asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what immediate plans she has for improving educational provision for the 16-to-19 age group.

The rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 will enable local education authorities, if they so choose, to devote extra resources to this age group. Other current initiatives include the additions to educational building programmes for next year which were announced recently, the youth opportunities programme, the expansion of further education announced in association with this, and the pilot schemes for unified vocational preparation, directed to young people in employment.

I welcome the Minister's remarks about what the Department is presently doing, but does he agree that the times has come to phase out discretionary grants completely and to ensure that young people in this age group have the right to a full-time education, should they wish?

The cost of phasing out discrentionary grants entirely would be enormous but, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there is at present a survey of local authorities to see how discretionary grants are operating. It is hoped that this will be available for Ministers this week or next week.

Will the Minister go beyond that and ask the Prime Minister to set up, as a matter of urgency, a review into the work of all the Departments and agencies involved in the grants in this area, and into the fees policy? It is a total mess, and there are gross disincentives for young people doing full-time courses in the craft and technician areas that we all want to see expanded.

I think there is a great deal of agreement in the House about these matters. We need, first, to have the facts from the review of what local authorities are doing, and then we can consider any action that may be necessary on those facts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increasing evidence that young people and their parents, particularly from lower income groups, are now aware of the discrepancies in the system of support and are playing one element against another, often to the detriment of their education? Is my hon. Friend aware that barbarian local education authorities, such as my own Tory-controlled authority in Shropshire, propose to have virtually no discretionary grants next year?

Again, I think we have to look at the review and see the difference in pattern between different authorities before we decide on any action.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her estimate of the current level of truancy in secondary schools in England and Wales at the latest available date.

A survey in 1974 of attend- ance in all maintained middle and secondary schools in England and Wales showed that just over 2 per cent. of pupils were absent without a known legitimate reason on the day of the survey. On the basis of a number of more recent local surveys of which we are aware, this proportion seems to have remained more or less constant.

Is it not true that in some schools in inner city areas the truancy absenteeism is of the order of 50 per cent? Is it not also likely that for those who play physical truant there are many more playing mental truant? Is it not, therefore, apparent that some alternative means need to be devised whereby we can assist in preparing for work many young people who will otherwise be kissing goodbye to the education system?

I know of no evidence to suggest that the figure the hon. Gentleman quotes, of 50 per cent. absence, is substantially correct. If he knows of any examples I should be grateful if he would let me know. Certainly we are aware of the problem of keeping the interest of young people, particularly in their last year at school. There has been a great deal of discussion and work on how to do this through, for example, work experience schemes.

Is the hon. Lady aware that a court appearance accompanied by an appropriate warning can often have a salutary effect both on the truant and his or her parent? Is she satisfied that education and welfare officers are aware of their powers, and will she ensure that they are fully used?

I am satisfied that education and welfare officers know their powers and that they use them. However, it is known from some of the recent surveys that in quite a number of cases parents are consenting to the absence of their children. But it is for the local authorities to decide—and they do so usually on sound grounds—when and how they intend to bring a prosecution.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of becoming obsessed with the problem of truancy and forgetting about the important rôle of the education and welfare officer and the service that he can provide particularly with regard to school clothes and other items that are mentioned in a later Question?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her policy in relation to the placement by local education authorities of children in schools in the private sector of education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give figures indicating the number of fee-paying places taken up by local education authorities in independent and voluntary schools for each year since 1970.

The Government are committed to reducing local education authorities' take-up of places at non-maintained schools to the minimum required in the light of the criteria set out in my Department's circular 6/77, and I therefore expect a substantial drop in the number of places over the next few years. In 1976–77 just under 6,000 new places were taken up by English authorities under standing arrangements with non-maintained schools—about 2,200 of these at independent schools and the rest at direct grant schools. The figures do not include handicapped pupils or arrangements made in respect of other pupils on an individual basis. I regret that figures are not available for earlier years.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts in the rate support grant, particularly in areas like Berkshire—together with her very tough attitude—are making it increasingly difficult for local education authorities to provide the parental choice for single-sex and denominational schools that they would wish?

We have made it quite clear in our circular that the only ground upon which local authorities should take places in independent schools is if there is an absolute shortage of provision in the maintained system or an absolute shortage of provision in the denominational system. It is not part of our policy to make these places available simply for academic purposes.

Will my right hon. Friend say how many such places have been approved for the years 1978 and 1979? Is she pursuing discussions with the Chancellor regarding the wastage of public money in relation to the charitable status of independent schools?

On the first point, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we have gone only a very short way in getting returns, because the period has not yet elapsed. However, it is clear that there will be an overall reduction of at least 25 per cent. in these places in the current year. That, of course, includes those children who started and, therefore, carry on to the end of the period—which is normally accepted by local authorities. The second part of my hon. Friend's question goes much wider than myself, but I can say that studies and investigations are being made.

Is not the effect of the Secretary of State's policy to deprive parents of modest means of educational opportunity? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, exactly. Is the right hon. Lady not encouraging parental choice in theory but denying it in practice? Is that what she intends, or is it perhaps that her right hand does not know what her left hand is doing?

The Secretary of State's right and left hands work harmoniously together. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely clear, in our view, that a system which enables parents to choose places in independent schools, with authorities paying for them, is a system that will wreck the effort to get higher standards in the maintained sector. Within this sector we believe that many parental wishes can be met but we are quite clear that the first priority is the attainment of high standards in maintained schools.

Is it true that the Government themselves are proposing to set up a special private school for the children of European scientists who will be working on the JET project?

It is not a private school. Discussions are going on about whether there should be a school which meets European qualifications for those pupils who come here from Community countries. Of course, the baccalaureate is normally the qualification which they need. However, my hon. Friend would be wrong in assuming that this will be an independent school in the sense that we understand it.

Surely the Secretary of State cannot possibly support her statement that the use of—

Order. We must have questions and not arguments.

It was a question, Mr. Speaker. How can the right hon. Lady support her statement that the use of the private education system would wreck the maintained system when the foundation of that system—the 1944 Act—envisaged the use of the private school because local authorities have to see that schools are available, and do not have to provide them?

The hon. Gentleman appears to forget that since the 1944 Act there has been a 1976 Act, which gave me the power, among other things, to restrict places in independent schools. The House, by its own vote, is now committed to comprehensive education, and creaming off a substantial number of children to independent schools is simply not compatible with good comprehensive education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she remains satisfied with the levels of grant available to pupils for distinctive clothing—school uniform—educational maintenance allowances, and help with travel to and from school costs; and what steps she is taking to improve this help, particularly to pupils whose parents have very low incomes.

We have never been satisfied with the level of educational welfare benefits available to pupils whose parents have very low incomes and we are continuing to seek ways of improving the arrangements within present financial constraints.

Does my hon. Friend realise that low-income families, faced with the high cost of education, believe that she and her Department have a callous disregard for their problems, since all they get is sympathy and promises but no action? When will my hon. Friend show that she really cares by taking some positive action?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have had many discussions with the people involved in this area. It is true to say that we are sympathetic, but many of the steps that my hon. Friend wishes to see carried out would require legislation.

Is the Minister aware that part of the Question refers to school transport? In view of the fact that in Bedfordshire children over 14 who live 2·8 miles away from the school have to pay a full bus fare, when will the Government make alterations in the rules governing school transport?

We have been trying for a considerable time to get local authorities and their associations to agree to changes in the provision of school transport, but so far they have been unwilling to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the transport costs for the parents of disabled children who have to attend special schools a great distance away are often particularly onerous? Will she enter into discussions, particularly with Lancashire County Council, about the anomalies that exist there, where children can be taken to a special school for the deaf in one town yet next door they have to be taken by their parents, who are also of limited means?

