asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on fees for undergraduate and postgraduate students.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), a copy of which I have sent to the hon. Member.

Will the Secretary of State say how he arrived at £650? What is the extra cost to the Treasury of meeting all the tuition fees at that level? Will there be a rundown in the value, in real terms, of the maintenance award, leading to the possibility of a loan scheme? Will there be a safety net for universities, a good proportion of whose income is derived from fees, if the numbers fluctuate wildly?

The hon. Member embraces disaster with great alacrity. None of these disastrous things will happen. I am separating fees from maintenance be- cause there have been wide representations from many students—this has been confirmed by surveys—urging me to do so. A great number of parents do not give their children the amount that they need to pay in maintenance, so none of the fears that the hon. Member expects on this score will arise.

Will the Secretary of State accept that many of us wish to congratulate him on ending the discrimination between home-based and overseas students, and resisting the worst possibilities of most savage increases in overseas students' fees? Will he bring to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development the necessity of offering support to overseas students in the face of the rise in their fees?

It is the intention of the Minister for Overseas Development to increase the grants, in cases of students supported by his Department, to meet additional costs. I would have liked to have the same balancing arrangements at lower levels, but the amount of savings we have to make is forced on us by the harsh realities of the ecenomic situation.

In view of the fact that 1¾ million part-time students are expected to pay 25 per cent. more, can the Secretary of State make an estimate of the damage done to this sector of education, and the misery of those evening class institutions which are dependent on part-time evening students?

I cannot give any estimates of damage. The fees we are talking about do not come into effect until September 1977, and while we are grappling with the problems of inflation there will be some increase in costs. In the two years we have to run since last October, when the fees were last put up, the increase will be 25 per cent. which is, in real terms, more or less standing still.

In spite of what has been said, there will still be an element of discrimination against overseas students in practice, as most home-based students in receipt of mandatory grant will pay no tuition fees at all, whereas overseas students' tuition fees will have an increase of over 50 per cent. between the last session and the next. Is not this, together with the limit on the number of overseas students, encouraging an element of educational apartheid?

The practice of assisting our own students has gone on almost since the universities began. The system of monetary awards has existed since 1962, so that in that sense we do not provide free tuition for anyone in the world who happens to come here. Therefore, the distinction remains as it has always been. As to the question of the quota, the soundings that I have made indicate that it will be unnecessary to have any formal arrangements. But I have made clear that I must discuss these proposals with the university and local authorities concerned, and I think it right that rather than have private consultations I should publish the basis upon which consultations will take place. Certain adjustments may then have to be made.

Is the Minister aware that the abolition of a separate rate of fee as between home and overseas students will be greatly welcomed? Does he recall that this separate rate was opposed strongly by the Conservatives when the Labour Government implemented it more than 10 years ago? Does he accept that within the constraints of existing expenditure, and without calling for additional expenditure, it would be very desirable if we could introduce greater flexibility to help students from less developed countries, if necessary at the expense of those from more developed countries?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final proposition, which is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development than for me. There are, however, practical problems in how one handles the matter. It does not follow that because a student comes from a poor country he is necessarily poor, or that because he comes from a rich country he is necessarily rich. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his party oppose the imposition of a differential, but during their period of office they did nothing to remove it. They did nothing to put up fees, which meant that they could attack us for the high level of public expenditure when we took over. In spite of all that, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the compliment he paid.

I congratulate the Minister on standing up to the Treasury mandarins, which is always a work of supererogation. I also congratulate him on ending the discrimination between overseas and home-based students. Further, I congratulate him on exempting tuition fees from the parental contribution. Is he aware that if we could have more of this ecumenical approach to education we should make progress towards that desirable end of taking politics out of education?

I should like to take education out of politics. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that that will not make any more difficult the consultations that I am about to have with the bodies affected. It is most important to stress that when the fees for overseas students were put up to £250 in 1968 they represented 24 per cent. of the average costs. The £650 that I propose they should be in 1977–78 will then represent only 16 per cent. of what we expect then to be the average cost.

rose—

Order. I allowed longer for that Question because of its importance, but we cannot spend the same amount of time on the rest of the Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers were employed at the latest available date; how many he expects to be employed in three years' time; and how many were employed three, five and seven years ago.

