asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local authorities regarding the consultative documents setting out proposals for revised arrangements for school transport in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement on the timescale envisaged for implementing the proposals contained in this document.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is yet in a position to announce his proposals to amend the system of financial assistance for transport to school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what stage he has reached in his investigations into the statutory walking distance for school children.

The local authority associations, as well as four individual authorities, have commented on my consultative document—as have a number of other interested bodies and members of the public. Although I am grateful for the volume of this response, it shows no consensus as to future policy. I shall need now to consider what changes, if any, can reasonably be made in the present school transport system.

I thank the Minister for his reply, and am glad that he recog- nises that there is little enthusiasm for the scheme in rural areas. Is it not time that the House recognised that closing primary schools was a great mistake? Will the Secretary of State give me the one categoric assurance that is important —that the reduction in public expenditure for which provision has recently been made will not mean a basic total increase in the cost of the—

Order. That is more than enough.

In cash terms, the cost of maintaining children in school will go up, of course, with the increased salaries and other expenses. I can give no assurance that there will be no increase.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides accept that this is a very complex problem, but that the period of two and a half years since the report was published and four months of consultation is more than enough time to reach a decision on even the most complex of problems? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to make a recommendation to the House in the nearest possible future?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not see any point in having consultations with the local authorities without paying some regard to what they represent in those consultations. It has been put to me that at the present time they would see very great difficulties in the basic change that would be necessary—namely, taking away the free entitlement beyond the statutory walking distances and providing transport for shorter distances—without a contribution from parents. The Association of County Councils, principally concerned, is still studying the matter, and I must listen to what it says.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the position of minority groups of parents, such as those living in rural areas or those of a particular religious denomination, is safeguarded, so that unfair financial burdens are not placed upon them?

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I have had representations from both denominational interests and rural areas. This is one of the very real problems to which there is no easy answer.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the present system is causing grave hardship to millions of parents, and endeavour to bring in a revised scheme of some sort by the beginning of the next school year? Will he also give an assurance that any revised scheme will not be affected by the public expenditure review?

I can give no such assurance, because any revised scheme—other than that proposed, which would mean asking a contribution from those beyond the statutory walking distances now and which would require legislation—would, of course, increase the cost to local authorities, and that would increase public expenditure. It is precisely because of the enormous public expenditure involvement that many local authorities do not exercise the powers that they have. It is open to any local education authority now to make such arrangements for free or subsidised transport that it wishes within the statutory walking distances. The reason why authorities do not is the understandable extra cost that it would mean for their ratepayers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he hopes to complete his consultations with local authorities on the school transport problem.

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden), the hon. Member for Turo (Mr. Penhaligon) and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).

After consultation with the local authorities, if the flat rate system is found to fulfil the main objectives of providing a fairer system for parents and containing public expenditure, will the Secretary of State keep an open mind about the level of the fixed rate to be provided, and will he at least allow for some variation in local rates to take account of varying local conditions?

That is a reasonable request and obviously I should wish to give it consideration. However, I am not far enough down the road to say what general rate should be charged. There is some opposition to, and certainly no consensus on, the basic proposal that we should get rid of the statutory three mile and two mile limits outside which free transport is provided. Unless that is resolved the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise.

Does my right hon. Friend not consider that some of the methods used in determining the three-mile limit are outmoded? Someone in the town clerk's office may draw a little wheel across a map, which is about 50 years old, to determine whether a child is entitled to free school transport. Is not it about time that this was tidied up, and local authorities were advised to adopt a more practical and simple method?

The actual provision is laid down by Act of Parliament and can be amended only by a new Act of Parliament. Local authorities have a discretion. If they wish to provide free or subsidised transport within the statutory limits, they are quite free and able to do so.

Have the Government formed any view whether safety on the roads, particularly in country areas, is based upon outdated assumptions?