I shall follow up the point that my hon. Friend has made, but I am not sure whether I entirely understood him to say that in both cases the children were handicapped. We are look-at the general question of school transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received from Leeds City Council concerning the financial resources available for education in the city.

I met representatives of the authority this month to discuss school building allocations. Its allocation of £916,000 for 1977–78 has now been increased by a total of £535,000. Last week it asked that its 1978–79 allocation of £990,000 should be increased to £2·6 million. This request is still being considered. The authority has been invited to bid for allocations under the £17 million programme in 1978–79 to assist secondary reorganisation recently announced by my right hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that part of my constituency is now in the city of Leeds? It is true that the schools in the old part of my constituency are excellent, but will my hon. Friend note that now that I have to take some interest in the city of Leeds I am aware of the need to reappraise the whole situation so that we can get rid of the Dickensian schools in the old part of the city?

We are considering the authority's request for £2·6 million, and I emphasise that in terms of the reorganisation money, there is a possibility that some of the £17 million for secondary schools in 1978–79 will be available for Leeds.

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that there is an increased allocation. However, is he aware that it does nothing for the school in my constituency, the Castleton primary school, which has been referred to as a scandal school and which has had its roof propped up for three years? If no further resources are forthcoming, the children will have to continue to be educated in the most squalid conditions. Can he give them any hope for the immediate future?

I never cease to admire the tenacity of my hon. Friend in raising the problems of Castleton primary school on every possible occasion. The authority has not yet included the school in a building programme, but it appears on the list of projects covered by the request for an additional £1·6 million in 1978–79.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is aware that the Cambridgeshire Education Authority has had to make cuts in its education services because of lack of rate support grant; what steps she proposes to take to help the authority to overcome this problem in the current financial year; and whether she will give an undertaking that adequate funds will be made available for improving educational services in the coming financial year.

Yes, Sir. The rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 offers some measure of protection to local authorities like Cambridgeshire who lost grant in 1977–78. I understand that the authority's share of grant next year should differ only fractionally from its 1977–78 share. For details of the settlement, I refer the right hon. Member to the rep12, given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 18th November.—[Vol. 939, c. 389–9.]

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the situation in Cambridgeshire is most unsatisfactory and that in the coming financial year, following severe cuts and great increases in the present financial year, further cuts will have to be made in education services despite a 20 per cent. increase in rates? Is the right hon. Lady satisfied with that sort of education provision in Cambridgeshire?

I am not satisfied. However, it must be made clear that Cambridgeshire made proposals for a cut in the education budget of £1·75 million in the coming year before it knew the result of the rate support grant settlement. I understand that its decisions were provisional, and, further, that since the difference is at most a fractional one it is up to the authority now to reconsider what were very drastic proposals.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to comment upon the general effect of rate support grant on teacher employment across the country?

Yes. If teacher numbers were to follow the school population, which will fall by more than 100,000 between 1977–78 and 1978–79, there would be a reduction overall of 3,700 teaching posts. In fact what we have done is to make provision for an additional 1,000 teachers in deprived areas, an additional 1,800 teachers to allow the induction year to start, an additional 1,700 teachers to allow in-service training, and an additional 6,800 teachers to allow an operating margin in the light of falling rolls. Altogether, this means that in the rate support grant settlement there will be 11,300 more teaching posts than there would have been if the RSG had not been altered in this way.

I allowed that question to be answered, but it goes far beyond the Question on the Order Paper.

In view of the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment in distributing rate support grant, does the right hon. Lady feel that her Department has sufficient powers to ensure adequate education standards for the children of Cambridgeshire?

The hon. Gentleman will know, since he and his hon. Friends frequently talk to me about teacher unemployment, that one of the matters that I am most concerned about is the absence of specific powers to make sure that rate support grant is spent on education when it is allocated for education. This means that everything I say about the rate support grant settlement depends on whether local authorities spend the money that has been made available for that purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations she has had with the Lancashire County Council Education Authority about the introduction of a fully comprehensive system of secondary education; and if she will make a statement.

Officials have had numerous discussions with the authority's officers during recent weeks about various schemes for the comprehensive reorganisation of schools in Lancashire.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot have comprehensive education where there is a scattering of comprehensive schools in a selective system? Will she press the Lancashire County Council, therefore, to get rid of the hotch-potch in Rossendale and ensure that when it is replaced we do not get the kind of system that has been proposed by the county council for Burnley?

We are indeed opposed to the retention of selective schools, and I understand that in Lancashire only 21 schools remain selective. We hope to see speedy progress towards their change to comprehensive schools. As for the schemes that may be put forward, this is a matter for the authority at this stage.

Is the hon. Lady aware that last Sunday night a substantial proportion of Wellacre secondary school was burned to the ground? Will she ask her right hon. Friend to undertake to give every assistance to the Trafford Education Authority to see that proper provision is made for the accommodation of the children and for the rebuilding of those classrooms?

It is up to the authority to give priority to problems of this kind. However, we normally look sympathetically at such difficulties.

Does not my hon. Friend consider it absurd that, with comprehensive education having been introduced in Ormskirk, the governors of the former Ormskirk Grammar School should now wish to maintain that name for the school—a reflection on the snobbishness of the governors and those who support them, and something that will be socially divisive? Will my hon. Friend assure me that she will take positive action to ensure that that name does not remain in being?

I am not sure that I have any power to take such action. But I must agree that it is an extraordinary step to take. I wonder whether it comes within the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Acts as an inaccurate description.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take to improve university teachers' pay and to remove disparities in their pay as compared with that of other sectors.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 21st November.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the undergraduate student population has increased by 6·5 per cent., with only a very marginal increase of 0·07 per cent. in staff? Will she therefore consider discussing with the universities a productivity deal comparable with those negotiated in industry as a possible route to the rectification of university teachers' salary anomalies, and will she treat the matter with the utmost urgency?

This matter has also been brought to my attention by the Association of University Teachers. There is no difference between us in taking the view that there has been an anomaly arising from the failure to pay the cost of living award in 1975, which was caught by the pay policy in the case of university teachers but not in the ease of further education teachers. The Government's view is that this anomaly must be put right as soon as the pay policy makes that possible.

What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to develop an integrated salary structure for all academic staff in the higher education sector?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. He will appreciate that one of the problems is that the two sectors are represented by different organisations. It is my long-term wish to rationalise further the salary payments for further education teachers in non-advanced courses and teachers in sixth-form schools.

Is the Secretary of State aware how deep is the discontent of university teachers, who feel that the way that they have been treated since 1975 indicates that this Government are anti-academic staff and anti-university? Is she aware also that phases 1 and 2 of the incomes policy discriminate against highly trained and qualified staff and that one-fifth of the staff at the London School of Economics emigrated to America in 1976 to escape the present pay policy here?

First, I am aware that many university teachers feel that there is a serious anomaly. Secondly, I am aware—because a number of them have said as much to me—that university teachers believe that the Government's pay policy is essential to the economic survival of the country. Thirdly, I am bound to say that the Opposition constantly play ducks and drakes with this policy and that it would be a very good idea if they came out with the truth.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps she intends to take to improve the capacity of the education system to meet the requirements of British industry.

My Department's review of local education authorities' curricular arrangements for schools includes questions about the preparation of pupils for working life. Other important new initiatives include the development of enriched engineering degree courses and the introduction of an industrial scholarship scheme to start in 1978–79. We are seeking to extend and to improve links between education and industry and to raise the level of understanding of industry among teachers, students and pupils at all levels of education.

