual local authorities? If so, what allocation has been made to Hampshire, what has been its reaction, and what action does my right hon. Friend propose if, as happened last year, Hampshire declines to take up its allocation?

Allocations have been made to local authorities. They were announced just before the House rose for the recess. I think that Hampshire has renounced some of its building allocation for the current year. It is entirely a matter for local education authorities to decide whether or not to avail themselves of the allocation, which carries with it loan sanction but has to be serviced in the normal way of local authority debt. If some authorities were to apply to us for higher allocations we would consider those applications sympathetically, if other authorities did not take up their full allocation.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the problems experienced by one-parent families and the need for nursery education, which is very pressing in many parts of the country? Will he investigate ways of helping these families, for example, by allowing one classroom to remain open until 5 o'clock to allow mothers and fathers to go out to work and not have to rely on State agencies? Would that not be good for their health and probably for the children as well?

I agree that this development should be encouraged. We have had full discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security with a view to working out joint arrangements for day nurseries and nursery classes. Day nurseries come under the DHSS and nursery classes under the Department of Education and Science. Those discussions were undertaken with a view to sending out guidance to local authorities along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that already some nursery classes are available outside normal school hours to meet the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Should not the Secretary of State tell the House that the allocation of £9 million of which he is so proud represents a reduction of 133 per cent. on the allocation made by the previous Conservative Government? Is it not a crazy sense of social priorities to be able to find £200 million for indiscriminate food and housing subsidies but not to be able to find a few million pounds for this vital programme?

I can go better than the hon. Gentleman. I cannot say offhand whether his figures are right but I should be surprised, and it would make history, if they were. As to the exact percentage, the difference between the £9 million for 1976–77 and the £17 million for 1975–76 is accounted for by the fact that we have been told, mainly by Conservative local authorities, that if they were given allocations for this purpose they would not use them. One of my hon. Friends has already made that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many recent representations he has received asking him to review the Government's decision to phase out direct-grant schools.

Since I replied to the similar Question on 10th July 1975—[Vol. 889, c. 243.]—about 2,500 letters have been received.

Does the Minister agree that, however much the Labour Party's left wing may be pushing for the immediate abolition of direct-grant schools, it would make more sense to delay such a costly procedure, at least until the country can afford it?

I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that all wings of my party are pressing for the abolition of direct grants to schools. One would expect a reaction from people whose privileges or pockets are threatened, but they are in a minority.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study he has made of the proposals for extending nursery education included in the report of National Labour Women's Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement.

The report, which dealt with the whole range of provision for the under-fives, is still being studied by my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security. My right hon. Friend will be writing to the National Labour Women's Advisory Committee about those proposals which concern nursery education.

Will the Minister give the House some figures of the proportion of children, in appropriate age groups, who are receiving nursery education and any data which may be available on the social mix of those children? Will she agree that the first step to equal opportunity is the spread of universal nursery education? Does she not deplore some of the recent Government cuts in public expenditure, particularly those affecting teacher training, which will have a dangerous effect on nursery education?

In regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not have the latest figures available for pre-school children, but I shall see that he receives them. On the more general point, I and everybody else would deplore any difficulties in provision for the pre-school child following the present restraint on Government expenditure, but I hope that local authorities will look carefully at areas of social disadvantage, since the whole point of the Government's anti-inflationary policy is not to hit those who are already disadvantaged.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek powers to provide finance for the remedial teaching of English in cities with large immigrant populations.

Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 authorities with immigrant populations can already claim Government grant at the rate of 75 per cent. on the salaries of staff specially employed to deal with the language and other special needs of Commonwealth immigrants.

Is my hon. Friend aware that her brief visit to Leicester last week was much appreciated? Is she also aware that, in spite of any help that may be available, remedial teachers in Leicester are encountering great difficulties? Can she give some positive hope of financial help to them in their efforts?

I much enjoyed my visit to Leicester, and I was interested to see the efforts that are being made there to deal with some of the difficulties. At the moment I cannot hold out any hope of further allowances, but the matter is constantly under review. My hon. and learned Friend may like to write to me about this if he feels so inclined.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many of the colleges of education whose closure has so far been announced have plans for alternative educational use which have been drawn to his attention.