It was because of the outdated assumptions of the 1944 Act in relation to the volume of traffic and what parents thought was a reasonable distance for their children to walk that the Committee was set up, and that I put my proposal to the local authority associations. I found no consensus of support among local authorities for the only kind of changes that would be practical at present, when there is pressure on both central and local government finances.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some parents in my constituency, who live just inside the limits, have to pay about £7 a week for their children's transport to school while others, who live just outside, do not pay anything at all? Would it not be fairer to have a flat rate of, for instance, 10p per ride?

I was not aware of the exact sums that my hon. Friend's constituents pay, but it was because of that discrepancy that I put forward my proposal. At that time we thought that a flat rate of 7p would be appropriate. However among those who would have to administer the scheme there is no consensus of opinion that it is workable.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about fees for overseas students.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 16th December—[Vol. 902, cc. 553–54.]—concerning fees for 1976–77. The Government are currently reviewing longer-term policy in respect of charges for overseas students.

As these students—many of them from wealthy countries overseas —pay only about 15 per cent. of the cost of education, would it not be better if they paid a higher fee, with grants and remissions for those who most need them? On that point——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now asking a second supplementary question.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, in their consideration of the longer-term issues here, are taking account of exactly the considerations that he has mentioned. The Government also have to take account of the benefit, sometimes unquantifiable, that overseas students bring to this country.

Will the Minister confirm that it was the Labour Government in 1967 who introduced differential rates for overseas students? Will he bear in mind in future that he must do nothing to deter students from the developing world, who will find it difficult to meet very steeply increased fees?

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is that the Ministry of Overseas Development provides substantial help to students from the developing world.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money will have been paid by Her Majesty's Government for the education in the United Kingdom of foreign students during the current financial year; and how much it is estimated will be spent during the coming financial year.

About £17 million in 1975–76 and an estimated £20 million in 1976–77 on Ministry of Overseas Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Votes for the education and training of overseas students in this country at educational and other institutions under aid programmes and scholarships. In addition, Her Majesty's Government contribute towards the total cost of educational provision through grants to the universities and other institutions and to local authorities.

As there is a statutory obligation to provide for the education of our own children and young people, and no such obligation in regard to foreign students, will the Minister tell us how such large amounts of money provided for foreign students can be justified?

Yes, Sir. It is part of a general aid programme for students from developing countries. I should be much more disturbed were I convinced that our own students were being excluded from institutions of higher education by the presence of overseas students. At the moment there is no evidence to suggest that.

Does the inquiry into this matter, which was mentioned earlier, include the possible transfer of the Minister's administration in such a way that the British people get proper credit for the considerable amount of aid they give under this head?

Nothing is excluded from the inquiry. However, we must be exceedingly careful to observe international rules, and in some respects they are constraining.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, rightly or wrongly, there is a strong feeling that foreign students are being admitted into universities at the expense of our own citizens? Is that true or not?

There is no truth whatsoever in that proposition at this moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about fees at universities payable by overseas students.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

I welcome that answer. Does the Minister not agree that one of the difficulties in this area is that it is extremely difficult to assess the exact balance of costs to universities and benefits from students? Would it not be helpful to publish a clear statement of that on an investigation by the Department, so that we know where we stand in this matter?

The problem is even more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be difficult to obtain the precise costings, because we are dealing not simply with universities but with the further education sector. The whole issue is exceedingly complex on both sides of the equation. It is almost impossible to quantify the benefits that we receive from the presence of overseas students.

Does the Minister of State agree that the financial and economic burden and benefits probably cancel each other out, and that what is important is the cultural issue? Does he not agree that we should be glad, not sorry, that foreign students want to come here during the most formative period in their lives, to take advantage of our education system?

It will be apparent from my previous answer that I cannot agree that financial benefits and burdens cancel out. I am not sure whether they do. I accept, happily, that we receive cultural benefit from foreign students, but we must also remember, as certain Opposition Members have suggested today, that we have to provide for our own students. There is a delicate balance here.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in fees for overseas students will militate against ordinary students coming here and allow only those to come over who already have money? Is it not the policy of the Labour Party to bring to this country the dispossessed and the most downtrodden students, so that they can learn about our way of life, no matter how much Opposition Members may laugh?