Does the Minister agree that neither from the point of view of all the number of additional extra places announced by the Secretary of State earlier nor in terms of the extra sum of money announced in the last few weeks, is there anything allocated to careers teaching, particularly the kind that involves work sampling and work experience? Should we not have a new urgent strategy if we are to take seriously the problem of cooperation between industry and school? Even the Minister of State a few weeks ago said——

Order. The supplementary question is developing into a speech.

Does the Minister agree that one cannot just sit around? Will he say what the Government intend to do?

We are far from sitting around. The specific point about careers teachers and craft teachers was mentioned in the Green Paper published this summer. My right hon. Friend and I never cease to take the opportunity to stress the importance of industrial and educational links. It is a matter of attitude and, in the interests of the nation, those attitudes must be changed.

Although British industry may need more skills, may I ask my hon. Friend whether it needs more workers? Should not education increasingly be concerned with providing, for people of all ages, a constructive alternative to unemployment?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but we are faced with the ironic situation that in a country with about 1·5 million unemployed, many industries still have an acute shortage of skilled people. This is a matter which the careers and education services between them must try to solve.

Since we have already had a Select Committee report on this subject, a White Paper in reply to it, and a Green Paper, is it not time for the Minister to use his influence with the Lord President of the Council to arrange for an early debate on this subject?

That is a matter for the Lord President of the Council and this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she plans to implement Section 10 of the Education Act 1976 on the integration of handicapped children.

The integration of handicapped children is already taking place in varying degrees. Section 10 will make this development a statutory obligation, but my right hon. Friend will await the report of the Warnock Committee early next year before deciding precisely when and how the section should be implemented in all areas.

In moving to a fuller integration of handicapped children, will the Minister take account of the continuing needs of severely handicapped children—including the blind, the deaf and the mentally handicapped—in special schools? Will she also take account of the need to raise the school leaving age for those children to re-establish the gap that previously existed, in order to enable those children to catch up with normal children?

It is already possible for local authorities to make arrangements for children who suffer from the difficulty of not being able to catch up by the age of 16 to stay on in school. Many local authorities seek to do this. At present it is a matter of the availability of finance. We have no plans at present to raise the school leaving age.

Why is the Department making such heavy weather of these minor difficulties? Is it that Ministers lack the enthusiasm and will to implement this section?

No, Sir. We are most concerned about these children. We feel that they should not suffer but should actively benefit from provision made in this respect. We have consulted on these matters, and I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that we should await the Warnock Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to issue the circular asking local authorities to report on curricular arrangements in their areas.

Today, Sir.

Having issued her circular to local authorities, will the right hon. Lady do everything she can to persuade the National Union of Teachers to reconsider the negative advice given to its members in responding to the circular? Secondly, how does she respond to the idea that there might be a natural break at age 14, before which adherence to a common curriculum is necessary and thereafter a more diverse prescription?

I regret that the National Union of Teachers has been reluctant to co-operate fully on curriculum review, although we have had many consultations with them and other teaching organisations. I think that on reflection they will appreciate that there is no wish on the part of my Department to take over central control of the curriculum, but rather to draw the attention to matters of national concern in education, many of which have been pointed to by Select Committees of this House. Perhaps the NUT will reconsider its attitude.

On the second part of the question, I believe that we specialise too early in English and Welsh schools, although I would not wish to see a natural break at 14. I am sure that we should maintain science for those studying arts and arts for those studying science to a later stage than we now do.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question of curriculum is one which teachers will not easily put into the hands of other people? Therefore, it is not a bad thing that they should be worried about this matter. Does she further agree that it is always a good thing in education not to make rapid changes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The Tory Party wants to make no changes at all. Is it not a fact that people should discuss these matters at great length before coming to a decision?

Yes. I understand what my hon. Friend says about the genuine concern of teachers for their own professional rôle. I hope that he will assure the NUT, of which he is a prominent member, that there is no intention on my part to try to take central control of curriculum. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will appreciate that matters such as multi-racial education, sex discrimination in schools, and the extraordinary provision of mathematical syllabuses, of which there are now over 40, are subjects of genuine concern to this House and my Department, but it is not illegitimate for us to draw our concern to the attention of education authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice her Department offers local education authorities on the composition of school boards of governors.

Most of the advice given in the 1944 memorandum "Principles of Government in Maintained Secondary Schools", which is reproduced on page 102 of "The Law of Education" by Taylor and Saunders, is still valid. No general advice has been given since then, but I welcome the recommendations of the Taylor Committee on this matter and am consulting interested parties about them.

Does the Minister agree that those authorities such as the city of Manchester, which still use their school sub-committees as a kind of omnibus governing body for all schools rather than using individual governors for schools, are falling below the standards that are currently required?

It is a matter for local authorities how they organise these matters. I appreciate that the Taylor Report recommended different constitutions, and we are consulting about them. No doubt Manchester and other authorities will make their views known.

The barbarian Tory county council of Humberside has changed the composition of all school boards in Hull. Is my hon. Friend aware that it has liquidated the places of all sixth-form pupils, who gave such good advice to people on those boards. I fully understand——

I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, but will he ask a question?

Will the Department consider issuing some form of circular to local education authorities on this matter?

We have asked local education authorities to comment on the Taylor Report proposals, which very much bear on this question. However, I agree that it is not in the education interests of an authority to remove all governors and thus deprive itself of the experience of governing bodies which have given good service for many years.

Will the Minister say when the House will debate the Taylor Report, since we are still awaiting a debate on the Bullock Report, which was put before this House two years ago.

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer to all the points raised from this side of the House on this matter is to take away from counties the powers which they should never have acquired over education and to give back those powers to the cities, from which they should never have been taken?

I am aware that my hon. and learned Friend has strong views on this matter, but that aspect of it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what practical steps she intends to take to ensure that parents are more closely involved in making decisions in schools attended by their children.

My Department issued on 25th November a circular underlining the importance of providing full and detailed information about schools for all parents. If the parliamentary timetable permits, I also hope to introduce legislation to provide that each school should have its own governing body and that a proportion of the governors should be parents of children at the school, elected by the parents themselves.

While welcoming the contents of the circular, I should like to know whether the Secretary of State is aware that many parents are concerned about discipline in schools. Will she ensure that where parental views conflict with those of the educational establishment at any school, in the overall policy of discipline, equal, if not greater, weight will be given to the parents' views?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that if there are governors representing the interests of parents on school governing bodies, it will be for them to give their opinions on these matters. It is perhaps particularly in such extra-curricular matters that parents' views can have a special influence.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a far more intelligent policy to put the emphasis on parental involvement in the development of schools rather than to throw emphasis—as the Opposition are so keen to do—solely on the parental choice between schools?

Parental involvement in the government of schools is extremely important because most parents send their children to the nearest school. However, it is worth saying, loud and clear, that this is the first circular ever to have been issued by any Government asking that parents should receive information about schools. That shows where the authentic concern for parents really lies.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that we welcome this circular, which closely follows the recommendations of our parents' charter of 1974—there has been three years' delay, but better late than never—but that there is one glaring omission in it? Does she realise that she has made no request for local education authorities to publish something in which parents are intensely interested, namely, the education records of schools?

The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Education for four years, and during that time no circular about information for parents was issued. Perhaps actions speak louder than words, to quote a famous proverb.

On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many men and women are currently obtaining the teaching certificate each year; and if she will make a statement about its future status.

An estimated 4,100 men and 14,500 women will have obtained the non-graduate certificate in the 1976–77 academic year. The numbers have been declining each year since 1971, and this will continue. I told the House on 27th July that the last general entry to the certificate course will be in 1979–80. Its status for present holders and those obtaining it from training begun before then is not affected.