The following numbers of teachers were employed in maintained primary and secondary schools in England and Wales in the years for which the information is requested: in 1969, 333,000; in 1971, 368,000; in 1973, 410,000; in 1976, 459,000.

Is it not the case that since the Houghton Report unexpectedly large numbers of former teachers wish to return and have returned to the profession? Is this not a contribution to the risk of unemployment among new entrants to the profession? Therefore, will the Minister urge local authorities to give employment priority to new entrants in the next year or two while emphasising that the number of teachers will not be allowed to decline at a rate that matches the fall in the school population?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend said. As he may be aware, my right hon. Friend has suggested to local authorities on more than one occasion that they should seek to employ as many as possible of the teachers newly emerging from the training college, but these decisions are in the hands of local authorities.

If the Secretary of State, in looking after the interests of teachers, had shown just one-tenth of the zeal he has shown in trying to overrule the democratically-elected council on Tameside—

Order. The hon. Member knows that that matter is sub judice, and that he cannot refer to it.

What advice is the Minister giving to teachers in teacher training colleges about career opportunities outside the teaching profession?

We are giving all the advice we can and all that we are qualified to give. We are not in the careers advisory business, but we are doing our utmost to make teachers aware of the alternatives for which their education suits them.

Since the employment of teachers is primarily a matter for local authorities, what guidance are the Government giving to the authorities about the difficulties that many young teachers will face in leaving colleges of education unable to do their probationary year in teaching, and the disadvantages to those teachers when they are finally competing with people leaving colleges of education who will be doing their probationary year?

My right hon. Friend has done his utmost to encourage local authorities—not with the total support of all the teacher unions—to employ as many teachers straight out of training college as they can. However, it is not necessary for training teachers to take their probationary year immediately after leaving college. In the past it has often been the custom for 20 per cent. of teachers not to go straight into teaching in maintained schools. Although some may find that a disadvantage in later years, it has always been the case that local authorities may make the choice between new people leaving training college and people of greater experience.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the latest position in respect of the employment prospects of entrants to the teaching profession this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give an up-to-date estimate of the number of vacancies in teaching positions available in September for those qualifying from teacher training colleges in the summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to improve the job prospects of students qualifying in colleges of education in 1976.

In the interests of national economic recovery the Government asked local authorities to limit their employment of teachers in 1976–77 to the number sufficient to maintain existing staffing standards. This policy allows for a small growth in the size of the teacher force. Uncertainty about trends in wastage from, and re-entry to, the profession makes it impossible at present to give a detailed assessment of employment prospects. These should become clearer when I have received returns from all local authorities about their staffing intentions for the next school year, but I think it probable that a substantial number of newly trained teachers will not get appointments this year. I have urged local education authorities to give priority to newly qualified teachers in making appointments. My Department is considering the possibility of offering further training in certain subjects where there is still a shortage of teachers. Regulations are being prepared which, by providing compensation for teachers who may be retired early in the interests of the efficiency of the education service, may assist with employment opportunities for some younger teachers.

I appeal to the three hon. Members whose Questions are being answered and the Minister replying to be as brief as possible, because it will soon be Question Time for the Prime Minister.

Has my right hon. Friend given any guidance or instructions to any local education authority to employ fewer teachers next September, as compared with last September?

I have not given any such instruction. Indeed, I have no power to do so, even if I wished. The circular said that the standard should be maintained.

Will the Minister now reconsider his decision not to make available the marginal increase in money that it would cost to employ teachers rather than let them claim unemployment benefit and rot on the scrap heap?

The hon. Gentleman should know that I have no powers to pay any money whatever to local education authorities except through the rate support grant, and I have no control over how they would use such money if it were paid to them.

What kind of response is my right hon. Friend getting to his eminently sensible suggestion that some teachers nearing retiring age ought to consider retiring earlier, on reasonable terms, in order that people qualifying newly at colleges would be able to get employment?

