asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the level of subsidy on school meals.

No, Sir. As indicated in last February's White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393), it is our intention to reduce the present rate of subsidy by about half by 1980.

Is this not an example of the way our priorities are all wrong, since parents pay only 15p out of a total cost of 50p? In this financial year the taxpayer will be subsidising to the tune of £36 million, which is more than the cut in the defence budget. If the harsh choices were explained to parents, they would be willing to pay more for school meals in order to get our priorities into better shape.

As I have already said, parents will be asked to pay more. From September 1977 they will be asked to pay 25p.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that for poor families with many children it is an enormous and unfair imposition to meet the cost of school fares and school meals? Will she ask her right hon. Friend in the Treasury, in his wisdom, to think again about this serious matter, because school meals have an important social content?

My hon. Friend knows that we are all concerned about the burden of school fares and school meals on poor families. In this case, however, we are looking at the way in which the school meals money is spent and the way in which free meals are provided. We shall come back to the House with regard to this at a later stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to know the cost to public funds of the legal proceedings in which her Department was involved in the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in connection with secondary education in Tameside during 1976.

I understand from the Treasury Solicitor's Department that this may take some months.

As it is more than six months since the proceedings that were disastrous for the Government took place in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the estimate of somewhere between £20,000 and £30,000 is right? What defence can there be for this money coming out of public funds when the two courts found that the Minister had fundamentally misdirected himself in this matter?

As the hon. Gentleman has already been told, and as was said in a Written Answer to another hon. Member on 10th January, we cannot confirm whether the costs will be £20,000 because the Crown's costs will be assessed only when the initial costs have been decided. This will take some months.

Will my hon. Friend convey to all her ministerial colleagues that the Government's determination to stand up against the Appeal Court's attempts to encroach upon the rights of the Government—both with regard to Tameside and the present case —is money well spent? Can my hon. Friend make sure that whenever the courts attempt to encroach upon Parliament's rights the Government will stand up to them?

I think that I should not stray into the territory of others of my right hon. Friends. My hon. Friend knows the views of the Secretary of State in full, having had an Adjournment debate on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for assessing the reactions to the views expressed in her series of consultation meetings on educational policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how she plans to assess the reactions to Government educational policy that will be expressed during her series of consultation meetings.

I have now completed the first round of discussions on educational issues. The views so far expressed are being taken into account in the preparation of an agenda and background paper for discussion with a wide range of interests at eight regional conferences in February and March. Proposals for further action, which will be formulated in the light of these discussions, will then be published in the form of a consultative document.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she not agree that some of the matters that have been submitted after the Prime Minister's initiative have already been largely resolved? Will the issues to be put forward in my right hon. Friend's agenda be in the form of questions, and will they go into the areas that have largely been resolved in this House and elsewhere?

The four main areas of concern that have been identified in particular, and have been agreed with the groups with which I have already held preliminary discussions. were, first, the curriculum; secondly, the question of educational standards and assessment; thirdly, the training of teachers; and, fourthly, education in working life—the relationship with both sides of industry. These will indeed be put in the form of questions to the conferences.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the important thing about these eight regional conferences is that they should be more than just a public relations exercise? Can she assure the House that that will be the case? In reassuring the House on this point, can she give us details about the ways in which parental interests and concerns will be taken fully into account?

Yes. Representatives of the teachers, the parents, the local authorities, the trade unions and employers and of higher and further education will be invited to the eight conferences to be held in England and Wales. This will be the first occasion on which there will have been widespread consultations with the parental interests. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not intended to be a public relations exercise. However, I hope that one of the outcomes will be a more balanced view of what is happening in education than perhaps exists at present.

What consultations has my right hon. Friend had with regional councils of further education? Did she note in The Guardian yesterday the remarks of the principal of a college in Bradford that attempts were being made to close down part-time courses for students in industry? Will not this destroy a comprehensive approach in further education? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to prevent the closure of courses which are essential both to industry and to the advancement of students taking part in them?

I am aware of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. We are looking into this matter urgently. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that the main scope of the regional conferences concerns itself quite deliberately with the schools, because if we go too wide we shall not reach conclusions at all.

Further to the matter put to the right hon. Lady by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), is not the Secretary of State aware that, since these conferences are to be only by invitation, there is a risk that they will represent the education establishment which has been in charge while there have been static or declining standards? Must there not be some means of bringing in the ordinary parent who is not a member of an organisation but who also holds strong views? I might perhaps add that the Opposition hope that there will be a follow-through, as distinct from the case of the Bullock Report, which came out in December 1974 but has not yet been debated in this House.

Take 100 lines.

As I have explained already, the area of invitation to the conferences goes far beyond the area of educational interests. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's recent speeches, I had expected him to realise what the Government were trying to do to widen the debate on education. I believe that we have a great deal to learn from the conferences and that they will include people recommended for their local influence on education, including parents with that kind of local influence, and not be simply through conventional methods of invitation.

Will the right hon. Lady accept that her suggestion that there should be parental involvement in the conferences will be greatly welcomed in Newcastle upon Tyne, where, she will recall, there was great distress recently about the reorganisation of feeder schools to comprehensive schools? Will she make the strongest recommendations in her future policy that there shall be parental consultation on this subject?

We always advise full consultation with teachers and parents by local authorities which are making changes in their systems of education. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the first conference of all will be held in Newcastle upon Tyne on 18th February and that this recognises the importance which we attribute to that part of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the present dispute between the teachers' union and the local education authority over primary class size in Stockport.

The National Union of Teachers and National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers are imposing sanctions in primary and secondary schools in Stockport this term in protest against staffing standards in the authority's schools. Pupil-teacher ratios in Stockport are higher than the national average, particularly in primary schools.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Stockport more than 1,000 children are excluded from school? Will she consider inviting to her Department representatives of both the teachers and the local authority to see whether the problems in this dispute can be resolved?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. But it is only fair to say that, as is always the case, the answer in these disputes lies with the local authority, the teachers and the local ratepayers, since Stockport is one of the lower-rated areas.