For the third time today I must draw hon. Members' attention to the work of the Ministry of Overseas Development in supporting foreign students. Nor do I find it iniquitous that fees were increased this year in a manner commensurate with the rise in costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the standards of academic performance and discipline in comprehensive schools.

No, Sir. All aspects of performance in all types of school are the continuing concern of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, from whom I receive regular advice. In addition the Inspectorate are now conducting a survey of secondary schools where the aim is to describe the character and to assess the quality of secondary education over the last two years of compulsory schooling.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that his answer will be highly unsatisfactory to many parents who are particularly interested in standards and discipline in schools? Is he further aware that in many urban areas in which comprehensive schools have been established, truancy is on the increase and that, at the same time, the examination record is lower?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is breaking this afternoon's record.

rose——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his supplementary question.

I do not want to get involved in matters of indiscipline in the House, Mr. Speaker. On the question of discipline in schools, it is not unlikely that since over two-thirds of secondary schools are comprehensive schools, some of the small group of badly behaved pupils should be among pupils in those schools. There is no evidence that comprehensive reorganisation has added to the problem, which I accept is the real problem of discipline in schools generally.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me as a parent who, in an excess of misguided political zeal, sent two daughters to a comprehensive school, that standards in some comprehensive schools leave much to be desired?

If my recollection serves me correctly, it is some years since my right hon. Friend's daughters left school. Things have probably changed in the interim.

Will the Government do more to ensure that the lessons learned in areas where comprehensive reorganisation has worked well are promptly applied in areas where it is patently not working so well?

Naturally we wish all schools to benefit from the best experience available. As the House has not seen fit to grant me national control over the system of secondary education, my influence is at the moment limited.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be able to announce the size of the proposed increase in the charge for school meals.

The charge will be increased to 20p in September next. This was announced in the recent White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393).

Since the estimated cost of subsidies for school meals has increased from £266 million in June last year to £331 million last month, does the Secretary of State think that it would be prudent, in the national interest, to advance the date of the increase?

No, Sir. Had I thought that to be the right decision, I should have done so already.

Are not parents already contributing more than half the total cost of providing school meals? Could not the cost of the overall service be reduced if changes were made in the content of school meals, to give higher nutritional value, and if changes were not made in the administration of the service?

It would be difficult to find over £300 million along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. In September, when the new charge begins—and costs will probably rise in that year—there will still be a subsidy of over 50 per cent. At present the subsidy is running at 64 per cent.

Rather than imposing a specific increase on the charge for school meals, would it not be better, within a system of cash limits for the total cost of education, to leave the discretion for fixing the amount of the increase to local education authorities, so that they could make up their minds about relevant priorities?

That is one of the factors which have been considered. I understand that over the years it has been the wish for the cost of the school meal to be fixed nationally, so as to avoid the kind or arguments that might otherwise arise within each locality.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to maintain the level of provision of adult education.

The rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 provides for the maintenance of standards in the adult and other education services. It is for local authorities individually to decide their own patterns of expenditure, but I hope they will base their decisions on the advice given in the joint circular of 31st December 1975.

Whilst accepting my hon. Friend's answer, I am sure that he will appreciate the savaging of adult education budgets and the doubling of fees in recent months. Is there not some merit in the proposition put to him by the Principal of Ruskin College, that a national council should be formed to safeguard the development of adult education?

It is not obvious that the establishment of an institution in the form of a national council would have any direct impact on the policies of local education authorities. I hope that local education authorities will observe the advice given in the circular and ensure that any cuts they make do not bear disproportionately on adult education.

I recognise that local authorities have a great deal of say in such decisions. Does the Minister intend to take steps to prevent them from doing what the Strathclyde Region has done, namely, to open a technical college in my constituency on one day and to close it on the same day?

I am happy to say that there has been no parallel to that action in England and Wales. I suggest that the hon. Lady would address her question with profit, to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is the 16–19 age group "adult", or still regarded as at the end of the school period? Is it not time for us to regard adults and further education together, and for the Department, instead of having conferences on the matter, to work with the Department of Employment and use some of its money to improve the provision for adult training and retraining?

I note with interest the hon. Gentleman's desire to increase the resources available to my Department at the cost of another Department of State.