This matter is being actively pursued in negotiations between the employers, local education authorities, and the teachers' unions, and I am hoping that, as a result, some progress will shortly be made in this direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that sufficient freedom of choice is still available for parents with children of school age to permit the continued observance of the general principle, contained in Section 76 of the Education Act 1944, that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

Yes, Sir. I fully accept the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

If he is so satisfied, will the Minister issue a circular to all local authorities telling them to inform parents that they have the right to change the school in which their children are educated if they think their present school is unsuitable?

We are consulting all the interests concerned about a possible circular of guidance, but if parents suddenly decide that they want to move a child from school A to school B, it may be necessary to throw another child out of school B to make a vacancy available. There can be complete freedom of choice only if there are surplus places, and I do not accept that that situation exists at present. That is why the words of Lord Butler which are the ones that I used in my main answer, are so apt in this situation.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the appalling prospect facing parents in Elland, in my constituency, where proposals by certain Tory councillors, who are obsessed with wrecking comprehensive education, are aimed at undermining the excellent Brooksbank comprehensive school? If these proposals go ahead it will mean a return to selection and 11-plus in an area that abandoned them years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the parents, the teachers, the pupils, the governors and the managers of the feeder schools, that these proposals are totally unacceptable and should be totally rejected?

Order. This is not a time for making statements; it is a time for asking questions.

If events are as my hon. Friend has described—and I have no reason to doubt his account—I can understand that there will be grave concern and anxiety in his area. I have a Bill before Parliament, but at the moment I am not in a position to require any authority to adopt any form of secondary education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now answer questions on school curricula.

I cannot answer detailed questions on school curricula matters as responsibility for them is placed by statute on LEA's and school governors and managers. I have, however, a general concern and responsibility.

Will the Secretary of State talk to local education authorities to find out whether the courses provided for pupils in their last years at school are satisfactory, bearing in mind the shortage of skilled labour that is developing? Will he not reconsider his answer, because there is anxiety that the courses provided by schools are not sufficiently matched to what industry will need?

I am very concerned about these matters in general terms, but I cannot look at more detailed questions, because responsibility is laid by statute on LEAs and governors and managers. If Parliament decided to change the existing position, we could give further thought to the matter. On the attitude of industry to which the hon. Member referred, I am glad that the TUC and CBI are concerned about this problem and are working out with the Schools Council courses that I hope will assist in curricula matters.

Since the Secretary of State's Permanent Secretary, Mr. Hamilton, has declared that curricula should no longer be a secret garden, what plans has the right hon. Gentleman had to open the hidden doors? What plans does he have to turn the secret garden of Mr. Willmott's report on the GCE examination results into a public park, by publication? Would that not be the best way of ending the present controversy?

I have not yet had a chance to read that Schools Council report. I should naturally wish it to be published if the basis for it is right. What perturbs me is the enthusiasm and length to which the hon. Members for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) and Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) go to denigrate the Leader of the Opposition, who was Secretary of State during the period in which the report alleges that standards fell so much in our schools. The way they have stolen and leaked documents is quite disgraceful.

Perhaps I may correct something that I said earlier.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to take action to improve teacher-pupil ratios in primary schools.

Current public expenditure plans provide for the maintenance of present national standards up to 1978–79. Thereafter, it will depend on the economic situation when staffing standards can be reviewed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a few months ago it was estimated that 6,000 teachers might be unemployed in September, but that it is now likely to be more than three times that number? It is for local authorities to determine the number of teachers they employ, but this is a matter not only of will but of finance, so will my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State bear in mind that we on the Government side look to them to resist the baleful influences of the Treasury when it is seeking further cuts in public expenditure, because these are likely to lead to more unemployment?

We are only too well aware that the problem of teacher unemployment is mainly a problem of finance, but we are equally aware that when we allot money for education in the rate support grant, we have no power, as the law stands, to determine even whether it is spent on education, let alone whether it is spent on the employment of teachers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will raise his point of order at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities are planning to make economies in public expenditure by ceasing to heat swimming pools provided for the use of schoolchildren; and if he will make a statement.