Is the Minister aware that many unemployed teachers are finding their certificates of little or no use in obtaining employment outside education? Given the time span, is there not a case for phasing out this certificate sooner rather than later?

Many colleges are running courses for such certificates and 1979–80 will he the earliest moment at which they can be phased out.

Are there not dangers in having all graduate recruitment for teachers, particularly if the graduates are recruited almost immmediately from college? How are we to get in schools people whose knowledge of life is sufficiently extensive to provide a reasonable educational background?

There are certain exemptions affecting mature students with specialised qualifications in business studies, music, craft, design and technology, and courses for them will continue until 1983–84.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will introduce legislation to increase parental choice of schools.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I told the House of my legislative proposals during the debate on the Queen's Speech on 4th November.

I thank the right hon. Lady.

Does the Secretary of State agree that local and parish councils should continue to appoint a representative to school managing and governing bodies because, as often as not, such councils go out of their way to appoint a parent? Is that not part of the objectives that the Secretary of State is trying to achieve?

The Taylor Report recommended that minor authorities should no longer have the right to nominate governors. I am giving serious consideration to that recommendation, because I am not absolutely certain that the report was right in that matter.

asked the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev to seek agreement on the proposed five years' moratorium on all nuclear test explosions; and if, as a contribution to the success of the discussions, he will undertake to end unconditionally and henceforth British test explosions at Nevada or elsewhere.

I should be glad to meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev if at any time this seemed the best way to advance the tripartite negotiations on a comprehensive test ban.

Any decision to halt nuclear testing while the negotiations are proceeding should be taken by all the participants. A unilateral decision by this country would not improve the prospects of achieving our objective of a permanent treaty banning all nuclear explosions.

What possible advantage can there be to Britain in further tests if the Government do not intend a new generation of nuclear weapons, which they have already renounced? Would not this move help to meet our legal and moral obligations under the non-proliferation treaty?

The answer is "No" to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. There are technical reasons for continuing the tests—as the United States and the Soviet Union both obviously feel, because they conduct far more tests than we do. Our moral position is certainly in line with that of other countries and I have often repeated to my hon. Friend—although he never accepts it—that Britain's influence in talks is far greater if we are there, because we are involved in the matter, than it would be if we had unilaterally decided to opt out.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is still Government policy to take all effective measures necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent?

Yes, that is the reason for carrying out tests.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in testing a weapon unless we are prepared to use it in some circumstances? Will he explain in what circumstances we would be prepared to use it?

If one wishes to have a deterrent, it is clearly necessary that it should be known to deter.

Will the Prime Minister reinforce the statement made by Chancellor Schmidt to the Institute of Strategic Studies that if the West were to give up its nuclear weapons it would be in an extremely weak position, in view of the overwhelming conventional forces of the Soviet Union?

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is increasing its conventional forces, and strategic studies show that it is doing so to a much greater extent than is the West. In relation to strategic nuclear weapons, there is probably a balance of terror on both sides, and for that reason I believe that we can look forward to a period of detente.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Belgrade.

I have been invited to visit Yugoslavia, and hope to he able to take up the invitation in due course.

When my right hon. Friend goes to Yugoslavia and, in the meantime, through our representatives at the Belgrade Conference, will he confirm that the Government will continue to stand firm in assuring the Soviet authorities that there can be no permanent detente while the Soviet Union continues to trample on human rights, persecute the Jewish minority and humble great Soviet citizens like Academicians Levitch and Sharanski?

The United Kingdom, in company with other members of the Nine, and on a wider basis in Europe, has made clear its position on the cases. It is that detente will have a fuller meaning when it brings progress on human rights to a much higher level than it has done so far.

Since the Prime Minister's support for the issue of human rights is not in question, if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to attend the Belgrade meeting during its time of sitting, will he at least see that our representatives there draw to the attention of the Soviet Union the fact that for monitoring the Helsinki agreement Professor Yuri Orlov has been in detention for nine months without being brought to trial—which is in breach of the Soviet Union's criminal code? A lawyer from this country has been refused a visa to represent the professor, and observer status has been refused to those of us who wish to attend the trial. Does this not show that the Soviet Union is being totally hypocritical in giving effect to Basket III? Can it be pointed out to the Soviet Union that it cannot expect to receive technical and economic co-operation from the West unless it is prepared to honour the agreement to which President Brezhnev gave his name?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the comments that he made at the beginning of his question. As for the position of individuals, the Belgrade meeting is not a forum in which individual cases can be resolved. They—as I have explained to the House on many occasions—are better resolved in different forums. Belgrade is the arena in which principles and their implementation should be discussed, and it is on those lines that the British representatives are conducting matters.

As to the cases of Mr. Orlov and Mr. Sharanski, who are at the moment held in detention, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Soviet Government are fully aware of the deep concern felt in this country by many citizens about the treatment of these two gentlemen.

In considering the question of human rights at Belgrade, has my right hon. Friend instructed our representative to raise the question of the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus, which is a sovereign State and a member of the Commonwealth that has been invaded by foreign troops from a country that is a co-signatory to the Helsinki Final Act, and a State in which human rights have been trampled underfoot in the most disgraceful way, resulting in the disappearance of 2,000 Greek Cypriots, 200 of whom have been clearly identified as being in the hands of Turkey but of whom no trace can be found?

I am not certain whether the agenda of the Belgrade meeting is meant to cover the discussion of that serious matter, but I shall put my hon. Friend's point to the Foreign Secretary. It would be very helpful if the Turkish Government began discussions with the Greek Cypriots in such a way as to enable a settlement of this matter to he achieved and the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island of Cyprus to be obtained.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Basket III of the Helsinki agreement included the free movement of peoples? Will he make clear to Mr. Brezhnev, privately if he wishes, that until the Berlin Wall is pulled down and the death strip torn up there can be little credibility in the good intentions of the Soviet Government?

The Soviet Union is in no doubt of our view on this matter, nor is the Government of the GDR. I took the occasion of the visit of the governing mayor of Berlin last week to make clear publicly where we stand on this matter. We shall give full support to West Berlin in carrying out the quadripartite agreement and ensuring that there is as full a movement as possible between East and West Berlin.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC and the CBI.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 10th November.

When he met the TUC and the CBI, did my right hon. Friend discuss with them the considerable and remarkable improvement in the British economy? [Interruption.] I know that this improvement is bound to cause irritation to the Conservative Party in its anti-British campaign, which it reveals in this House, in the country and overseas. Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC and the CBI the effects that this improvement could have on wage negotiations and price stabilisation?

I constantly point out to trade union conferences and at all my meetings with trade unions that what is happening to inflation and the decrease in the rate of inflation has profound consequences in preserving our competitiveness, preserving jobs and raising the standard of life of our people. That, together with the tax reductions that are now working through—I believe that some are being paid this week—and the prospects for real growth next year, which are significantly better than for some years, should lead, as my hon. Friend indicated in the last part of his question, to moderation in wage claims and settlements. That is the best way to preserve the prospects for increased growth next year.

Will the Prime Minister say when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House about the unprecedented losses of the British Steel Corporation, which arc now reported to amount to £500 million a year?

I answered questions on this subject last week. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry have begun discussions on these matters, and when they are brought to a conclusion a report will be made to the House.

Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that it is no part of his strategy to use the revenue from North Sea oil to keep going wealth-consuming jobs rather than allow the revenue to be used to generate wealth-creating jobs?

As a general proposition, that is wholly unexceptionable, but I take it that the right hon. Lady is not suggesting that because of the world recession we should allow the British steel industry to collapse.