Although I understand the concern of teachers about the effect of public expenditure cuts on many local authorities, may I ask the hon. Lady to accept that it is the quality of teaching that is important and that in years gone by, when class sizes were as large as 50 per class, basic literacy was in many cases very much better than it is today?

I regret that all too often contributions to our education debates by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) are not noted for their grasp of the evidence. It is not true that literacy in the past was better than it is today.

Most certainly it was.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the reorganisation of secondary education in Calderdale, West Yorkshire.

My right hon. Friend wrote yesterday to the Calderdale Education Authority, requiring it under Section 2(1) of the Education Act 1976 to submit within six months proposals for reorganising all its remaining selective schools.

Does my hon. Friend agree that certain Tory councillors opposed to comprehensive education who dominate the local education authority have elevated obstruction to the introduction of comprehensive education into a political science? Although I welcome the fact that letters have now been issued by her Department, will she make it clear that the schemes so far submitted by this education authority have been wholly unacceptable to her Department?

It is the case that we are awaiting satisfactory proposals from this authority. As my hon. Friend is aware, the authority has some capital allocations which are dependent on suitable schemes coming forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further cuts in the teacher training programme are envisaged; and if she will list colleges concerned in the Official Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to announce the list of colleges of education which are to be closed.

My right hon. Friend hopes to announce next week her decision about the size of the teacher training system which should be retained and her proposals for further mergers, closures and other steps to provide the most effective system.

Does my hon. Friend accept the concern felt about this matter not only by teachers but by parents generally? Can he at least give some sort of undertaking to the House that, irrespective of the birth-rate, when these cuts have been completed there will be some stability in teacher training? Will he also bear in mind the special difficulties of girls who have been oriented to teaching in the past and consider providing new opportunities for them in view of these cuts?

As for the timing, I am aware of the rumours and the concern within the colleges and the education world generally. That is why we have kept to the timetable. The announcement will be made next week.

As for what my hon. Friend says about the position of girls, who represent a considerable intake to teacher training at the moment, we are aware of this and we are looking at other ways in which this valuable source of ability can be better used, possibly for the country's industrial regeneration, than it has been in the past. The horizons of girls in the past have not been wide enough to see what industry can offer.

Does my hon. Friend accept that publication in the past of lists of colleges threatened with closure has had a damaging effect on the morale of all concerned in the colleges, including manual workers, who have tended to be overlooked in this argument? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the discussions are concluded as soon as possible so that all those connected with the colleges may know what their future is? Will he also do his utmost to ensure that some of these very valuable organisations and buildings are retained in the education system?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have taken note of all his points. He refers to the concern felt by all those connected with colleges. I repeat what I have said before from this Dispatch Box. I deplore wild statements such as those which appeared in one national newspaper in which lists of proposed closures were given before the matter had been considered by my Department.

As for the use of premises, I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that, basically, in the case of maintained buildings, this is a matter for the local education authority concerned. But primarily we shall look to future education use where this is possible.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the statement will cover the position of teacher training associated with colleges of further education, as in the North Worcestershire College of Higher Education, and will he tell us what will happen to those college of further education places, which apparently would be jeopardised if there were to be teacher training cuts?

The statement will cover colleges of further education where there are teacher training courses.

In view of the amount of evidence submitted to the Department and the statements made already by the Department, may we have an assurance that there will be no further cuts in relation to Bangor Normal College? Can the hon. Gentleman also give an assurance about the possible redundancy position of lecturers in those colleges if these cuts take place?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient for a week.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy toward the distribution of pamphlets to State schools by bodies not connected with education or with education research; and if she will take action to check the content of such pamphlets.

The use made by schools of pamphlets and other material of this kind is a matter entirely for the local education authorities and the schools themselves. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Observer, just before Christmas, published a report that a large number of anti-Semitic documents—about three-quarters of a million of them—had been printed in Birmingham which purported to claim that there was not any wholesale murder of Jews in the period before the war? The report said that these pamphlets were distributed on a considerable scale in schools, including some London grammar schools. Is it not entirely unacceptable that this sort of propaganda should be distributed, especially as a former member of the National Front was identified as being involved in the preparation of the pamphlet and its author was given as Richard E. Harwood, of London University? I regard this as a matter of great concern, as I hope my hon. Friend does.

I agree. It is not only unacceptable; it is disgraceful to publish material of this kind which bears no relation whatever to the evidence of crimes which were committed. Also, I think it is dreadful that sufficient money has been made available to distribute material of this kind on such a large scale. But I am not aware of this material having been distributed in schools. I think that it is a matter in which, as in many others, we can rely on the good sense of head teachers in schools to know what sort of material is totally unsuitable for children's use.

Is the Minister aware of the distribution of pamphlets in my constituency by an organisation called Big Flame, calling on pupils to revolt against their parents and containing whole strings of four-letter words which are totally unsuitable for children of this age?

I am not aware of the pamphlet which the hon. Member has mentioned. If he sends me a copy I will look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations she has received urging her to reduce the school leaving age to 14 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has any proposals for lowering the statutory school leaving age.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received regarding the reduction in the age for school leavers.

In the last four months of 1976, my Department received two letters urging that the leaving age be lowered to 14 years and 29 seeking other variations in the leaving arrangements. Opinion in favour is evidently far from overwhelming, and I have no plans to lower the statutory school leaving age. Indeed, the raising of the school leaving age has been of great benefit to many boys and girls, especially in regions where only a small proportion stay on after compulsory age.

Does my right hon. Friend draw a degree of consolation from such a limited response to the initiative by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on education? Perhaps the hon. Member could write more frequently himself. Is it not a fact that the British people have no wish to return to the depths of the nineteenth century in terms of educational provision?

One is entitled to inquire just how far the views of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) represent those of the parents for whom he claims to speak. Fortunately I, in common with members of his own party, do not agree with his views.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that none of her predecessors was more successful in securing resources for raising the school leaving age or was more dedicated to that idea than the present Leader of the Opposition? Whatever else one might say about the argument, does the Secretary of State agree that educationally it is far too early to make any serious suggestions for altering the school leaving age, for the time being at any rate?