My Department is aware that such plans are being considered in respect of five colleges which are to give up initial teacher training.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be a severe loss if all the axed colleges had their buildings taken over for use as training centres for nationalised industries or commercial concerns without any use of the existing teaching staff? Will he encourage those colleges, such as Alnwick, which are ambitiously seeking new rôles, and ensure that his Department does not jeopardise their recognised status or the salary protection of their staffs if they find new opportunities for educational use?

It would be my wish that all the colleges should be retained within the further education sector or for other educational purposes if at all possible, but it is for the local education authority in each case to consider the situation and to put forward proposals.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the country needs more mediocre liberal arts courses and qualifications as much as more unemployment? Why is his Department allowing the reorganisation of the colleges to produce so many mediocre courses in the liberal arts and the humanities, with the consequent waste of public resources?

I am not exactly sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "mediocre courses." I think it desirable that we extend facilities and courses for young people in the 16–19 age group particularly. We have to do that if we are only to stand still in terms of percentages in the context of further education. What the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must understand is that these matters are within the discretion of the local authorities. That means that I cannot answer for the authorities in this respect. If the hon. Gentleman likes to propose that I should be given such powers I shall be interested to consider his proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the latest unemployment statistics for the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement on projected levels of teacher employment in the next 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many newly-qualified teachers are unemployed at the latest convenient date.

In September 1975,3,237 unemployed school teachers in a profession of about 500,000 were recorded at employment offices in England and Wales. The Department of Employment records do not distinguish between newly qualified and other teachers. The number of teachers likely to be employed next year will depend partly on the rate support grant for 1976–77 still to be negotiated with the local authority associations.

I appreciate the Secretary of State's reply, but does he realise the serious damage to morale in the teaching profession that is caused by any unemployment? Is he aware that teacher resources are currently being wasted? In view of the announcement that Strathclyde needs hundreds of teachers and that many vacancies cannot be filled, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to permit unemployed teachers in England to apply for teaching posts in Scotland?

I think that the hon. Gentleman's Scottish point is mainly a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think it is the case that whereas Scottish-trained teachers are able to obtain jobs in England and Wales, the reverse is not so. If the hon. Gentleman has a word with his Scottish National friends, it might assist the change that he has in mind. I accept completely what he says. We hate the waste of resources involved in unemployment in any sector but, equally, it is no help to the morale of the teaching profession when grossly exaggerated claims are made. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not make them, but they are made from time to time. Although an increase of a quarter of 1 per cent. of teachers unemployed as between this September and last September is a matter that we do not like, it is not anything like the massive unemployment that we sometimes hear spoken about.

As good teachers are more important than any educational system, is it not a curious sense of priorities that enables £25 million to spent on comprehensive reorganisation rather than on paying salaries to teachers of children?

If that were factually the case I would have some sympathy with the hon. Lady, whom we welcome to the Opposition Front Bench. In the rate support grant for the current year there were sufficient resources to employ all the teachers available. Many local authorities, including, I think, the hon. Lady's, have decided that for their own reasons they will not employ their full quota of teachers. That is the nature of the problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of comprehensive education is to ensure that ultimately we have efficient equality at the starting point so that the real priority becomes the children of our nation rather than buildings or teachers?

As long as I hold my present office my principal priority in education will be the children. Buildings and teachers are important in providing education for the children, but it is the welfare of children with which we have to be concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received since taking office on the problems facing the universities; and what replies he has sent.

The main representations received have been about university finance, the position of universities within higher education, university teachers' salaries and students' grants. In my replies I have done my best to give information requested and explain the policies.

Apart from that, has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to what was said recently by the Secretary-General of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors about the decline in confidence and the loss of morale of those working in the universities? What do the Government intend to do to improve this deplorable situation?

Yes, Sir. Words such as "loss of morale" are used quite easily, but sometimes it is difficult to understand what is fully involved. Obviously the university teachers are concerned, as is everyone, at having to abandon or defer plans for expansion because of economic stringency. It is also the case that the number of students has not measured up to the expectations of some years ago. That means that a number of posts are not being filled. It also happened, through a mischance concerning dates, that the university teachers did not get as large an increase as they hoped to receive, measured, for example, against the increase awarded to teachers in polytechnics. They had their arbitration award and they have been offered the £6 a week under the new policy, but unhappily their dates fell outside previous arrangements whereby a higher cost-of-living increase might have been obtained. There is a combination of factors, but in any area at present there is great concern because we have to take into account the current economic situation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now widespread anger among university teachers about the way in which they have been treated over the past few months in respect of their pay claims? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the present arbitration award is expedited as much as possible, and that Part II claims receive just recognition from the Government?