Transfer resources.

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a complex matter. There is an overlap between schools and further education in the 16–19 age group, and between the 16–19 age group and adult education. This is a complex matter, to which we give continued study.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what prizes have been awarded following his announcement that an essay competition would be launched to invite ideas from young people about the rôle of the youth services.

Twenty-five pounds was awarded to the entry from West Glamorgan Venture Scouts. Four runners-up each received £5.

Does the Minister agree that that is a most disappointing result? Does he further agree that it perhaps indicates the widening gulf between young people, the youth service and his Department? Does it not also indicate the rejection by young people of the Government's paternalistic approach towards them? Will he now——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked a supplementary question. I am trying my best to make hon. Members ask one supplementary question.

rose——

Order. Did the hon. Gentleman not ask a question?

I was in the middle of doing so when you called me to order Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for your instruction. Perhaps I may crave your indulgence and finish my question. Does the Minister agree that young people should be given powers of decision making in respect of matters that concern their own youth service? Does he agree——

Order. I feel like a schoolmaster. Mr. Fowler.

I am full of admiration for the hon. Gentleman and his means of packing several supplementary questions into one. I do not think that the result was disappointing, least of all for the West Glamorgan Venture Scouts. The entries in the competition were of an extremely high standard. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about paternalism. I hope that I have never been guilty of that vice. I should like all age ranges concerned with the youth service to be involved in its administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will establish an inquiry into the results of changes in education organisation and teaching methods in the post-war period.

I see no merit in such a wide-ranging inquiry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is widespread anxiety among many people in relation to not only secondary education but primary schools? In view of that and the considerable consequences which his education cuts will have, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it his duty to provide for a full stocktaking of where we have been and where we are going?

The hon. Gentleman is asking his original Question over again. The public expenditure survey protects—this is the verdict of The Times Educational Supplement, not mine—the 5–18 year-olds. There is no cut-back on the standards in the compulsory sector of education. As I have already said in answer to other questions, we are conducting reseach and investigation over a wide range of topics within education. Frankly, I do not think that an omnibus inquiry of this sort would be of any advantage at all.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he already has full information available on these matters, through the monitoring work of his Department and Her Majesty's Inspectorate?

Yes, I am glad to confirm that.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that there is widespread concern amongst parents in cases where new experimental methods have been introduced into schools without their agreement? Will he not follow the suggestion of Mr. Raymond Maddison, the adviser to the Select Committee between 1966 and 1970, that such methods should be brought in only with the agreement of the parents concerned and with the issuing of reports to them on the monitoring of what is achieved?

The hon. Gentleman is very naughty. He is trying to tempt me to interfere with school curriculum matters which he knows are the preserve of local authorities and teachers. I think that tie hon. Gentleman is prone to exaggerate the effects of the so-called creative methods. As he will know, the Bullock Report made it clear that there was no substance in the generalisation that the promotion of creativity was being pursued at the expense of basic skills.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to reduce unemployment among teachers.

I am considering, together with my Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers, what measures may be possible to limit any rise in the number of teachers unemployed.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many teachers are now unemployed? A recent reply from his own Department indicated that more than 5,000 were unemployed. Is my right hon. Friend now satisfied with the size of classes in schools? If not, why are any teachers unemployed at present?

I am as concerned about teachers being unemployed as I am about people in any category of work being unemployed. The 5,000 unemployed teachers, of which 3,800 are school teachers, account for less than 1 per cent. of the teaching force. We must put the matter into perspective. Although, like everyone involved in education, I should like to see smaller classes, it is really a matter of priorities. Against the economic background and the, unhappily, very large number of others unemployed, it is not possible to meet this problem in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Is the Secretary of State aware that officials of his own Department have indicated that 3,800 is an underestimate and that the figure is much more likely to be nearer 7,000, and may well double in the near future? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that?