Detailed information of this nature is not collected by my Department. Local education authorities have wide discretion to decide what measures to contain educational expenditure should be adopted within their areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Essex it is proposed to make such economies in respect of 68 pools, many of which were provided by parental effort? Is it not disgraceful that this should be done? Will it not reduce the amount of time available for swimming and inevitably lead to fewer children learning to swim and more deaths by drowning?

I agree that it is disturbing that such proposals should be thought necessary by the local authority. I did not learn to swim until I was in my twenties, and I agree that it is very dangerous for children not to be able to swim, and to be in danger of drowning. However, I repeat that this is a matter for the decision of the local authority.

Does the hon. Lady accept that it would be difficult to envisage a more sensible economy at the moment?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the average sizes of classes in primary and secondary schools, respectively, in 1976.

Information about class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools for 1976 is not yet available.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is room for improvement in these figures and that the Government have a ripe opportunity, with the prospect of 15,000 unemployed teachers, to reduce average class sizes still further, especially in areas of deprivation like Yorkshire and Humberside? Does he agree that two sources of finance for this task would arise if the Government ensured that local authorities did not spend excessive amounts on junketing and subsidising former direct grant schools from the rates, as in Bradford, and set a good example by cutting the amount spent on defence?

The House is not unfamiliar with my hon. Friend's favourite targets for cuts in public expenditure. A block grant is given to local authorities and it is for them to determine how to spend it. We should like to employ more teachers and reduce the size of classes, but in present economic circumstances the amount of progress that we can make in this direction is bound to be limited.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decline in pupil-teacher ratios, of 25 per cent. in 25 years, has not been shown in class sizes? Could there be an investigation into the way in which these extra teachers have been used in administration, instead of at the chalk face in reducing class sizes?

I have heard the hon. Gentleman's views about the chalk face before. It would be universally agreed in the education world—whose members are not always unanimous—that if I tried to go into schools to organise the running of classes and timetables there would be a united front against me. We must leave the working of schools to the head teachers and staffs. It may well make sense in some circumstances to have large classes for one subject, while teachers do remedial or other work in small groups in other parts of the school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of the 1975–76 money, originally allocated for nursery education but refunded by some local authorities, has been reallocated to other local authorities.

As I stated in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend on 23rd June, £1·7 million of the capital authorisation relinquished was reallocated to local education authorities in England requesting additional resources for nursery education building starts in 1975–76.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the money originally allocated for nursery education—apart from the reallocation to other local authorities—has not been used? Bearing in mind the statement in the Government's White Paper on Public Expenditure, that despite the cut-backs in capital expenditure on provision for the under-fives, it was still possible to ensure acceptable standards of accommodation in areas of greatest need, what is being done to ensure that these areas are making provision for pre-school children?

As my hon. Friend knows, we do all that we can to encourage authorities in such areas to apply for provision. I think she will find that in general the authorities that apply for reallocated funds are those with the greatest needs. It is in such areas that the extra money is being spent. However, my hon. Friend is correct in her supposition that not all of the money allocated for nursery education has been spent in that area during the past year. We regret that as much as my hon. Friend does, but, as she knows—I am sorry to have to reiterate this—it is for the local authorities to decide whether they wish to spend this money.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Department took some action in respect of the local authorities that are not carrying out Government policy? Will she give an undertaking that the nursery school expansion programme, such as now exists, will continue?

Like my hon. Friend, I frequently wish that we could do more to ensure that local authorities use this money. They could use it, for example, to employ teachers. My hon. Friend will know that as the law stands we can only seek to give them all the encouragment that we can. Indeed, we seek to encourage them to spend the money on nursery education and employing teachers. However, we have no power to oblige them to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will pursue policies likely to produce increases in the number of mature students taking full-time courses in further and higher education; and whether he will make a statement.