The arbitration award will be paid. That was provided for in the White Paper. Obviously I cannot suggest that university teachers should be exempt from the Government's policy—which is widely recognised—of a £6 maximum in the current year. Although I was not involved at the time last October, after the statutory limit on pay increases had ended, the university teachers accepted a settlement on the expired statutory basis.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the universities have put before him any statement of what they think their resources should be, how they think the pay of university teachers should be assessed, and which areas of research are being starved by present Government policy?

I do not think that any areas are being starved. It may well be that the rate of expansion in some areas is not as high as those involved would like to see. Of course, this matter covers quite a wide spectrum. At a time of economic stringency we have to restrain every kind of expansion. We have not had proposals concerning academic salaries because, unhappily, university salaries were not part of the Houghton review. I think that when there is a different pay situation facing the nation, this is a matter to which we shall have to return.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make special provision for areas with pre-1900 school buildings which are overcrowded.

The allocation of capital resources to local education authorities for additional places to meet basic needs for roofs over heads takes account, among other things, of overcrowding in existing schools whether they are old or new. In present economic circumstances the scope for financing projects to improve or replace old and unsatisfactory buildings is limited, although I am glad to say my right hon. Friend was able to include £20 million for the purpose in the 1976–77 allocations announced in August.

Will the Minister accept that in areas such as West Yorkshire the problem is so great that special facilities and help are required to give decent educational facilities to children and young persons? Although the sum of £20 million is welcome in meeting this task, will she give an assurance that she and her departmental colleagues will approach the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss defence expenditure, so that money spent on death-dealing weapons purchases from abroad can be better spent on our children and on educational facilities in this country? Is not that the sort of priority which a Labour Government should be putting into practice in Socialist programmes?

I know that in my hon. Friend's constituency there is a real problem. I believe that three-fifths of the schools in his area are pre-1900, which means that his area has a very special need for resources to meet the replacement of some of those schools. I have every sympathy with his point about cutting defence expenditure and will see that his remarks are noted in the right quarter.

If the Secretary of State's only priority is that of children, why will he not help today's deprived children by replacing overcrowded primary schools built in Victorian times before proceeding with compulsory universal comprehensive reorganisation?

Of course we are concerned with all children. We are at the moment concentrating on a large number of secondary school children to give them equal opportunities with others against whom they have been segregated for so long.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effects the proposed levels of education expenditure will have on the school replacement programme in North Warwickshire.

The Warwickshire Education Authority has just submitted its list of major school building starts intended for 1976–77; no replacement projects are included in the list for any part of the county.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Department was far stricter in controlling certain counties, particularly when one bears in mind that in Warwickshire the capital allocation in this year's programme discriminates between areas in the north of the county, where there is the greatest need, and southern areas in the county, such as those around Leamington and Warwick, where there is little basic need but to which the great mass of capital resources is being diverted?

We have always left it to the local authorities to decide how they deal with their programmes, but I hope that the authority in question will take note of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson). We do not want to see in education an unfair distribution of resources, particularly to those areas which are already at an advantage.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the subject of this year's secondary school placings in the London Borough of Bromley; and what replies he has sent.

Nineteen parents have complained to the Department that they are dissatisfied with the places offered to their children; the Department is still investigating 12 of the complaints but has found no grounds for intervening in the other seven cases and has replied accordingly.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anger and resentment among many parents in Bromley, particularly in the Hayes and West Wickham areas, regarding this year's placings? Even if the Department cannot intervene directly with the Bromley Education Authority, where parents are given a choice of secondary education for their children should not that choice be meaningful and realistic rather than that we should be faced with a farcical situation in a substantial number of cases in Bromley this year?

As I am still discussing some matters with the Bromley Education Authority, I do not think I should say too much about specific points. Because some complaints are still being investigated, all I can say at present is that certain schools in the borough have become more popular than others. This has resulted in disappointment on the part of some parents about the schools to which their children have been allocated, but I repeat that some of these complaints are being investigated.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14th October.

I shall be holding a number of meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen this evening.

Is there not still time today for the Prime Minister to impress on all his Ministers the need for them to bring forward as a matter of urgency their proposals for immediate and substantial cuts in public expenditure?

The Question relates to the engagements I am having, not the engagements I am not having.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet submitted his evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press; and, if so, if he will publish it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet presented his evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press, and if he will publish it.