In future meetings with the TUC and CBI—[Interruption.]—will the Prime Minister continue to lay stress on the importance of the 10 per cent. guideline? [Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his question.

I am asking a perfectly serious question about the importance of adhering to the 10 per cent. guideline. Did the Prime Minister maintain that in his meeting with the Fire Brigades Union this morning? If so, what sort of response did he get?

If the House will forgive me, I do not wish to go into the details of my discussions with the FBU this morning. I set out my view very fully and they fully understand the position of the Government. In my view there is no doubt that the firemen have a substantial case for determining a long-term formula which will fix their position. I have indicated this to them and have also tried to indicate to them—without giving any positive assurances, because we were not negotiating—that I would see whether we could underwrite such a long-term agreement if one were reached. But it is not possible for the Government in present circumstances to depart from the 10 per cent. guideline. We are not fighting the firemen; I am fighting for the overall objective of keeping inflation down and jobs up.

Will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that the Government will underwrite the firemen's long-term pay formula to the same extent that they have undertaken to underwrite the findings of the independent inquiry into the police?

There have been no undertakings given on either count. I should prefer not to be pressed on this matter when negotiations are being conducted. They are not best conducted across the Floor of the House.

When the Prime Minister next meets Mr. Jack Jones and the TUC, will he tell Mr. Jones and the Transport and General Workers Union what sanctions he thinks the Government should apply to them for giving themselves increases of more than 10 per cent?

I am not acquainted with what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he will put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Employment, I am sure that he will get an adequate reply.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 29th November.

This morning I met at their request the Executive Council of the Fire Brigades Union. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall also be attending a reception given by the United Kingdom Pilots Association and this evening I shall be addressing the Institution of Production Engineers at its annual dinner.

During his busy day, will the Prime Minister find time to confirm the fascinating report in The Times today that states that when the Prime Minister met the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party yesterday he remonstrated with it and told its members that they owed their position in this place to the Liberal Party? Is not the reality that the Liberal Party owes its existence to the continuance of the Labour Government?

I do not think that I shall find time to read the "fascinating reports", to use the hon. Gentleman's words. I agree that they are fascinating. Sometimes it is much more fascinating to read the reports than to be present at the meetings.

Did my right hon. Friend contact the Indian Government yesterday, or will he do so today or tomorrow, about the devastation and loss of human life that has been taking place in India? Has British aid been offered? If so, what form is it taking?

Yes. Last Tuesday Prime Minister Desai and I spoke on the telephone about that and other matters. On that day, when the reports were coming through, I at once offered any assistance that the High Commission in Delhi could give him. Since then my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development has offered help, and some has been dispatched. I understood from Prime Minister Desai that the Indian Government hope to be able to handle the grave problem themselves, but I am sure that the House would have allowed me, as I did, to express on its behalf, and on behalf of everyone, our sympathy and our regret that such distress has been caused.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in the counter-inflation statement that he made on 20th July, when we were to enter into the consensus society under his Government, I asked him what would happen if one party did not consent. I asked him whether his Government would confront or surrender, and he replied "Neither". Did he by any chance mean "Both"?

No. As usual, I meant what I said. We are not in a position of confrontation at the moment. Certainly the firemen do not think that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have met their executive and hon. Members have not. The firemen recognise very well the dilemma in which the country is now plunged, when there is a great deal of sympathy for the firemen's case but, on the other hand, an understanding that in a structured wage system such as we have, that which is given to one goes through the whole system, and that that cannot be permitted.

I beg to move Amendment No. 94 in page 7, line 33, at end insert

"which has not been passed prior to the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly being held as laid down by section (7) of this Act"

With this we may take Amendment No. 95, in page 7, line 33, at end insert

"but such amendment or repeal shall have effect only after a draft has been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament".

In these amendments and in this clause we are coming to the heart of the Bill and to the heart of the objections that many of us on all sides of the House feel towards it. Above all we are dealing with the legislative provisions of the Bill which, more than any others, create implications for the unity of the United Kingdom and for the supreme authority of Parliament. Indeed, I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House will recall Clause 1 which has been struck out of the Bill, which stated precisely that nothing in the Bill shall

"affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament".

The amendments are intended to make clear beyond peradventure what the Government have maintained throughout—namely, that there is nothing in fact or in constitutional doctrine that will impair the supreme authority of this Parliament. My amendments are designed to achieve that.

I wish to put three general points to the Minister of State. First, if the Scottish Assembly, as this clause maintains, is to have power to repeal Acts of Parliament within the areas of its competence, it must be regarded as a parallel and in some ways as a rival authority to this place. That cannot be gainsaid because under the Bill the Assembly could pass an Act and this Parliament could pass an Act to reverse the Assembly Act. But then the Assembly could repeal that Act of Parliament which reversed the Assembly's original decision.

I am advised that that is precisely the position. The Scottish Assembly passes a Bill within the area of its competence, and this House, on the advice of the Secretary of State, concludes that that Bill should not stand—for various reasons of national policy, not because it is extra vires. This House can then pass an Act to overcome that Scottish Bill. But there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Scottish Assembly from then using its powers to repeal that Act of Parliament. That illustrates the absurdity of creating a rival authority that is capable of repealing Acts of this House which in turn may illegitimate some action of the Scottish Assembly.

Could not this Parliament then repeal the repealing Act?

Indeed it could. We could have a ping-pong game between Westminster and Edinburgh. This is exactly what we all, including the Minister of State, wish to avoid. It cannot be right to create a situation where either Assembly is put in a position of repealing or repassing each other's Acts.

Before the hon. Member impales himself too firmly on the horns of a dilemma, I must say to him that if this Parliament wished to repeal an Act of the Scottish Assembly it could entrench the position and ensure that it could not happen again.

Let us put such a provision into the Bill. The Minister is illustrating that he has not thought of this. Let him accept the amendments because they would achieve his purpose. Unless these amendments, or something like them, are accepted, the purpose of the late and unlamented Clause 1 will not be achieved and the supreme authority of this place will be in doubt.

My second point is that throughout the debates that we shall have on these amendments and on this clause, we shall be dealing with the generation of legislative powers. It is the granting of legislative powers, not of executive powers, that raises the whole issue of the number and the rôle of Scottish and Welsh MPs. It raises the West Lothian question—and I pay tribute once again to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

No longer will Parliament be legislating for Scotland. Scottish MPs will be able to vote on matters that concern England but not when they concern Scotland. If executive powers alone were to be devolved, the Secretary of State would be as answerable to the House as is his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the way in which local authorities operate their powers. It would not be quite the same but it would not be very different.

The granting of legislative power is separate. It is through that grant of legislative power that the executive will be able to act in totally new ways in the devolved sphere. From that devolution of legislative powers would flow the danger of creating totally new and divergent policies. It is this principle behind the devolution of legislative power that is important rather than the actual effect of the handover of power. After all, in regard to many of these areas which are being devolved from time to time, Parliament is already leaving legislation to the Scottish Grand Committee.

No.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute this, perhaps he would be interested in some figures. I would be very happy to give them to the Scottish nationalists. The figures might even help the Minister of State, who needs all the help that he can get.

The hon. Gentleman is in much more need of help than I am if he thinks that the Scottish Grand Committee legislates.

I did not say that. I said that Parliament leaves the practice of legislation to the Scottish Grand Committee. Lest there be any doubt about the matter, may I be allowed to say something about it, since I did once serve on the Scottish Grand Committee? There was a time, when I first came to the House, when it was difficult to fill the Scottish Grand Committee with enough English Conservative Members, and I did my apprenticeship there.

Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, because I think that the hon. Gentleman might listen before he objects. Between June 1970 and March 1977 the Scottish Grand Committee took the Second Reading of 22 Bills. Four Bills were not referred to the Committee because the House of Commons objected on two of the four occasions, for quite technical reasons. Nineteen Scottish Bills were at the same time taken on the Floor of the House, though in the case of only five was there any Division on Second Reading. This demonstrates that I was correct in saying that Parliament leaves the task of this type of legislation—much of it non-contentious—to the Scottish Grand Committee.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting confused. For a start, does the hon. Member not appreciate that so far as the Scottish Grand Committee is concerned the votes are taken on the Floor of the House? To that extent, we cannot be said to be legislating.

The hon. Gentleman's argument is confused even further. In Scotland the main argument of the Conservative Party against the Scotland Bill is, oddly, that it means that Scottish Members will be able to vote on English matters. Yet the hon. Member has pointed out that English Members serve on the Scottish Grand Committee and vote on Scottish matters.

This has been and is, rightly, the position in the Scottish Grand Committee, but it will cease to be so once this devolution measure goes through.

The point that I am making—the hon. Gentleman is very assiduous in these matters—is that it is the devolution of legislative power, not so much executive power, that creates the new situation. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to see a total devolution or a total suppression of these powers. I want to see the opposite. The act of devolving legislative power from this House is the heart of the matter. Executive power can be and is controlled, for example, in the case of the county councils.

Surely, the hon. Gentleman has not quite got the distinction. It is not, with great respect, the case that the Secretary of State is responsible for executive decisions which are within the sphere of local government. The point is that there is local government everywhere and, therefore, all Members of the House are in the same position in regard to their responsibilities for matters which have been executively devolved to local government.

I do not disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on this matter, but I proceed with the main point that I am making. What distinguishes this Bill, and what will create the difficulty, is devolution from this House of the ability to legislate to the Scottish Assembly. It is to that that I am objecting, and it is that which the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) wishes to see.

Before we leave this. reference to the Scottish Grand Com- mittee, would the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) not agree that all that happens is that the Second Reading of certain Bills, provided 12 Members do not object, is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, and the Scottish Standing Committee does the Committee stages of Scottish Bills but those Bills have to come back for Report and Third Reading to the Floor of this House? It is a gross misrepresentation of the present situation to say that the Scottish Grand Committee, or any other Committee, thereby legislates.

The Minister of State describes it quite accurately, but I do not think that he is disagreeing with my principal point. At the moment we leave to the Scottish Grand Committee the responsibilities for dealing with a lot of those matters in detail. That is right. We achieved it within the Westminster Parliament. But the difference is that, if this Bill were to be passed without my amendments, a new situation would arise in which we no longer had a Scottish Grand Committee doing a job on behalf of the House and, quite fairly, reporting back to it for decision. From the start of separation of this House we have something quite new. We have a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers and, as far as I can make out, the ability to oppose or repeal other Acts of Parliament of this House through its own separate legislative competence.

That is the heart of the matter. I am sorry that the Minister of State has misunderstood my point. I am saying that at the moment we achieve a degree of delegation of legislative functions to the Grand Committee, responsible to us, which is our normal procedure. In the case of this Bill, we shall be creating a new creature with separate legislative powers.

The third general point is that, in the procedures of this Bill, if I read them correctly, Scotland, at a stroke—if I may use that phrase—would be converted to a single-chamber system of government. There would be no procedure to iron out faults in its Bills, and we would—almost by sleight of hand, as this has not been fully canvassed with public opinion—be removing for all time the functions of the House of Lords from the very wide areas for which the Scottish Parliament henceforth will be responsible.

We should be removing for all time the competence of the House of Lords to give scrutiny to the Bills which concern a very wide range of matters to be devolved, and that general point needs to be brought out.

My last general point is simply about the technical question of repeal. The question is whether Parliament can repeal for ever an Act that is passed by the Assembly. Even if Clause 1, or the part of it referring to Parliament's powers

"to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it",

were to be restored, Clause 18(2) says clearly:

"A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament."

So even if Parliament passed an Act to reverse an Act of the Scottish Assembly, as I read the Bill the Assembly could then reverse that Act. There is nothing in the Bill that makes that point clear, and it is therefore necessary to introduce amendments of this kind.

I turn now to the detail. Let us take for example the retrospection position. Supposing the Assembly were to decide that it wished to change, repeal or alter some Act of this Parliament already on the statute book in respect of Scottish education or local government, or something of the sort. It would by that Act be creating an entirely new situation within Scotland. It may well be that that is what the Minister visualises.

I give an example—the Zetland County Council Act, covering the Shetland Islands. There were not, it must be said, very extensive debates on that legislation when it came to this House, and I have to confess that, until such time as I was recently privileged to go to Shetland, I had not appreciated the significance of the Act for the Shetland Islands or, through the Shetland Islands, for the whole country because of the special significance of the Shetlands in respect of the landing of oil. But there is no doubt that it is a local government Act and that it would fall within the competence of the Assembly.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he tells me that it is not a local government Act and would not fall within the competence of the Assembly, that might curtail my remarks. It would be a considerable "plus" if we were told that that Act was immune from action by the Assembly.

If the hon. Gentleman will read the Press, he will see that I have written to the Chief Executive of Shetland County Council answering some of these points, which were made to me by members of the delegation which came to see me. This is a long and complicated matter. The hon. Gentleman should remember that neither energy nor ports is to be devolved. That is an important factor to take into account.

I was aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter, although I have not studied it. But, with great respect to him, it is one thing for him to write a letter—and I am glad that he has done so—and an entirely different thing to leave an Act of Parliament open on this question. My understanding is that, although the oil and the financial aspects are not devolved powers, the reality of the Zetland County Council Act is that it confers by way of the local government machine particular powers to the council which are unique, and since they are local government powers—and I speak as one who had some responsibility for local government for some time—I do not believe that any letter that the hon. Gentleman writes can take away what Parliament gave to the Shetland County Council by Act of this House.

It cannot be right that the Scottish Assembly, once it is set up, because it has authority over local government, should be able to reach back into the past and amend, repeal or modify in any way an Act of this House which, in respect of the Shetlands, conferred particular powers in respect of planning and of the attracting and build-up of a fund which will be used to assist the pastoral, fishing and other industries of the Shetlands for the future, and which also creates in the Shetlands a particular system of local government which is quite different, because it is a single-tier authority, from the rest of this country.

There precisely is one example—and there are many others—where, if these amendments are not accepted, the Scottish Assembly will have the retrospective power to reach back into the past and change fundamental Acts of this House in respect of certain areas—namely, the Shetlands. I think that it cannot be right for it to be able to do so.

The hon. Gentleman is making great play of whether the Assembly would have power to deal with the special position of the Shetlands. What guarantee have the Shetlanders that this House would regard that Act as entrenched?

The Shetlands have no right to seek to bind the omnicompetence of this House. This House is sovereign—and the hon. Gentleman is right to point that out. The difference is that, for the first time, we shall have removed the omnicompetence of this House to determine what shall happen in any part of the United Kingdom—in this instance, the Shetlands—and we shall be devolving that power on to another body, the Scottish Assembly, which, as I read the Bill, would be capable of altering, amending, repealing or modifying that fundamental Act of this House in respect of the Shetland Islands. That is a power that ought not to be conferred on a parallel or rival body. That is precisely why Amendment No. 95 has been put down, for it would make that impossible without further action on the part of this House. That is an example of the retrospective action which could be taken and which I believe ought to be prevented.

Surely there is no way that one can say that that would be retrospective action, any more than it world be retrospective of this House to repeal an Act existing now.