The Government's planned expenditure to 1979–80 provides for an increase in student numbers in further and higher education, which is expected to include an increase in the numbers of mature students taking full-time courses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in view of the massive levels of unemployment confidently forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persist through the rest of the 1970s, money spent on the financing of adult students in higher education institutions would be a valuable component in the fight against unemployment? Will he give the House an assurance that his Department is mindful of that fact, and mindful of the obligation to resist the cuts that may well be imposed again by the Treasury? Finally, will he accept my congratulations on his victory over the Treasury, which he announced yesterday?

I have some sympathy with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. However, he will recall that in 1974 we changed the eligibility for mandatory awards so that any student admitted to a first degree course, for example, would be entitled to a mandatory award whatever his entry qualifications. Although admission arrangements are matters for individual institutions, I hope that they will give proper weight to the requirements of mature students.

Is it not the case that the Government's policy in terms of public expenditure cutbacks is forcing local authorities into a situation in which they cannot encourage mature students to take up further and higher education? Does he agree that this is a far cry from the previous Prime Minister's statement that we were entering a period of white hot technological revolution?

No, I do not agree with that proposition. I know of nothing in present policy which is discriminatory against mature students.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for increasing the numbers of students in further and higher education in preparation for industrial expansion in the early 1980s.

The Government's plans, including projections of student numbers in higher and further education, are set out in the White Paper "Public Expenditure to 1979–1980", Command 6393, though some adjustment may be necessary in the light of yesterday's announcement about the future level of tuition fees and numbers of overseas students.

Does my hon. Friend agree that increases in public expenditure in this sector of further education are completely in accordance with Labour's manifesto, and that any question of reductions would be completely opposite to the promises that we gave to the electorate? Will he resist any further cuts?

The White Paper indicated that expenditure in this area would provide for an increase in student numbers for the next four years. We hope that increase will take place. We shall give high priority to meeting increased demand from the 16–19 age group.

Does the Minister agree that it would be better for students to go into full-time courses in further education rather than to sit around on the dole, or to take the TSA courses now being set up? What liaison does he have with the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment to try to further the entry of students into further education colleges?

I can express no view on the question whether it would be preferable for an individual student to take a course of further education, and further education alone, or to undergo a course of further education and training under the TSA scheme. That is a matter for judgment in each individual's case. My collaboration with the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment on these matters is very close.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no real evidence that there will be any expansion in the 1980s? Whether there is or is not, does he accept that it is necessary not to increase or decrease the number of students but to have more regard to the subjects that they study? Is he aware that in some areas there is a surplus while in others there is a deficiency?

I cannot accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As for the latter part, my right hon. Friend has already explained today that we have exceedingly limited powers over curricula. In fact, we have none over school curricula. As regards FE curricula, we cannot steer student choice between particular disciplines.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new policies he will be pursuing as a result of the essay competition launched by his Department to gain fresh thinking from young people themselves as to the future rôle and task of his youth department and his Youth Service.

Following the review of the Youth Service, of which this competition was a small but useful part, agreement in principle has been reached on the establishment of a representative Youth Service forum for England and Wales, to include a substantial proportion of young people under the age of 26.

The House will be most gratified to learn of the activity in the hon. Gentleman's youth department, but perhaps he has overlooked the fact that there are nearly 250,000 young people under 21 who are unemployed, for whom his Department is both irrelevant and unsympathetic? Will he set up a national community work programme to give every unemployed young person an opportunity to do something to improve the conditions of life in his community, rather than merely fiddle while young people die of boredom?

I am not a Minister in the Department of Employment. Apart from that, as I understand the hon. Gentleman's proposal as he has described it elsewhere, he envisages an element of compulsion in community service—

No.

which I would not conceivably accept.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give the number of reporting inspections by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools each year from 1960 to 1975.

I regret that these figures are not available. It is estimated that some 2,000 schools in any one year are subject to some kind of formal inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors. Her Majesty's inspectors also make numerous informal visits to schools in a largely advisory capacity.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her reply. Does she agree that there may be a connection between the reducing number of reporting inspections and the fall in standards in school discipline and achievement?