My evidence is in an advanced state of preparation and I hope to submit it to the Royal Commission shortly. Subject to the agreement of the Commission, it is my intention to publish the evidence as soon as issues which are currently the subject of legal proceedings are settled.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in one of his more excitable—some might say more paranoid—moments during the last Election campaign he said that whole cohorts of distinguished journalists were combing the country to find matters, true or false, with which to smear the Labour Party? Is he also aware that a year has now elapsed since he announced that he would give to the Royal Commission evidence, if such evidence exists, to support this allegation? Why has he taken so long?

The hon. Gentleman will have the fullest opportunity when, as I hope, this is published to find an answer to the question which he puts and also justification for the statement that I made on that occasion.

Is it not extraordinary that after 13 months the House still has no idea about the subject in the Prime Minister's mind when he made those accusations? He said that the reason for the fact that his submission has not yet been made to the Royal Commission is connected with police inquiries. Will he say whether those inquiries are inquiries into the one matter to which we know the Prime Minister has referred the police, namely, the alleged loss of private papers from his London home in Lord North Street? If that is so, how could that matter be detrimental to the Labour Party?

It is not one burglary but eight into which the police are inquiring. In reply to the other point, the hon. Gentleman will obtain full satisfaction shortly, when, as I hope, he sees the evidence, but there are certain legal proceedings to be completed first.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next be meeting the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

asked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with representations of the TUC and the CBI.

asked the Prime Minister how many times he met the TUC and the CBI during the recess; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister if he has met the TUC during the recess.

I am frequently in touch with leaders of both the TUC and the CBI at NEDC and on other occasions, and meetings are arranged as necessary. I shall be meeting the TUC at the Liaison Committee on 27th October and, as the House knows, I shall be taking the chair at the next meeting of NEDC at Chequers on 5th November.

Will the Prime Minister confirm on 27th October the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently that the Government have not the faintest idea what their borrowing requirements will be for the forthcoming year, and explain what implications that will have for the Government's future anti-inflation strategy?

I do not know what will be on the agenda on that occasion. My right hon. Friend has followed the practice of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make forecasts of these matters at the appropriate times in the House, but under successive Governments there have always been changes which have falsified some of the estimates.

In view of the fact that words used by Conservative spokesmen, and by journalists who support them, have been devoted to the wishful thesis that the concordat on the £6 pay policy between the Government and the trade union movement is a bogus public relations exercise, will my right hon. Friend say whether that claim is true or whether it is itself a bogus public relations exercise?

I am very happy to feel that in the bracing air of Blackpool, over two weeks, not only have some hon. Friends of mine, who voted against the procedures, now accepted the Government's policy, but that Her Majesty's Opposition, who abstained on the vote and on the legislation, have now, I understand, at least from the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at Blackpool—[Interruption.] This is a very serious matter. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw.) He, at any rate, stated at Blackpool that his party—or whatever section of it he represents—supports the policy of the Government on which the Opposition sat on their hands when Parliament had to decide.

Will the meetings which the Prime Minister is to have with both sides of industry include discussion of the continuation of some form of incomes restraint beyond the £6-a-week period, especially now that he has gone so far as to accept the view we pressed on him that incomes restraint was necessary? Will he take note that in the pursuit of this policy, and any further policy beyond the end of the period of the £6 limit, if last night's voting figures are anything to go by, he need not fear even the most purposeful and determined opposition from the Conservative benches?

I missed the last few words. I hope I got the drift of it. I do not fear anything from that lot, anyway. On the whole, it seems that their absenteeism is more purposive than their abstention.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government have now accepted totally the bankers' advice, knowing full well the effects that that advice will have in raising the level of unemployment? Does he agree that the Government's intention over the next two years is to cut the public sector borrowing requirement by £3,500 million, and that by raising the bank rate by 1 per cent. they are also cutting the private sector borrowing requirement? Will he now appoint advisers who can put before him some of the alternative solutions, making it possible to bring down the rate of price inflation, while at the same time taking measures to reflate the economy immediately, and so start to do something about the unemployment in this country?

My hon. Friend is quite wrong in saying that this is a question of accepting any sectional advice of any kind. What we have done in these matters, both on the anti-inflation policy and on unemployment, is to act responsibly and announce our policy to the country. It has not been universally accepted, but I think that my hon. Friend, or the group of which he is a member, has now accepted—

No.