There is no doubt that the Labour Government of 1966–70 and the present Leader of the Opposition pursued with vigour the raising of the school leaving age and the supply of resources for it. That makes it all the stranger that the Leader of the Opposition should have chosen the hon. Member for Brent, North as one of her spokesmen. However, I attribute this to her respect for free speech.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is it wrong on education grounds to think of reducing the school leaving age but it is wrong also because many school leavers are unemployed, and it is difficult at present to find positions for teachers? Such a ridiculous suggestion should not even be considered.

My hon. Friend is quite right. In the last year there has been an increase of 35,000 boys and girls who choose to stay on at school after 16 over and above the figures for the previous year. This bears out what my hon. Friend says about employment opportunities and illustrates the wish of many young men and women to improve their skills. I give him a full assurance that there is no question of going back on the raising of the school leaving age. To do so would destroy the possibility of a full five-year course.

Surely the Secretary of State must know that Conservative policy on the school leaving age is to keep it in principle at 16 but between 15 and 16 to make it more flexible in practice by allowing selected pupils to go on to colleges of further education or take up apprenticeships. Why is the Secretary of State attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) when in the matter of standards, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister, she is his most distinguished convert? Should she not have greater respect for her guru?

There is no doubt that on this issue the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I had established a certain bipartisan policy with regard to the hon. Member for Brent, North. However, that is a matter for him to decide. Yes, I am aware of Conservative Party policy, or at least I thought I was. I hope the hon. Member recognises that this policy would require a change in the law.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that perhaps it would be better if the two hon. Gentlemen who are spokesmen on education came to the Dispatch Box together and told us where the Tory Opposition stand on education? The result could not be more garbled than at present. If we were to lower the school leaving age fewer teachers would be needed, and we need to occupy those who are out of work at the moment. One way to keep teachers in employment is to keep the colleges open. In this regard, will my right hon. Friend ensure that Matlock College is kept open as well?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in raising the matter of his college, but on that part of his question I must ask him to restrain himself for a week. On the first part of his supplementary question, I would point out that as a lover of music I have never much appreciated discordant duets.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish the pupil/teacher ratios for the primary and secondary schools in the city of Leeds and for England and Wales.

Pupil-teacher ratios for each local education authority in England and Wales were published by my Department on 16th December and are available in the Library. The average pupil-teacher ratios in January 1976 in maintained schools in Leeds were in primary schools 25·;1 to 1 and in secondary schools 18·;5 to 1. The ratios for England and Wales were 23·;9 to 1 and 17·;0 to 1 respectively.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that during a visit to a primary school in my constituency last September I found a ratio of 37-plus pupils to one teacher? Is my hon. Friend aware that last May we had a debate in this House, initiated by the Opposition on a Supply Day, and the two Front Bench spokesmen both quoted Leeds as an example of a very good Tory-controlled authority? If my figures are correct, does not this decry their argument?

I am surprised and disturbed to hear that there is a school in my hon. Friend's area with a primary class of that size. The number of classes with more than 35 pupils is quite small throughout the country as a whole. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me about this matter.

Is the Minister aware that there are primary schools in London with class sizes of about 35 even though the staff-pupil ratio is much lower? Does not the quality of education in a school depend much on the organisation within the school, which may involve large class sizes so that extra teachers can move around to particular classes or particular children? Therefore, the size of the class is not the answer to the problem.

The hon. Gentleman raises several issues surrounding the vexed question of pupil-teacher ratios and their relationship with class sizes. There is much in what he says. He will have noticed that I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) to write to me to make me familiar with the details of his case.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she will take to ensure young people participate in the making of decisions which will affect the use of their leisure time.

My right hon. Friend has established a Youth Service Forum for England and Wales, under my chairmanship, on which not less than one-third of the members will be young people under the age of 26. At its first meeting last month the forum agreed to set up a working party to consider, among other things, how young people may more effectively influence Youth Service policy and provision.

What network is the Minister using to find young people, and how many young people have been found to date for her Youth Service Forum?

As yet, the final composition of the forum has not been established. It has had only its first meeting and the final members are in the process of being appointed. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question factually, but not less than one-third of the members will be under 26. If he wishes, when the final composition of the forum is established I will write to him.

Surely it is not just a question of young people taking decisions on leisure time. What we need is employment for young people. My right hon. Friend said that 35,000 children were staying on at school after 16. Unfortunately, many are staying on because there is no employment for them. Is not that an issue with which the Department should be concerned?

Certainly we are concerned that young people do not have jobs to go to, but we think it is preferable for young people to stay on in education and perhaps acquire additional skills which might help them to get a better job later rather than that they should be totally unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when she next expects to meet representatives of the National Union of Students.

No meeting is planned, but my right hon. Friend and I are always ready to consider requests from the National Union of Students for meetings.

Bearing in mind the concern of the NUS about reports in the Daily Record and elsewhere about the possible closure of Stirling University, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of publicly declaring that there is no truth whatsoever in those reports? In view of today's Scottish Office document on teacher training, which suggests the possible closure of Callendar Park College of Education, would it not be better to study the feasibility of merging Callendar Park College with the University of Stirling, which is the only university in Scotland offering a degree course concurrent with teacher training?

My right hon. Friend has already written to my hon. Friend to assure him that there are no Government plans to close Stirling University. I am glad to have the opportunity to say that in the House publicly and categorically. This is the first I have heard of the suggestion my hon. Friend has made. I shall look at it and consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for colleges of education in Scotland.

Will the Minister confirm that he will remain as willing to meet the NUS when—as will happen before long—it is taken over by Conservative students?

I very much doubt that eventuality, but, were it to happen, of course I should still be willing to meet the student body—the National Union of Students.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what communications she has sent to local education authorities since the beginning of December in connection with her powers under the Education Act 1976.