It would be a case of reaching back into the past and altering an Act of this House, and the alteration would he made by some other body. In my view, that is retrospection.

I want now to deal with a more serious matter, the future effect of the Scottish Assembly being able to amend or repeal an Act of this House. Manifestly. as the Minister will no doubt point out, the Assembly can only repeal Acts Acts of this House or amend within the areas of its competence. I am aware of the rather complicated procedures—one looks at the next clause, which refers one to the schedule, which sets out in detail what are the areas where the Assembly is not supposed to treat. For example, there is the question of what is to happen for the future.

I think that for the sake of clarity and brevity I should give two examples which divide the two sides of the House. Let us suppose that a Conservative Government with a sizeable majority was returned to Westminster and that the Administration, exercising their powers as the Westminster Parliament, were massively to extend the frontiers of private health care and private education, thus, in the eyes of Labour Members, reducing the extent of public provision in these two areas. Surely it should be within the supreme authority of the British Parliament to extend those decisions to Scotland. It would be quite intolerable if, given the supreme authority of this place under the Government's Bill, they were then prevented from exercising that authority in Scotland.

Let me take the reverse. Let us suppose that a strong Labour Government were returned to Westminster and that they set out to abolish private health care and private education, as one day they might seek to do. It would be within the supreme authority of this Parliament to do that. But are we then to be told that this House could be prevented by the Bill from extending such statutes to Scotland, and that if it attempted to do so the Scottish Assembly, which might have a Conservative majority, could then repeal such statutes?

The Minister must tell us whether this House will have the ability to extend its decisions to Scotland, given that the Scottish Assembly might have a different political majority from Westminster and given that as the Bill stands the Assembly could simply repeal the Westminster Act. This is a fundamental issue. It would create tension between Westminster and Edinburgh, and I am concerned about that.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be condemning himself out of his own mouth with the Big Brother attitude that he is adopting. Does he recognise that Scottish education, to take just one example, has always been dealt with separately under the existing unitary arrangements? In that case would it not be right and proper for the Scottish electorate, who arc consumers of the education system, to have the right to decide what educational structure should exist in Scotland?

I go a long way with the hon. Member. I strongly believe in the delegation and devolution of powers from one part of the United Kingdom to another. But I am concerned here with the powers of the British Parliament. As the Bill stands, unless these amendments are made or something to their effect is carried out, the position is clear. The United Kingdom Parliament could take decisions about health, education, local government and other matters, but as the Bill stands the Scottish Assembly could then repeal, modify or alter the decisions of the House. That could not he right under a unitary system.

I can imagine many situations in which the Westminster Government might consider it to be in the national interest to extend legislation to Scotland. This might be based on reasons connected with the balance of payments, with the European Community, or with international or domestic political matters. If this House decided to change the educational system on, for example, comprehensives or standards in schools, or to change the health system in terms of the financing or staffing of the hospital system, it would be logical to extend the changes to every part of the United Kingdom.

I accept that the Scottish nationalists want out altogether. I do not. If the Minister of State believes in what he said in the debates on Clause 1, and if he believes in the language of the next clause and the schedule that this Parliament shall retain its supreme authority, he should provide in the Bill, first, that the Scottish Assembly shall not be able to repeal or amend Acts of this House. Secondly, he should provide that there will not be a ping-pong match—it might be something much more severe than that—back and forth between Westminster and the Edinburgh Assembly. Thirdly, he should provide that in any event—here I turn to Amendment No. 95—before there is any amendment by the Assembly of an Act of this House, a draft of that proposed amendment or repeal should be laid before this House so that hon. Members could consider it, and that it should be effective only if there were an affirmative resolution of each House in favour of it.

Labour Members may well take the view—since they have a different attitude to the other place from me—that it would be sufficient for an affirmative order sustaining the Scottish repeal of our legislation to be carried by this House alone. I would not agree with that, although I would not quarrel with it if that were their view. What is important, however, is that if a majority Government at Westminster wish to apply to Scotland measures relating to education, health or local government, it should not be open to the Scottish Assembly to scrap any Act without that proposition having been laid in draft before this House for consideration of the implications for the nation as a whole.

If we are searching for a sporting metaphor in reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I suggest that the sport should be boxing, karate, judo, or one of the more violent sports. It should not be ping-pong.

I wish to return to the question of the Shetland letter. I asked in the Library this morning, as others may have done, for a copy of the letter, but it was not forthcoming. I do not rebuke the Minister of State for that, but I repeat the suggestion that I put to Ministers before the debates began. We are entitled to ask for it because both in public and in private I have said that the deficiencies of the Bill have nothing to do with bad drafting or sloppy presentation, and that the Scotland and Wales Bills are the work of able Ministers and clever and conscientious civil servants doing almost the best possible job from their point of view.

In case there is any misunderstanding about the letter, let me explain that the Library asked my office to provide it for the Library, and that it was immediately provided.

I asked for it this morning. That is all I can report.

In the circumstances of a guillotine on a constitutional measure, may I suggest that if a Question is asked in the House the Member asking it has certain rights. He has the right, first, to a reply within 24 hours simply saying whether the Front Bench considers it worthy of serious answer. Secondly, he has the right to know whether it is irrelevant; thirdly, whether it would be unduly costly to answer; and, fourthly, whether it is unanswerable. If it is considered worthy of serious answer, there should be a reply within a week and a copy of the reply should be placed in the Library for all hon. Members to see, with another copy put on tile for the Press Gallery. It seems that that would be an orderly way of setting about these difficult matters.

4.15 p.m.

In the past couple of weeks, when I have been voting from time to time—not, in my view, in the Conservative Lobby, nor for any Conservative amendments, which I opposed, but against my own Government—I have been asked with varying degrees of tact and politeness "What is different about you?" The truth is that there is only one thing different about me. It is that ever since May 1962, three weeks before polling day in the by-election in West Lothian, I have had an SNP candidate as my chief opponent, so I have had 15 years of contention, not three, as most of my hon. Friends have had. This focuses the mind wonderfully on what the SNP is all about and what gives it electoral success.

This brings me directly to Clauses 18 and 19, and the observation, born out of a decade and a half's experience, that SNP electoral success does not come from a desire for more laws, further legislation or even, on the whole, for different laws. Let no English Member of Parliament imagine that the Scots are thirsty for a string of Acts from a Scottish Assembly or that they want a basinful of Scottish legislation from a devoluted Parliament with the hallmark "Made at the Royal High School" stamped all over it. or that this will quench the thirst of the SNP stalwarts and romantics who want a separate State.

These things are a little difficult to prove, and I will explain why In the summer of 1969 I undertook for the late Dick Crossman a survey of 1,000 homes in my constituency on attitudes towards a contracting-out scheme to try to obtain more kidneys for transplants. I spent 42 days doing this and received a lot of relevant comment. In 1976 I decided to do roughly the same thing on devolution. In contrast to my experience seven years earlier I was met on that occasion with polite amazement on the doorstep. The same people who were perfectly prepared to talk to me about the destination of their kidneys were not nearly so forthcoming on devolution. I must say to my hon. Friend the Government Whip that I was second in the Ballot for this Friday for Private Member's business, and I shall be raising the question of kidney donors, not devolution, for which Government Ministers will be grateful.

The people I met were not forthcoming on devolution. Sometimes I was asked to explain what it was all about, but more often I was met with remarks of "An Assembly? Devolution?" and slightly embarrassed wonderment. But they added "While you are here, you are just the man I want to see about my drains. my fence and my tax problems at Centre One at East Kilbride. Why are they charging me too much income tax?" My survey ended in despair of getting a cross-section of my constituents to talk to me properly about devolution. They would certainly talk about many other subjects, but not about devolution. Tinkering with the constitution, though it may lead to a separate Scottish State, will not dissuade those who are minded to vote for the Scottish National Party.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the late Richard Crossman. Has his attention been drawn to Mr. Crossman's expression of the philosophy of nationalism? He said:

"It is a concomitant of a nation—an essential of freedom."