No.

I am very sorry to hear it. It looks as though my hon. Friend's public relations is not as good as it used to be. At any rate, there is now a wide acceptance of our policy by a very large proportion of the country, unanimously at the Labour Party conference and now, we understand, by the Conservative Party conference—and it very large numbers of people. The policy against which my hon. Frends voted in August is now acceptable to the Labour Party conference and, indeed, to the Conservative Party conference—and it is not against the manifesto either.

When he next sees the TUC, will the Prime Minister establish just what this agreed policy is, and will he tell the House whether the £6 is a limit, up to which negotiations may take place, or whether it is, as the TUC and many of his hon. Friends maintain, a universal flat-rate entitlement for all wage earners?

The hon. Gentleman, like a number of others—not only in his own party—is becoming utterly pathetic in trying to pretend that there are disagreements where there are not. [Interruption.] I can contain my side as long as the Conservative Front Bench can contain theirs. Concerning the question, the answer was given in the White Paper, approved by Parliament. The Conservative Party did not vote on that approval and abstained on the legislation. The answer is to be found there. The answer is that the £6 is a pay limit.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the decision of this House has received the overwhelming endorsement of both the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party conference, he really ought to be spending his time in trying to drag out of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition exactly what her priorities for public expenditure cuts would be?

There will be plenty of time for that in the weeks that lie ahead. We know that the Conservative Party is committed to heavy cuts in public expenditure. Apart from cuts in food and housing subsidies, which would increase the cost of living, it has been totally unspecific. Now that we have all benefited from the bracing air of Blackpool, I hope that the House of Commons will be told of the cuts in expenditure to which the Conservatives are committed in order to realise the target set by the right hon. Member the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at Blackpool.

Are we to understand from what the Prime Minister said that he has absolutely no plans for further cuts in public expenditure? Bearing in mind that the interest rate rose on the day that the Labour Party conference ended, how much further must it rise before the Government moderate their spending?

Before I answer the Question, I hope that the right hon. Lady, will allow me for one moment to express our congratulations—[Interruption.] There used to be courtesy before the Conservative Party became so split. I am sure that the whole House would wish me to express, with retrospective effect, our congratulations on her birthday, yesterday. I hope it was a very happy birthday.

Cheap!

Yes, it is very cheap! I could not understand why she did not buy any.

The Prime Minister knows full well that the Government are having difficulty in borrowing money, because of their spending programmes. What I think the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he would rather print money or let interest rates rise than reduce his expenditure programme.

That rendering of what I said was about as perverse as the right hon. Lady's reference at Blackpool to what I had said about Labour being the natural party of government, when she attributed all kinds of arguments which had never been considered by any of us. [Interruption.] There are one or two who might be a little unhappy about that, I agree. But I said what I did because we were in office in 11½ years out of 15 years, and that is a pretty good argument to support what I said. The right hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that I said that we would print money instead of dealing in a responsible manner with public expenditure. She knows from her own experience when in government—she cannot go on running away from responsibility for it—that these matters must be planned two or three years ahead and that if there are cuts in a given year they are usually totally uneconomic. In this case, if that is all that the right hon. Lady is pressing for, it would lead to vastly increased unemployment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, I asked for accommodation in which to interview some of my constituents, students of Stirling University wishing to protest to me about savage cuts in education expenditure. I was informed that no accommodation was available, for security reasons. I am willing to vouch personally for the integrity of my student constituents. They have more brains than to be mixed up with extremist organisations like, for example, the more violent fringes of Scottish nationalism. They are young men and women who wanted to come to speak to me—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting some way from the point of order. The point of order deals with accommodation.

He is doing a great job.

They are responsible young men and women who wanted to speak to me in a responsible manner. Recently we have had the example of a character who went off to Australia only to come back and reclaim his accommodation. Can we not get accommodation for our own constituents?

Order. This is an abuse of a point of order. I understand that the point of order deals with the alleged refusal of the hon. Gentleman's request for a room in which to interview his constituents. That is a matter which I have no doubt the Chairman of the Services Committee will consider. I shall help in any way that I can. It is a matter which should first have been brought to me privately, but I will try to help.

I shall now rule on the matter of privilege raised yesterday.

In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,

That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

In accordance with precedent, I hope that the House will agree that the proposal of the Leader of the House is right in the circumstances and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that the proper course is for the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges now without further debate.