Yesterday I wrote under Section 2 of the Act to a further 26 authorities where further progress is required towards bringing about a fully comprehensive system for secondary education. Six local education authorities are being required to submit within six months proposals for reorganising all their remaining selective schools, 12 are being required to submit also within six months proposals for reorganising some parts of their area where selective schools remain, and eight are being required to submit proposals again within six months in respect of particular voluntary schools where admission arrangements remain on a selective basis. I am arranging for a full list of these authorities and the schools concerned to be placed in the Official Report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I assure her that those of us who are interested in seeing comprehensive education become a reality throughout the country will welcome her action in imposing a strict time limit. Will she make clear to the local authorities concerned that if they default upon that time limit she will not hesitate to use her powers under the Education Act to enforce their acceptance of comprehensive education? Will she also make clear to the local authorities concerned that she intends to give priority in the allocation of financial resources to comprehensive reorganisation?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, as the first circular on comprehensive schools was issued as long ago as 1965 there has been a great deal of time for authorities to consider the matter. I very much resent criticism that we are giving them very little time in which to complete it. I have every reason to believe that local authorities will obey the law. That is what I have been informed, and I am sure they will do so. It has been made clear to authorities that building allocations will be made available for secondary schools and others for basic needs—which is a special case—only where there are arrangements for comprehensive reorganisation to which local authorities make clear they have committed themselves.

In view of the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 20th December about the possibility of bringing forward legislation to alter the powers of the Secretary of State with particular reference to Section 68 of the 1944 Act, has the Secretary of State any plans to bring forward legislation to alter her powers either under the 1944 Act or the 1976 Act?

That does not arise directly on this Question, and I am not entirely sure that I have followed the hon. Gentleman's point. If I understand him correctly, I must tell him that the effect of the Education Act 1976 is to ask local authorities to have regard to the comprehensive principle. The original 1944 Act indicates the scope of parental wishes, and that also remains the law.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that education authorities, such as the London borough of Red-bridge in my constituency, which appear to have difficulty in achieving plans to make the whole of their system comprehensive will be able to receive guidance and advice from her if they cannot produce a plan on their own?

We are always willing to assist authorities with advice on their plans. If an authority submits an unsatisfactory plan but has the intention of reorganising, we are also very willing to sit down and discuss with it the way in

What is the logic of the Secretary of State's position in seeking to dragoon nearly one-third of the local education authorities into going comprehensive and not giving them the resources with which to do so adequately? Will not the only certain result of that policy be that botched-up schemes will be put forward which will not be in the interests of the children concerned and will bring the idea of the comprehensive school into disrepute?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been listening sufficiently carefully to what I said. The 26 authorities to which we have written are authorities which have not submitted any plans for reorganisation, have not submitted plans for part of their area or have not submitted plans in relation to voluntary schools. The 41 authorities to which we have not written are authorities which have submitted schemes which, because resources have not yet been available or because of arguments on a legal matter concerning voluntary school trusts, will be delayed, but we have every reason to believe that the authorities intend to reorganise.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils leave school without examination qualifications of any kind.

In the academic year 1974–75, 72,810 boys and 62,340 girls left school in England and Wales without obtaining a GCE or CSE grading. These figures represent 20·;6 per cent. and 18·4 per cent. respectively of all boys and girls who left school in that year. I am arranging for a list of regional comparisons for 1974–75 to be circulated in the Official Report.

Is not that a disturbingly large figure? Will the Minister consider the possibility of instituting tests of literacy and numeracy towards which these pupils could aim?

I agree that it is a disturbingly large figure, but I remind the House that the total of boys and girls without qualifications in 1974–75 was 19·5 per cent., compared with 21 per cent. in 1973 and 43 per cent. in 1971. As for standards, the Assessment of Performance Unit is developing methods of sampling levels of attainment nationally. Her Majesty's inspectors are currently un- dertaking national primary and secondary school surveys on a sample basis, which will give us a clearer picture of what is happening.

Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) that a number of Conservative-controlled education authorities, including that in Hampshire, are proposing to reduce the amount of money available for examination fees for children?

My hon. Friend himself has told the hon. Lady.

How does the Minister reconcile his desire to see young people acquire more skills by staying on at school with the fact—this applies to some of them when it did not before—that they are getting a handful or one or two CSEs that are not skills and not directly relevant to the work situation? Why have the Government on two occasions resisted efforts made by the Conservative Opposition to change legislation to make the final year at school more effective so that people can use further education and actually acquire skills? What will the Government do in the light of their own new policy in that area?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the CSE examination is not useful for all practical skills as well as to register attainment in a particular subject. I remind the House that the figures indicate a steady and consistent improvement in the number of pupils who leave school with a qualification.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much will be spent on education in England and Wales in the present financial year; and what amount was so spent in 1971–72 at current prices.

It is estimated that in the present financial year expenditure on education in England and Wales, but including universities for Great Britain as a whole, will be about £6,250 million, at 1976 survey prices. The figure for 1971–72, at the same price base, is £5,420 million.

Is it not clear that, despite the declining birth-rate and the talk of savage cuts, education should receive this year and for the rest of the 1970s rather greater provision and support than it received five or six years ago, provided that the local authorities continue to act responsibly? Is my right hon. Friend confident that all of them will do so?

As I have cited in answer to the Question, the growth between these two years was 15·3 per cent. in real terms, which is just under twice the increase in the total school population of 8 per cent. My hon. Friend's assumption is therefore correct. I have advised local authorities not to alter or reduce the staff-pupil ratio and to give priority to the staffing of schools. If they take notice of that advice, I am convinced that education policy will improve and not deteriorate in the coming year.

Will the right hon. Lady take into account 1978–79, when she will find that one-quarter of the proposed cuts in Government expenditure will fall on education? Although we agree on both sides of the House that education should have its fair share of the cuts, surely that is excessive, above all from a Labour Government?

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that a substantial proportion of the proposed cuts will fall upon the capital building programme. The net fall has been much altered by the change in the birth-rate, though obviously, like the hon. Gentleman, I am determined that education shall not carry more than its fair share of reductions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many industrial development units there are in universities in the United Kingdom at present; and where they are located.

There are 29 industrial development or liaison units in universities in the United Kingdom. Those in Wales are at the University Colleges of Bangor, Cardiff and Swansea. I am sending the hon. Gentleman a full list.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government see these units as a major tool in the development of industry and employment? For that reason, do they intend to make more finance available for the units to develop their work?