The figures that I have given are those from the Department of Employment. I do not duplicate the service by trying to collect the figures independently. The figures are based on people who describe themselves as teachers. I cannot go beyond that. There is the problem that in future there may well be more unemployed teachers. As the hon. Gentleman should know, one of the difficulties—in a sense this is a problem that I welcome—is that as a result of the increased salaries and better conditions following the recommendations of the Houghton Report, many former teachers are coming back to teaching and competing for the vacancies with those who are leaving the teacher training colleges.

My right hon. Friend has spoken of priorities in education. Is he not aware that the reduction in the size of classes has long been a priority of the Labour Party and has featured in practically every election since the war? Does he not further agree that another way of reducing unemployment would be to ensure that nursery classes were opened?

A considerable number of additional nursery classes are being opened. It has been a disappointment to me that many local authorities are not taking advantage of building allocations to build more nursery classes. The only reason why we cannot employ all the teachers is that the present resources available for public expenditure do not permit us to do all the things that we would like to do.

What does the Secretary of State propose to do about the large number of qualified teachers of the disabled who are finding that local authorities are preferring to retain unqualified teachers?

I do not have knowledge of particular instances. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know the details of instances of this sort, naturally I shall seek to discuss them with the authorities concerned. This matter has not previously been brought to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has considered revising the Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers.

A single volume cannot cover adequately all aspects of education as it has developed since the Handbook was last printed in 1944. My Department has issued a number of Education Surveys, pamphlets and other publications on specific topics. I believe this is now a more appropriate way to communicate with teachers.

Is the Secretary of State not aware that that Handbook of Suggestions used to be held in every school and that the Department's inspectors used to draw it to the teachers' attention? It was at least a guarantee of a basic minimum curriculum wherever they went, whereas the satisfaction of many parents now depends on which school their children go to in the "bingo" of the State education system?

I think that even the hon. Gentleman will admit that there have been changes and improvements in the education system since 1944. Indeed, the book was printed before the 1944 Act, to deal with the public elementary schools. Although the hon. Gentleman may like to take education back to 1944, very few hon. Members would want to go back with him.

Does not the fact that the handbook was printed so long ago underline the need for printing a new version of it, incorporating any fresh material, so that there is available a revised but comprehensive standard which can be applied by teachers today?

If the hon. Member had paid me the courtesy of listening to my original reply he would have realised that the information is made available but that it is thought more convenient and appropriate to do it by way of a series of texts on particular topics rather than to try to combine them all together in one book, not least because after the 1944 handbook was produced the 1944 Act divided schools, so that there were no longer all-age schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to make universities open and comprehensive.

We want to encourage developments that enable a wider range of students to be admitted and a greater diversity of courses to be provided, but we have no proposals for legislation.

Does my hon. Friend not accept that a disproportionate amount of the resources devoted to education goes to a relatively privileged élite and that the facilities are grossly underutilised? Would it not be far more efficient and egalitarian to merge all further and adult education into one system?

I cannot accept some of those propositions. It is not clear that the facilities are under-utilised. I must defend the universities against that attack. Over the years they have done a very good job in providing education at a very cheap rate by comparison with international standards. When my hon. Friend speaks of widening opportunities in further and higher education and the constant endeavour that is needed to achieve that, I have every sympathy with him.

Will the Minister be more categorical in issuing a warning that to make the universities comprehensive with no criteria of entry would be to destroy academic standards? Does he realise that those countries in Europe that have tried this system envy the academic excellence of our universities?

We should be totally clear that the Open University, which is totally open, has very high standards. I hope that we shall not have an attack on that open and comprehensive system. I want to see a comprehensive system of post-school education.

Apart from anything else there is often an unnecessary duplication of resources between polytechnics, universities and centres for higher education. Would it not be in the interests of economy and of educational policy to have comprehensive education at 18-plus, in the way that we plan to have it at 11-plus?

I agree with the implication of the question, which is that we must secure ever-improving links between the universities, the polytechnics and other institutions of post-school education to ensure that facilities are used to the optimum.

Will the Minister now answer the question put by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), which, if I may rephrase it, amounted to this: why is it immoral and wicked to select before the age of 16 or 18, and virtuous and praiseworthy to select after that age?