No, Sir. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "reporting inspections". He may be referring to full inspections of particular institutions. Such inspections have always been comparatively limited in number. As a rule, they have involved only one type of school. For example, they have rarely been carried out in primary schools. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter carefully, he will find that Her Majesty's inspectors are doing perhaps even more, in the way of contact and inspections in schools, but on a more informal basis, than in the past. I do not accept that standards have fallen as greatly as he suggests. As he knows, we are concerned about standards. That is why the Department has set up the assessment of performance unit, for example, to which such work is directed.

Is there an annual report from the Government inspectors? If there is, will the hon. Lady say what action follows from their inspections?

There is no annual report from the inspectors on each school in their arca—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?".] If there were to be annual reports, the size of the inspectorate would have to be considerably larger. As I know that Opposition Members are especially anxious to restrain public expenditure, I am sure that that is not a proposal that they would support. Her Majesty's inspectors publish a number of reports, many of them being surveys of special areas or specific age group studies which often cover a great number of schools—perhaps hundreds. It is that sort of work, along with their advisory rôle, that they have increasingly assumed in recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he will give to local education authorities about the optimum size of comprehensive schools.

There is no single ideal size for a comprehensive school. My right hon. Friend considers on their merits proposals made by local education authorities or governors in respect of particular schools and he does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by giving general guidance on the question of size.

Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the problems with comprehensive schools is that they are either too large or they have an inadequate sixth form? In those circumstances, is it not a mistake to force comprehensives upon local authorities that do not want them?

The hon. Gentleman is drawing a rather strange conclusion from his initial remarks. There are problems of varying size and efficiency, and so on, in any kind of school organisation. We do not feel that there is an optimum size at which comprehensives can successfully be established and that anything above or below that size is inappropriate for a comprehensive school. We believe very much that the success of a school and the way it is run are very dependent on local conditions and circumstances. That is why we seek to study such conditions and circumstances very carefully before approval is given to such schemes.

Is there not a great deal that is good and right about our educational system? The Conservative Party seems to beam the media and every criticism that it can against a system that is not only expanding but is expanding for the good. Is it not most unhelpful to use the size of schools as a basis for attacking comprehensive education—especially coming from a party that casually relegated 85 per cent. of our children, with no parental choice whatsoever, to the secondary modern schools, and never raised that matter at all?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend said. I must tell him that one of the most enjoyable aspects of being a Minister in the Department of Education and Science is the opportunity that it offers to visit schools and to see how different the position is—the devotion and expertise shown in the schools and the intelligence and personality of the pupils—from the picture of doom and gloom that one gets so frequently from the Opposition Benches.

Does the hon. Lady agree that comprehensive schools necessarily have to be large in order to provide the range of subjects that is demanded of schools? Will she, therefore, consider again issuing a circular to local education authorities about the organisation of comprehensive schools in order to break down their mammoth size? Will she give further consideration to the quality of teachers, because excellent, highly motivated teachers are required to manage and teach children in comprehensive schools?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assumption that all comprehensive schools must be large in order to offer a sufficient range of subjects. If as much devotion had been shown, over the years, to the question whether all the grammar schools that we have provided offered a sufficient range and variety of subjects, and whether their standards of education were as high as they could be, as is now applied to comprehensive schools, perhaps we should not be having the problems that hon. Members sought to highlight earlier, of a possible decline in standards.

asked the Prime Minister if he intends to abolish the House of Lords.

I shall be ready to consider any proposals to this end that the hon. Gentleman cares to put to me.

The Prime Minister has not answered the Question. Does he intend to abolish the House of Lords? As two of his Cabinet Ministers and his Patronage Secretary voted to do so on 16th June, under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility when will they be parting company?

I congratulate the Patronage Secretary on his vote. I wish that I had been here. I might have joined him. I have never felt that the House of Lords was truly representative of the fine flower of democracy in Britain, but having attempted to pluck it once, in 1968, I found that it stung, rather, and I should be pretty careful before putting my hand there again.

Whatever my right hon. Friend's views, and my views, on the House of Lords as it is presently composed, does he believe that there is any place for a second Chamber in our constitution?