I gladly recognise the importance that the Government attach to the units and the close links between universities and all forms of industry. I hope that the progress which has been made over the past 10 years will continue.

As a policy towards jubilee year, will the hon. Gentleman consider providing a certain sum of money within the hard-pressed budget of the Department of Education and Science to finance a limited period of national youth service for all young people in this country? I hope the Minister will agree that such a service could be of great advantage to industry as well as to the young people concerned.

Whether I agree or do not agree, that does not arise in any way from the Question.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC General Council.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

I expect to meet some of the leaders of the TUC when I take the chair at the meeting of the NEDC on 2nd February. Other meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Despite yesterday's most welcome trade surplus, does my right hon. Friend remain dismayed at the level of imports entering the United Kingdom? Will he tell the TUC, the directors of the CBI and the Director-General of the NEDC, all of whom have urged selective import controls, that he is prepared to consider that policy together with a much tougher anti-dumping policy? Will he take the opportunity at the rumoured National Industrial Conference and on his visits to major concerns throughout the country to stress that urgent action should be taken to substitute for imports?

I am concerned still at the level of imports, although, if we take the last quarter over the previous quarter, imports increased by 1 per cent. and exports by 5 per cent., which is a very welcome trend. I hope that that trend will continue. Despite trends and fashions, I hope that people will buy British wherever they can and where-ever it is of value. As regards selective import controls, that is now the Government's policy. There are cases that are constantly examined both in the multifibre sector and elsewhere. We have been looking into ways and means of speeding up anti-dumping applications to ensure that they are decided as quickly as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the TUC that many Post Office workers resent the TUC's recommendation that they should take industrial action for political reasons, and object to the fact that they were not consulted by their unions? They are anxious to know why the TUC always seems to take this sort of action against South Africa and never against dictatorships of the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe.

It will be for the TUC to ascertain the intentions and views of its members and not for me to tell it the particular matters that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is proper and right for the Trades Union Congress to be concerned about the organisation of trade unionists in South Africa as everywhere else. I hope that the Opposition will not spend all their time on this matter but will join forces with those who wish to see labour in South Africa properly organised and enjoying the human dignity that it should enjoy.

I congratulate trade unionists on organising this week's boycott against the apartheid régime in South Africa, but will my right hon. Friend also tell the professional footballers' union that many of us within the Labour and trade union movement will resist any pressure from the dictators within the Scottish Football Association who are trying, under the threat of disciplinary action, to force players to take part in the Scotland versus Chile international football match in a stadium in Santiago which has been desecrated by the torture and murder of many innocent people by the Fascist Pinochet régime?

I recognise that it is not possible to keep the boundary between sport and politics entirely free where these issues are held so deeply, but with respect I do not expect to be discussing this matter with the TUC.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the TUC, will he use his influence as Prime Minister to stress to members of the General Council that if, as I am sure they do, they believe in a system of parliamentary democracy rather than union dictatorship, they have a responsibility to stress to their members that they should accept the laws of this country rather than encourage them to disobey them?

There is no doubt where the leaders of the TUC stand on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where do you stand?"] The Opposition do not do either industrial peace or their own prospects any good by constantly attacking the TUC on these matters. Although the chance may seem remote, the day may come when they will have to deal with them in a responsible manner.

The Government's policy on law and order is well known and will be steadily maintained.

May I ask the Prime Minister, when he talks to the TUC about extending the social contract for a further period, not to be hindered by the impudent and ill-advised speech of the Duke of Edinburgh, who appeared to be clambering on to the bandwagon—

Order. It is the long-established custom in this House to speak with respect of members of the Royal Family.

He has no respect for workers.

He certainly has not.

Order. All I am asking for is courteous language.

I hope that my right hon. Friend's talks will not be impeded by speeches, from whatever source they may come, which are impudent and ill-advised enough to suggest that we should pay less attention to the deprived and underprivileged, which would be contrary to the whole spirit of the social contract which has been forged with the Trades Union Congress.

I am not sure how far your ruling went, Mr. Speaker, but, as you will know, there is no ministerial responsibility for speeches made by the Duke of Edinburgh, and I certainly do not intend to assume any. I do not think that such speeches, by whomever they are made, will have any impact on the great understanding between the Government and the trade union movement on some of these issues.

asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 18th January.

asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for Tuesday 18th January.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

In the course of a busy day, will the Prime Minister find time this evening to stop and think about the extension of power of non-parliamentary bodies in Britain during the last week? From his reading of today's Press, for example, what does he think about the fact that the price of a loaf is now to be determined by the bread van delivery men?

I often pause and think about the relationships between the various power structures in this country. This matter, if it is not wholly treated on a purely party basis, should be of concern to us all. I do not intend to have among my engagements today anything to do with bread.

I wonder whether I may take my right hon. Friend back to his official engagements for last Thursday, particularly Question Time. Does he not regret with me the fact that the visit of Mr. Bukovsky to this country was used for blatant party political purposes and to foster the mistaken impression that people in the Labour movement are not in favour of the campaign for further civil liberties in the Soviet Union? Will he tell the House what approaches were made by Mr. Bukovsky for a meeting and the Government's response to those approaches?

Last Thursday, when I was perhaps a little unnecessarily irked by the nature of the question put to me, I overlooked, although I had been told that an engagement had been made for Mr. Bukovsky to be seen by a Foreign Office Minister. That engagement was put off and a second engagement was made, but Mr. Bukovsky cancelled that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] He cancelled it because of ill health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is for hon. Gentlemen to comment on, and not for me.

I certainly recognise, as I hope all hon. Members do, the great pressure to which someone who is released from the atmosphere of the Soviet Union is subject. Because of that, it is highly undesirable that he should be used for party political purposes.

In the light of Mr. Bukovsky's experience and recent remarks, will the Prime Minister turn his mind to the facts? Does he recall that in July 1975 the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Carver, said that Britain's defence had reached absolute bedrock? Since then there have been three defence cuts to the tune of £1 billion. Is not the Prime Minister—indeed, the Government—guilty of jeopardising the defence and freedom of the British people?