What the hon. Member describes as rephrasing has ended up as an entirely different question. It is in no way virtuous or moral to select; it is merely that in higher education specialist courses are offered, sometimes in specialist institutions and sometimes in less specialist institutions. The guiding principle is admission to the course, not admission to the institution.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the improvements required at the Jump Primary and Infants' School to bring it up to a reason able standard; and if he will make a statement on the present conditions at this school.

I understand from the Barnsley education authority that the boilers in the old building were recently replaced; work is about to start on moving all toilets indoors; and some minor repairs are also to be undertaken.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the bad conditions that obtain in that school? He has not read out a quarter of the facilities that are below normal standards. Will he do something, in co-operation with the Barnsley Metropolitan District Education Committee, to ensure that reasonable standards are achieved at the school?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the schools in his constituency. He will find that as a result of the expenditure I have just indicated there will be an improvement. The infants' premises date from 1968 while the premises occupied by the juniors go back to 1880. I understand that compared with a number of other schools in the authority's area, conditions at this school are by no means the worst. They are not seriously over-crowded, or intolerable. However, I am sure that the improvements now being undertaken will help a great deal.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in acquiring the plaque by Donatello for the nation.

I am pleased to say that the purchase has been completed, half the cost having been met from non-Government sources, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the effort made by the Victoria and Albert Museum to achieve this satisfactory result and of the generosity of the National Art Collections Fund, the Pilgrim Trust, the Wolfson Foundation, Christies, the Italian Community in London, and many other private benefactors.

In the light of that reply, will my hon. Friend reveal the amount contributed from public sources through the funds of the Victoria and Albert?

Half the purchase price—£94,000—was found from Government sources. The other half was secured from private benefactors and it was not therefore necessary for the Government to add any further sum to the amount collected. Fortunately, the response was very good. I must re-emphasise my appreciation of the many sources from which the money was derived.

We agree that credit is due to the director of the Victoria and Albert, to the National Art Collection Fund and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) for saving this treasure for the nation. The only person to whom no credit is due is the Minister himself, who is charged with the responsibility of protecting our national heritage but who refused to intervene to help save this treasure for the nation.

The hon. Member is not as ignorant as he pretends. He knows full well—or he should—that the rôle of public money in this matter is first to provide priming money. Secondly, the public benefactors can then come in. The Government rôle is then to find any end money that is necessary. In this case, fortunately, owing to the generosity of private benefactors, it was unnecessary for the Government to find anything beyond the original sum.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further aid he can provide for metropolitan district councils with responsibility for educational provision.

I have no power to supplement the rate support grant paid to local authorities.

Does the Minister agree that as a consequence of the extraordinary local government changes which took place recently in that area many district authorities have to bear the full burden of education without adequate resources? Will he take steps to remedy that situation?

The formula that determines the distribution of rate support grant is arrived at by this House on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Layfield Committee, which has been going into these matters, is due to report shortly. I have no doubt that there will be considerable discussion on that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to that discussion. For the moment I have no power to supplement the rate support grant.

The United Kingdom Committee for Overseas Student Affairs is very active in this area. Is it not deplorable that the Government are destroying the subsidy to UKCOSA for the forthcoming year? What does the Minister plan to do about that?

I am not sure that the question arises from the provision of money to metropolitan district councils.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that metropolitan district council education committees and all other education authorities should be made fully aware of the fact that by 1979 there will be 578,000 fewer children in our primary schools?

I think the reduction in the number of children of school age in the next 10 years is a factor we have to keep very much in the forefront of our minds. It can mean certainly 1 million and possibly 1·5 million children fewer than the present 9 million, and in planning ahead we have to take that into account.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the visit of the New Zealand Prime Minister.

My colleagues and I look forward to Mr. Muldoon's visit to London from 11th to 15th April, and to exchanging views with him over a wide range of matters of mutual interest, as we did with the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister during his visit to London in February, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister discuss with the New Zealand Prime Minister the proposition that as next year is the Queen's Silver Jubilee year it should also be designated "Commonwealth Year", for which he might consider appointing a Foreign Office Minister to concentrate specifically on the Commonwealth?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the Jamaica Conference my Commonwealth colleagues agreed that the next Commonwealth Conference should be held in London during the peak of the Silver Jubilee celebrations. I have already made arrangements for a very senior ex-Commonwealth Office official to prepare all the necessary arrangements in consultation with Commonwealth countries.