That is an interesting academic question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it.") I am trying to work it out. I believe that there is a place for a second Chamber, given the history of this country, although many countries get on very well without one. I do not think that there is any theoretical verdict one way or the other.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the House of Lords is extremely popular, is a bulwark against arbitrary one-Chamber government, and is a vital part of the British constitution?

I thank the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him upon his sterling qualities and the way in which he stands up for the other Chamber—something that could be done only by an excess of patriotism, but perhaps with rather less than his usual amount of perspicacity.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Law Courts.

I have at present no plans to do so.

When my right hon. Friend does so, will he confirm that when he said last week that he was having a change of mind about the Official Secrets Act, he meant that he was making it less restrictive for the Press in some areas, and not more effective? With the growth of both private and public powers, which could erode our freedoms, will he consider introducing a Bill of Rights which would make it easier for citizens to obtain redress when their freedoms were infringed?

I do mean making it less restrictive, but it follows from that that one can, at the same time, make it more effective. There are areas where I believe the Official Secrets Act should be effective. However, I noticed that a number of newspapers were doubting my bona fides. I am usually misunderstood about these matters, but it was the result of experience in this matter that led me to the conclusion that although, on the whole, as I said in evidence to the Franks Commission, I would have preferred to leave the Official Secrets Act untouched, I think the time has come to move in that direction, and the Government will have to bring their proposals forward. I can say that the House will find it an easy solution when we debate it in due course, but I think we should try to handle it and see how we can achieve a result.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the rule of law is important internationally, as it is nationally? Will he be a little more forthcoming about the action of the Israeli Government last weekend, which sought to establish a primacy of the rule of law over political movements that seek to achieve their ends though murder and piracy?

I do not think there is any doubt about this Government's attitude, or our predecessors' attitude, on the matter of hijacking and the establishment of the rule of law internationally. I have said—I made it clear yesterday—how much we welcome the fact that the hostages' lives had been saved and the hijacking attempt had failed. However, I do not think it necessary to embroil ourselves any further than that at the present time.

Will my right hon. Friend publish the terms of reference of the Houghton Committee in the immediate future? Will they embrace not only the particular case but make recommendations on the whole question of restrictions, as well as investigating the case in question?

I would certainly hope to give an answer on that in the near future, but it will be concerned basically, as I have emphasised before, with procedures for safeguarding papers rather than the judgments that flow from how a paper should be rated. It is that aspect of the matter that the Committee has agreed to look into.

Regarding the maintenance of law at international level, will the Prime Minister convey to the Secretary General of the United Nations that it is the belief of the overwhelming majority of people in this country that the Israelis, by their daring and courageous action, have contributed more to the maintenance and upholding of law and order internationally than the Secretary General has done during his whole tenure of office?

I see no advantage in trying to play off the Israeli Government against the Secretary General, or seeking to attempt to make me deliver judgments on these matters. I think that as time wears on it will be seen that there are consequences which perhaps have not yet been foreseen. We should ourselves reserve judgment on the matter whilst expressing our full delight and appreciation of the fact that many hostages' lives were saved and that the hijacking attempt by the terrorists, which we all deplore and condemn, failed.

I agree largely with what the Prime Minister has said, but is my right hon. Friend nevertheless able to give details of any steps taken, or negotiations entered into, by the Secretary General of the United Nations with a view to securing the release of the hostages at Entebbe Airport?

I am not responsible for the Secretary General's actions and I am not informed whether he took any steps on this matter. I know personally, and from members of his own office, that he has attempted to settle the Middle East dispute in the past and has acted as a good friend to both sides. He is a servant of the world who has given very good service over many years. I do not think that on this one occasion he should be publicly rebuked from this Box in the House of Commons.

asked the Prime Minister whether the article by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Sunday Telegraph on the economy on 20th June represents Government policy.

Yes.

Does the Prime Minister agree in particular with his right hon. Friend's statement that what this country needs is not just investment but profitable investment, which makes good use of our resources, and that this must be the policy for the Government to follow? If so, what steps is he taking to follow it?

I thought it was a very good heading, which began:

"No reason for self-denigration, gloom or dangerous prescriptions."