This matter was debated last week. In any case, it has nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's Question.

asked the Prime Minister what progress he anticipates towards his Government's objectives of lower rates of inflation, increased real incomes, lower unemployment and increased production of real wealth above those ruling at the time of the last General Election.

Sustained improvement will depend on the steady pur- suit of the Government's existing policies, including such matters as improving the efficiency and productivity of British industry, competing effectively for exports in world markets, a higher rate of new industrial investment and better use of industry's existing investment, together with adherence to the social contract. In addition, a growth of world trade would be a substantial help in making the progress to which the hon. Gentleman aspires. The Government are pursuing all these matters.

The Prime Minister referred to a continuance of the policies which have been pursued since the last General Election. Is he aware that since then industrial production has fallen 3 per cent., unemployment has more than doubled from the famous 8·4 per cent. that was then ruling, and real take-home wages have fallen? Yet he talks of continuing with the same policies. Does he not have anything better to do than to continue with those policies? Could he not try the IMF's policies?

My actual words were that we should ensure

"the steady pursuit of the Government's existing policies".

I believe that those policies are already bringing results and that they will continue to do so. This is hardly the day for the Opposition, in the light of yesterday's trade figures, to say that they are entirely wrong.

Should we not all warmly welcome the fact that the Opposition have been entirely unsuccessful in their persistent efforts this winter to damage sterling?

I think that the Opposition sometimes act out of malevolence and on occasions out of ignorance. Charitably, I prefer, to put it down to ignorance rather than to malevolence.

What is the Government's policy in relation to interest rates? Is it to have deliberately high interest rates? Does the Prime Minister realise that the Government are selling hundreds of millions of pounds worth of gilt-edged securities at a rate of over 14 per cent. and are loading the country with very substantial debts for many years to come? Does he appreciate that industry is now unable to borrow money at these rates? How does he defend this policy?

That question should be put down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are in charge. You are the boss."] I know that I shall never get that albatross off my neck. I shall have it week after week, whether it is true or not.

It would be foolish, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, deliberately to maintain high interest rates. The Government do not wish to do that. But neither do I wish to forecast either the future trend or sales of gilt-edged securities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was reported this week as having made a speech in Brussels in which he said that he looked forward to a Government in this country who had the populism of Poujade and the economics of freedom—Friedman. [Interruption.] I am not one of those who equates freedom with Friedman. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that speech apparently emptied the room in record time? Does he agree that if those policies were applied here they would empty this country of hope and fraternity in equally record time?

It seems to me that the Opposition have already adopted the policies of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In the whole time that I have been in the House I do not remember a party that has been moved so quickly to the right of the political spectrum. If ever the Opposition had the opportunity of putting into practice the policies of Poujade and Friedman—to which, I agree, they are committed—it would be a sad day for this country.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that, according to the Index of Industrial Production published today, the results of his efforts are that this country now produces less than in February 1974? Why is he so self-satisfied with a policy that produces record unemployment, record low production and record inflation?

I hope that I do not give the impression of being self-satisfied. Indeed—I do not expect to hear a fair opinion from hon. Members opposite—I constantly remind the country of the great distances that we have to travel on economic matters and I shall continue to do so.

If we look at the forecasts for this year, which, as with all Treasury forecasts, should be treated with considerable circumspection—and they are all used by the Opposition when they want to take a stick with which to beat us—they show that gross domestic product will be higher, industrial investment will be higher, manufacturing investment will be higher, manufacturing production will be higher and the increase in retail prices will be lower. These are very important and valuable steps. The one fact with which we have not yet begun to deal satisfactorily is unemployment. That is an issue to which we must bend most of our attention.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On today's Order Paper in my name and that of other hon. Members there is an Instruction to the Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill asking that power be given to the Committee to divide the Bill into two Bills—one relating to Wales and the other to Scotland. You have already dealt with the only other Instruction which came before the House prior to dealing with the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill.

We are about to embark upon the first amendment which impinges upon Wales in the Bill and it seems necessary that those of us who are in support of that Instruction should ask you first to rule that the Instruction is in order. It would then he seen that we have an opportunity, if we so wish, to take the necessary steps to ensure that Wales will have a Bill of its own in which the matters affecting Wales can be considered, disentangled from the provisions relating to Scotland.

I put my point of order at this stage because there are hundreds of amendments down now which solely impinge upon Scotland. If we proceed as it appears to be intended, we shall proceed in a way which can only lead to the severe neglect of issues which affect Wales. The people of Wales will be disadvantaged and perhaps ultimately a Bill could be presented to them which is ill-considered and ill-digested, upon which we could not expect to have a referendum.

It is not possible to proceed to my second point unless we have a ruling whether the Instruction is in order, unlike the previous Instruction upon which you gave your ruling last week.

It is not possible for the occupant of the Chair to give a ruling on remaining Orders of the Day. It is customary to give the ruling when Orders come up for discussion. May I anticipate the hon. Member by saying that I hope that he is not seeking to raise with me the further point about the placing on the Order Paper of this motion, because he did not put down the Instruction until after the Committee stage had started, unlike the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) who got her Instruction down in time. The matter involves the remaining Orders of the Day and there it must remain unless the Government seek to give it precedence.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the position is as you indicate—that it is an option open to the Government and not an option open to you to accelerate this Order so that the House has the opportunity to consider an important principle. I am sure that you will appreciate that if it is not dealt with at this time we shall begin to embark on consideration in detail of the Bill in Committee and will therefore not finally lose the opportunity to divide the Bill but leave it to a stage at which a division of the Bill would cause considerable embarrassment.

Although I am aware that there appears to be a practice as described in "Erskine May" that such a motion should be tabled prior to the Committee stage, we have a unique constitutional proposition in this case. I am inviting you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this long-established practice should be departed from.

Surely it is open to the Leader of the House to co-operate and assist in this problem since he, above everybody else, will not wish to take advantage of the position by trying to deprive Wales and the House of having an opportunity of considering its own Bill.