As the Prime Minister will not have seen Mr. Muldoon since the conference in Jamaica, when he next meets him will he take the opportunity of suggesting that Commonwealth experts and Ministers should get together before the UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi, so that the initiative that the Prime Minister started in Jamaica may be continued at that conference?

Yes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Mr. Muldoon was not at the Jamaica Conference. We have kept in close contact with our Commonwealth colleagues over the commodity initiative that Her Majesty's Government put forward at Jamaica, both in preparation for the special session of the United Nations, where we work together closely, and also in preparation for the UNCTAD Conference.

Will the Prime Minister discuss the mountains of butter and skimmed milk that have been established in the EEC? As skimmed milk is almost a straight substitute for fish meal, will he and the Commonwealth bring to bear whatever influence they can on their friends, the Danes, to stop the decimation of the important protein fish stocks of the North Sea?

When the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand visited this country we had a full discussion, lasting about an hour, on the question of the butter and cheese arrangements that were discussed and about which instructions were given at the European Council Heads of Government Summit in Dublin a year ago. Some progress, although not as much as we should like, has been made on butter. Cheese is also being discussed.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the nationalised industries.

I am ready to meet the chairmen of the nationalised industries whenever necessary, as I did last July, Sir, but, apart from those I hope to meet at NEDC tomorrow I have at present no plans to meet them as a group.

When the Prime Minister meets them will it not be necessary to discuss the Trades Union Congress's important statement over the weekend that top salaries should not be more than £20,000, in view of the excessive salaries paid to some chairmen and part-time chairmen of these industries?

I and my right hon. Friends are in touch with the CBI, the chairmen of the nationalised industries and the TUC on these matters.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how the appointment of Sir Richard Dobson—currently earning £58,000 a year, and with an £80,000 goodbye present—to a part-time, three-days-a-week job as chairman of British Leyland, will inspire British Leyland workers with the belief that publicly-owned industries will be more democratic in the future?

I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was answering Questions yesterday from my hon. Friend and others on this matter. It is true that I met Sir Richard Dobson after he had been appointed by the Board—I did not interview him, as has been stated—following the consultations with the National Enterprise Board. Indeed, all the relevant Ministers were involved before that appointment was made, including myself. [Interruption.] You want the facts; you are getting them—through you, Mr. Speaker, of course.

The Prime Minister will recognise that some people, even on the Opposition side of the House, have sympathy with limiting the level of top salaries. However, why it is proving so difficult to obtain the services of younger men to head up these industries? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there has been some unfavourable and perhaps unfair—[Interruption.]. Is the Prime Minister aware that that is not actually one of the jobs that I am looking for? [Interruption.]

Order. We shall never hear what job it is.

Before that ribald interruption I was asking the Prime Minister whether he could make sure that these jobs were widely advertised to recruit those with qualifications other than that of being geriatric.

As to the hon. Gentleman, I shall be prepared to consider it if he will send me a note of his qualifications—an octavo sheet will do, as I think most of his hon. Friends would agree. Concerning the wider question raised by the hon. Gentleman some time ago, in the case of British Leyland, as he will know, it was decided that the main weight of leadership would fall on the chief executive—who, I should have thought, is conducting his operations very successfully—and that one wanted a rather wise, elder industrial statesman in the chair, but not to interfere with the work of the chief executive.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the Civil Service at the Civil Service Department on Monday 16th February.

I did so, Sir, on 17th February.

In view of my right hon. Friend's quite proper concern with morale in the Civil Service, will he give an assurance that the scaling down of Civil Service manpower proposed in the public expenditure review can be carried out without a deterioration in the standards of service provided to the disadvantaged members of the community such as the services provided by the Department of Health and Social Security?