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the cuts in public expenditure, which a number of his hon. Friends now tell us are necessary to make room for this investment, will be announced to the country and this House before we rise for the Summer Recess?

I do not think that I have anything further to add to what I have already said on this matter. I think my answers are quite clear.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that report after report indicates that British investment allowances, and all the other aids to those so-called entrepreneurs, who gain so much support from the Opposition, perhaps the most generous among all the industrialised countries in the world, but that such people still fail to invest in Britain, while they find thousands of millions of pounds to invest overseas?

My hon. Friend raises a point that is worthy of investigation and study, namely, to what extent it is necessary for British companies which have overseas direct investment to maintain the level of that investment or, indeed, to seek to retain their profits abroad. This is a matter that I have been looking into very carefully. Certainly there is a very high level of investment overseas. We ought to make certain that the profits are remitted back as far as possible, if the investment takes place.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to make a ministerial broadcast on the state of the nation.

asked the Prime Minister when he intends to make his next ministerial broadcast on the state of the nation.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on 27th April.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his second reply. Is he aware that when he does make this ministerial broadcast, to which we all look forward, he should be comforted by the knowledge that, whatever his friends below the Gangway think, we on the Opposition side of the House wish him the best of luck in the discussions on which he has just embarked with his Cabinet colleagues, with a view to cutting public expenditure?

With my lack of classical education, I hope I shall not be ruled out of order if I say timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

Order. Was that Welsh?

Like you, Mr. Speaker, I would not know whether that was Welsh or anything else. Will my right hon. Friend indicate that when he next makes a ministerial broadcast he will explain to the nation what will happen if the various companies that are to get investment reliefs and higher profits do not invest? What steps will be taken by the Government to deal with those companies?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important question. At tomorrow's meeting of the NEDC, at which I hope to take the chair, I shall be seeking the view of the CBI in regard to its attitude to member companies. From the contacts that I have had so far with Lord Watkinson, I believe that the CBI intends to encourage companies to undertake a high level of investment. As to what will happen if it does not succeed, I would prefer to wait for the moment rather than make a forecast. In regard to my answer to an earlier supplementary question, may I say, for the benefit of non-Etonians, that the phrase I used means "I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts".

Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome his recent statement to the effect that public spending next year will have to be cut? Should he not make it clear, however, that this is a major reversal of Government policy and is not due to changes in external circumstances, and that the only reason why these painful readjustments are being made is that the Government foolishly and stupidly overspent in the last two years?

No, Sir, I do not accept any of those qualifications. It is true that public expenditure has increased by 20 per cent. in the last three years. That is a very much faster rate than that represented by our gross domestic product, but it has had the result, among other social matters, of enabling our old-age pensioners, almost for the first time, to enjoy a good standard of living, although we would like to see it improve. In the case of nursery education for children under 5 years of age it has meant that provision in the last two years has increased by one-third. All these are valuable social aims, which have helped buttress the social contract. If, for a year or so, we now have to rein back, this will be understood by all those who benefit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the chopping and changing in plans that is so demoralising and wasteful—for example, in the hospital building programme, where there can be a great waste of public money by incurring design costs for schemes that are not then pursued? Will he say exactly what has changed since February of this year when the House received the results of the long-term review of public expenditure and what has led the Government to say that all the plans will now have to be reversed?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is demoralising where there is constant chopping and changing in Government policy. I think that public expenditure has suffered because of that. If I may go back over a decade, it was for this reason that when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer over 10 years ago we introduced the system of looking three or four years ahead at the level of public expenditure. But in trying to do that, we fell into the error of measuring increases only in terms of resources required, instead of looking also at the finances required. It is that correction which we are now having to make.

When the Prime Minister makes his ministerial broadcast, will he reveal to the nation how much oil the oil companies are obtaining out of the Scottish sector of the North Sea? Will he also acknowledge that the SNP is the only party in this House that got its sums right? Furthermore, will he say that there is no need for any substantial cuts in the public sector if we tax the oil companies at a decent rate?

There is a pretty good rate of tax now being levied on the oil companies. As regards the other part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it would be more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make a broadcast rather than for me to make his points.