I again press the point that the opportunity is afforded to depart from precedent and that in any event it is open to the Leader of the House to assist us if he really wants Wales to have a fair opportunity to discuss a Bill of its own. Since that is so I ask again whether an opportunity can be made for consideration of this Instruction to be accelerated so that the House can decide whether it wants the two Bills disengaged so that they can be considered on their own merits.

rose—

Order. Let me make it quite clear that I will not take a string of points of order on this question. I have given a ruling that the practice has been long established. This Instruction cannot be given priority by me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Is it on the same question?

It is on the general question.

I am not taking points of order on that Instruction.

The point of order is on the general question of Instructions. In particular it relates to the appropriate time for tabling them.

As a Welsh Member, Mr. Speaker, you will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and I and many other hon. Members have sought over the last two years to convince members of the Government of the necessity and desirability of dividing the propositions for devolution between two Bills. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that precedent shows that there is an appropriate time at which the Instructions may be put down. One of the attractive features of this House is its flexibility in trying to maximise the benefit to the nation of whatever it does. However, if an Instruction were to be put down at a late stage in a Bill—for example, on this matter—the accusation could be made that its sponsors were attempting to wreck the Bill. At this stage, therefore, before we have embarked upon discussing the Welsh considerations, there would appear to be a case for the reconsideration of the general—

Order. Let me make myself clear. It is not my fault that the Instruction was put down when it was. I have to abide by the rules and practice of the House.

May I raise a different point of order, Mr. Speaker? Would this be a convenient moment at which to ask whether, in the light of the discussions last Thursday, you and the Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Chairmen have reached any decision on the guidelines that ought to be set out as to what is relevant and what is not relevant during the debate?

The Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Speaker, is in charge of the Committee stage. It is not for me to advise him.

May I raise a point of order about your ruling, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate the great difficulty you experience on this matter. To be frank, however, may I appeal to you for a little more flexibility? This is a matter that deeply concerns hon. Members. They feel very strongly about it, and as part of this unfortunate—

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to challenge my ruling in that way. I have made my position quite clear and I must observe the practice of the House of well over 100 years—

rose—

Order. I am not taking points of order relating to the ruling I have given.

My point of order does not relate to that, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I want to be as flexible as possible but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have given my ruling and that there can be no points of order on it. I see no advantage in taking the time of the House on this matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that where an hon. Member feels that there is a matter that he must raise with you, if you have already given a legitimate ruling about it he is not allowed to raise it? If that is so, the whole concept of democratic discussions and debate is being eliminated in the House, and I for one would object to that most strongly.

Order. The basis of democracy will be greatly challenged if the rulings of the Chair are continually challenged and not accepted.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given a ruling which makes it abundantly clear that it is not possible for the Instruction to be dealt with at this stage. However, the House, feeling some concern, as I am sure it does, would wish to have your guidance about the future. There is precedent which makes it quite clear that an Instruction can be given at any time before a guillotine motion is moved.

However, there is a second point upon which I particularly require guidance and which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will bear in mind. It would appear from the direction given in 1931 by Mr. Speaker of that time that when a guillotine motion is moved it is possible for an amendment to be put down to that motion calling for the division of the Bill. That ruling was given in 1931 in relation to a Finance Bill.

Recognising, as I do, how bound you are by precedent, and how difficult it therefore is for you to move away from it, I believe it is important for the House to be told whether you take the same view as was taken by Mr. Speaker in 1931, should my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presume at some stage to table a guillotine motion, that it would be open to us to put down an amendment to any guillotine motion. Of course, it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to take steps before then, as you have indicated, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to know therefore whether we may feel assured that on the basis of precedents—precedents which prevent us from dealing at this stage with the Instruction now on the Order Paper—you will adopt the approach adopted in 1931 and permit an amendment to the guillotine motion calling for the division of the Bill.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has presented his point. I shall look into it and not reply off the cuff.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recently my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and I and other hon. Members respectfully suggested to you, after you had given a ruling and said that you could not permit discussion of it, that we did not wish to challenge your ruling but wanted to present a point of view. We asked whether it was possible to do so. We argued then, and I argue today, that it must be possible to present a point of view without challenging your ruling. After due consideration you told us the following day that we had been quite right in so raising the matter. Therefore, I submit, with respect, that it is quite right for us to raise the matter in the same way today, without in any way attempting to challenge your ruling.

If, as is within the recollection of the House, on an occasion not so far away it was possible long after the beginning of the debate to declare a Bill to be a Hybrid Bill, it must be possible to give very deep thought to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on this important matter of a Bill of the gravest constitutional importance for the future of the United Kingdom.

I am being deliberately brief, because no one has any intention of making light of this matter in order just to spend time. I believe that on this matter, having followed carefully the opinions expressed since Second Reading in the part of the United Kingdom that is most directly concerned by this particular demand, it behoves all of us to give the most careful consideration before we come to a decision as to what the procedure should be. I therefore submit that my hon. Friends are absolutely right and that a decision on how you rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker, should be postponed for the usual period so that more counsel can be taken and a proper decision can be arived at.

The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was not casting a reflection upon my ruling, and I believe that he meant it.

I have already given considerable thought to this question. I have taken advice. I have looked into the custom and the practices of the House. That was why I was so definite in my ruling. I could not promise the House that if I considered the matter for a fortnight I would come to a different decision. In the earlier case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I was seeking to interpret the rules of the House and the Standing Orders and to follow them. That is what I am doing here. I am trying to abide by the proper practices of the House. I assure hon. Members that I have given the most careful consideration to this matter.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and to his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for the way in which they have now accepted my ruling.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provisions for the Collective Responsibility of Council tenants so as to eliminate vandalism in urban housing areas; and for associated purposes.

This Ten Minutes Rule Bill is rather like Beaujolais nouveau. It is the first Ten Minutes Rule Bill of this Session and it should quite fittingly deal with one of the most important subjects of our time and a major scourge of our society—vandalism.