Yes, Sir. I refer my hon. Friend to the very full statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, in the debate on 5th February. Since then, as my hon. Friend will know, the Public Expenditure White Paper has been published, which shows the extent of the proposed reductions, expressed in financial terms.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that in that speech he referred to coins jingling in pay packets? Will he confirm that nevertheless it is his Government's policy to increase the burden of tax on the taxpayer?

The right hon. Lady was kind enough last week to forecast all that the present Government will do in the next four years, which will be well into the next Parliament. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, she conceded it. During those four years, as the right hon. Lady will know, we have set out very fully—the House will shortly be debating them—all the implications of the expenditure policy. However, the right hon. Lady will realise, of course, that one problem here, for us and for the House, is that we do not intend to finance them as her Government did, by the vast printing of money through the printing presses.

The right hon. Gentleman has therefore confirmed that it is his policy to increase taxes. The only remaining question is, by how much?

I confirmed nothing of the kind. I referred to the White Paper which the House will be debating. In that debate the right hon. Lady will no doubt tell us what, additionally, she would cut—apart from all her recent statements calling for increased expenditure.

During the next four years, will my right hon. Friend change the current language of his Government's policies—Socialist policies, may we say?—and change from a policy of rescuing the secondary banking system as a first priority to one of scaling down the figure of 1½ million people who are currently on the dole?

If my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the Government's language, I shall look at that. However, I can tell him that any replacement will not involve using his language.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will require Members of Her Majesty's Government to sign an official undertaking mat they will not take notes of proceedings or notes of their recollection of any proceedings in or relating to the Cabinet.

There is no need for a general rule of this kind, Sir.

As the Government have spent quite a lot of public money persuading the Attorney-General to try to suppress the Crossman Diaries, what will the Prime Minister do to raise the standard from what he and I must both agree, presumably, is at a very low level?

I agree very much. Indeed, I have informed the House of the Government's acceptance of the Radcliffe Report. The Radcliffe Commit- tee considered all these matters. The Government have accepted its Report. I do not want to go too much into some of the things that have been said, but there were many statements in those diaries which I know to have been not only not true but not even possibly true, because they could not have fitted in with the dates when things were staled to have happened.

On the narrow aspect, to be fair to the memory of Dick Crossman, is it not a fact that practically everyone around the Cabinet table knew precisely what he was up to?

No, Sir. We knew that he was taking a considerable academic interest in constitutional questions. He made that clear. However, as paragraph 99 of the Radcliffe Report makes clear, while it is possible that members of successive Governments of the last 200 years have tried to keep their memory fresh by making notes afterwards—that was before tapes were usable—this was assumed to be for nemonic purposes, to help them to write more accurately any book that they might wish to write. What no one could have forecast was that Dick Crossman—my late right hon. Friend—would die and that these things would be put out without his editing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Crossman's observation in his diaries, to the effect that none of the Cabinet understood the Land Commission Act 1967, applies also to the Development Land Tax Bill at present?

It does not apply. It did not apply then. But our good friend Dick, who spent a lot of time on other things, very often did not understand complicated legislation of that kind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that the late Richard Crossman did a first-class job in tearing away the veil—the so-called secrecy of government? Is it not clear that rather than stopping the discussions from being publicised, in the interests of open government it would be far better if all the discussions were publicised, so that all of us would know precisely what was going on, what the real decisions were and how they were arrived at, rather than have the present position, of a pretence that no disagreements occur?

No. It is well recognised that in successive Governments there have been disagreements, and are disagreements. As we have read today, there are even disagreements within the Shadow Cabinet. My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters, and as a fellow member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party I hope he does not seriously suggest that the Cabinet should operate on the same basis as the NEC as regards open discussion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he reconciles his remarks about Mr. Crossman's diaries with the continual flow of leaks which completely violated Cabinet secrecy at the time of the Chrysler affair, especially the repeated verbatim briefings of journalists by senior Cabinet Ministers?

I have already expressed my views on that matter. I think that that was a most unfortunate set of circumstances. Although I do not think that it was the intention, it even gave help to the Opposition Front Bench. However, the Opposition are now having to explain why they voted to close down Chrysler as well as British Leyland.