While right hon. and hon. Members file out of the Chamber, they might reflect that vandalism is running riot in nearly every part of the country, and especially in our towns and cities. The cost of repairing the mindless destruction runs at £100 million a year. Paradoxically, that is more than the total amount spent by the Government under their urban aid programmes over the last nine years, which themselves have been aimed at reversing the backward spiral afflicting those who live in the poorest and most crowded parts of our cities and towns.

Vandalism appears to be at its worst where incidents of social malaise are highest. In the past this was in downtown areas which suffered very severe overcrowding and multi-social deprivation. Yet the destruction of the inner city housing areas and the transfer of people living there to the outer cities appears simply to have lifted social malaise from one area to another. From this it is evident that social malaise is of the person and the family rather than the environment.

It is now recognised that it by no means follows that people with poor housing facilities are more prone to committing acts of vandalism than people who live in three-bedroomed terraced houses on an outer city municipal estate with every modern convenience. On the contrary, the soullessness and apathy of many council estates have a more damaging effect upon the individual living there and his feelings of hopelessness, frustration and boredom than the close- knit neighbourhood which was synonymous with the inner city. Rehousing people, therefore, from inner city back-to-backs to outer city impersonal, uncaring estates may well have aggravated vandalism rather than helped to cure it. Vandalism is only one expression of social malaise, and we must look at the whole problem if we are to make progress.

To date, the only remedy appears to be punishment—that is, if one catches the culprits. The punishments, though are often derisory, for the courts have no powers to do very much, nor are they able to make effective orders for restitution of the damaged property. What we must all acknowledge is that sanctions available up to now have proved singularly ineffective. To eradicate social malaise requires a total approach, but it can be reduced and in turn affect the extent of vandalism. That is the purpose of my Bill. It introduces an entirely new concept—that of collective communal responsibility.

It should help the development of greater disapproval from family, friends and neighbours of anti-social behaviour. A new code of ethics and standards would provide a powerful vandal disincentive. But disincentives, like punishments, are merely a negative approach. We must be willing to say and do something positive.

Communities will club together but they will not get to grips with destructive behaviour unless they are given true incentives. My Bill therefore offers just that—incentives to communities to rekindle neighbourhood responsibility and restore a feeling of, for and about community. Regeneration of family care and individual concern can take place and Parliament can help.

As a first step, every urban local authority would fix the maximum amount of money that it was willing to spend on making good damage caused by vandals to its property on a city-wide basis. A formula for determining that amount could be the average spent in, say, the last three years, plus an amount for inflation. Then the local authority would need to divide up that amount and allocate it to the municipal housing estates.

Vandalism is not confined to council property, but as municipal estates have definable boundaries and all the property is council owned, that lends itself to this kind of initiative. Once the amount of money for the estate had been fixed by the local authority, it would invite all the voluntary groups, youth and community organisations and ratepayers and tenants associations, to form some kind of ad hoc organisation. Youth groups would be particularly involved and asked to work with their peer groups.

Those who are sceptical of this whole approach should know that in the Royal Southern Hospital area of Liverpool, where there is a most active neighbourhood council at work, young people were told that if they helped to reduce vandalism they would receive some help and support for their wish for a youth centre. In one year, thefts of and from motor cars were reduced by 43·3 per cent., as against a city average of 7·6 per cent. Those are startling figures and well illustrate my argument.

My Bill would ensure that if as a result of the combined efforts of the community the amount spent on repairing the work of vandals was less than the amount allocated, the money saved would be used to make extra provision of social facilities for the very people who had helped to root out vandalism. In addition, ad hoc committees might also take extra responsibility for getting repair work done, in which case the local authority would debit the account of the particular estate. This would localise the operation and give people in the area an opportunity to get really involved in repairing the work of vandals. It would provide work for unemployed local people. The work would cost a great deal less and would also be more speedily carried out.

At the same time, that would release new money to ameliorate the facilities in the area and provide greater opportunities and greater community provision. Each year, people would see the fruits of their labours and those communities would provide them with an incentive to continue their fight. If the cost of repair, though, exceeded the amount made available for repair work, the work would have to be deferred until the start of the next financial year. That is probably happening at the moment, by default rather than by design.

It is understandable that people on municipal housing estates may feel somewhat less obliged to maintain property than if it were their own. By offering the kind of incentives proposed by the Bill each individual would be given the opportunity to play his part, releasing fresh money and taking the responsibility off the local authority's shoulders and placing it back on to the community.

At a time when public spending cuts are widespread it would seem appropriate that repairing destructive acts should feature high on the list of cuts. My Bill provides an opportunity to convert and divert money and energy from antisocial and destructive acts into a productive and constructive programme. It is only in that way that the factors of social malaise will decline and collective community action will provide an answer.

rose—

Is the hon. Member seeking to oppose the motion?

I am indeed, Sir. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am fortunate in that I happen to be a constituent of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen). I am further fortunate in that I live on one of the estates that I imagine he has in mind—

No.

—a council housing estate which is known as Childwall Valley Estate. I am sure that the hon. Member knows that there was a piece of sociological research some years ago on this estate which attempted to obtain information from the tenants themselves about the sort of property that the council had built. The council had in mind the erection of a further estate, which is now known as the Netherley Estate. It was intended that what had been learned from the examinations of Childwall Valley would be of benefit in the architecture and planning arrangements involved in the new estate.

I do not want to go into detail, but anyone who knows anything about North-West England now knows that the Nether-ley Estate is possibly the worst council estate ever built. It is referred to by the tenants as a barracks or prison. It contains all the prerequisites for vandalism to which the hon. Member seeks to draw attention in his Bill.

Few of us would claim to be able to give an adequate causal definition of vandalism on council housing estates. We could all argue about the nature of the people who occupy the houses but we would learn nothing from that sort of exercise. We might learn a great deal from looking at the type of housing that we have provided. If one provides a seven-storey block with 28 units of accommodation per floor, amounting to about 200 units in a block, and throws together families with small children, with little opportunity to pursue a worthwhile life, vandalism is likely.

The Bill suggests that people who occupy council estates with some social deprivation—which stems from a variety of causes—should be given the collective responsibility for vandalism which may