That is on page 193 of his book "Planning for Freedom".

That is another instance of where the late Dick Crossman, whom I admired greatly, was wrong.

It is true that Scottish Members do receive complaints, almost always from those directly affected about, for example, the difference between Scottish and English divorce laws or between Scottish and English licensing laws. If any hon. Member answered a complaining constituent by saying that there was not enough parliamentary time to do what he or she wanted done, such an answer would be palpably an excuse and not a reason.

The reason why the change in the Scottish licensing laws took so long to achieve is that there were deeply held convictions, and diametrically opposed convictions, among Scottish Members of Parliament themselves. It is wrong to blame either the English or the Westminster system for that, and anyone who did so would be taking an easy way out.

A lot of people say that there is a great need for reform of Scottish law. What is less clear is that there is great agreement on how Scottish law should be reformed. Once a consensus is achieved on what to do, Westminster will present few hurdles to its being done. For example, as the Minister of State knows, I should like to see the law on stated case procedure in relation to police officers altered. The stumbling block is not Westminster. It is diverse opinions among Scottish lawyers ——

Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have great admiration for the way in which he pursues these matters in this Committee, but I must put it to him that he is going rather wide of the amendments before us, which deal with a rather narrow point.

I am centring home on the guts of the issue, Mr. Murton. One can play musical chairs with laws, but changing laws without cost will not satisfy those whose expectations have been aroused by Assembly candidates.

How many people come to our surgeries saying "We want an alteration to Section 34(3)(V)(e) of the Rent Act"? What they say is "We want our house repaired more quickly." Such laws as the Scottish Assembly will want to pass will certainly cost more money.

This is where we come back to the subjects raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The grievances, real or imagined, of people in Scotland are seldom related to a shortage of laws or too little legislation. On the contrary, I am sure that the voters of all parties in West Lothian are convinced that there are too many laws already—certainly not too few. Yet here we are in the House of Commons solemnly passing laws to set up a subordinate Parliament which will churn out yet more laws. If the 150 Assembly persons in that subordinate Parliament fail to churn out more laws, how on earth will they justify themselves and their salaries?

We come back, therefore, to the situation posed by Clauses 18 and 19. What will happen is obvious. First, to fill up its time, the Assembly will meddle with local government, with hospital boards, with universities and any other body or thing on which it can try to get its clutches. That is one possibility.

A Second Reading point.

It is not entirely a Second Reading point. What we are discussing is the production of legislation, a legislation factory. Second, since it cannot take up all its time in meddling with the local authorities and so on, it will do something else, and that will be squabbling with London. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds called it ping-pong. We need not use too many sporting metaphors, but this will be an increasingly sour and uneasy relationship.

Clauses 18 and 19 do not provide the occasion to say too much about local government, but I must refer here to the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)—whom we miss so much in these debates—in the Sunday Mail to the effect that he would abolish the regions. That is meddling with local government. Incidentally, we do not make any decision more local by abolishing the regions. This means either centralisation in Edinburgh or 50 to 60 all-purpose local authorities.

I put it solemnly and seriously to the Committee that people like me are the best devolvers of decision making of the lot. It is just that we are not quite so good at the jargon as some hon. Members are. We really believe in local government. The regions are more local than an Assembly in Edinburgh could be, and they are settling down, beginning to be a success and beginning to work. Of course, they had teething troubles. But the idea of those who think as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian does, that one can wave a wand and do away with the regions, is nonsense. The cost is mind-boggling, and in any case it has nothing to do with bringing decision making more locally to those who are affected by the decisions, and to claim that an Assembly in Edinburgh will bring government closer to the people is sheer cant.

I shall not go into what was said in the Sunday Mail—I leave that to my hon. Friend—but there would in practice be fruitful argument about competences. Any meaningful Housing Act in Scotland would need, or be thought to need, more than a Scottish share of the national cake. I refer at this point to what was said at one point in his speech on 22nd November by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison):

"I imagine that in Scotland, as in England, in an election campaign not merely great national matters are raised but one is asked about local issues. People ask 'What will you do to get a hospital here? What will you do to get a road here, or to improve the schools in this area?' Scottish candidates will have to say 'I am sorry, but these powers have been taken away from us by our own decision and handed to an Assembly in Scotland.' Are they happy in their hearts about what they will be voting for?"

At that point, I asked the hon. Gentleman to give way, and he responded in these terms:

"I am sure that I should quite agree with what the hon. Member for West Lothian is about to say, but because of the guillotine I must press on."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1344–5.]

I must tell the hon. Member for Aylesbury that it is not true that Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster would be expected to do nothing about it. The hon. Gentleman's understanding is incomplete to the point of being wrong. If we said that we had nothing to do with housing, back would come the answer "But it has a great deal to do with housing and to do with you." People would say that it is our job to extract more money from the English for the Assemblymen who cannot honour promises.

The truth is that, in the eyes of many people our main task as 71 Scottish Members of Parliament, mongrel Members—I repeat the phrase "mongrel Members of the House of Commons", for that is what we should be—would be to come here to extract cash from the Treasury in England for the Assembly. That would be our major responsibility. This is a situation which could not possibly endure, and there would in fact be endless arguments about powers.

Returning directly to Clause 18, I shall now quote from a letter sent to me by a young——

Order. The Chair has been very tolerant, but I should be grateful if the hon. Member, as well as referring to Clause 18, would refer to the amendments which we are discussing.

It is directly related to the amendment, Mr. Murton, and the passage is very short. Mr. Brian Fairley, of the West Lothian Constituency Labour Party, did me the kindness of reading a book which I wrote, and he put a point to me in these terms:

"On page 27, paragraph 1, regarding the budget proposals for the Assembly, you make an important point regarding overspending. However, you may have missed a more important point, that is, could the Assembly deliberately overspend in order to have the block grant increased?"

This clever young man says:

"Supposing you have a Labour-controlled Assembly and a Tory Parliament. The Tories order cuts in expenditure, and the grant is cut accordingly. The Labour Assembly then deliberately sanctions finance for massive housing developments all over Scotland. Then the Assembly tells Parliament that unless the grant is increased the health service in Scotland will collapse due to lack of finance."

All I can say is that we have very perceptive young Socialists in the West Lothian constituency. That is a basic point which at some stage will have to be answered.

We come back once more to the argument that we cannot have a subordinate Parliament in part, and only part, of a unitary State. The leader writer of the Glasgow Herald may think that this Bill is starting off a great democratic adventure. I will concede that no one else has tried this particular experiment. Why?—because people have coolly thought about it and realised that it is bound to fail, and Clauses 18 and 19 epitomise some of the basic reasons why it is bound to end up as something very different from that which my hon. Friends intended.

I rise merely to tell the Committee that in our view the amendments raise profound matters at the absolute centre of the Government's scheme for devolution, but matters that can be dealt with most effectively by Amendment No. 247. Although I agree in large part with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I do not wish to take the time of the Committee, in view of the extremely curtailed guillotine procedure under which we are operating and suffering, by expanding on the issue. If I catch the eye of the Chair I hope to give my views when we debate Amendment No. 247.

Whatever may be thought about the amendments in general, the question of Shetland has been raised on them, and I feel bound to say few words about it.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, will no doubt explain the effect of Clauses 18 and 19, but it seems to me that one answer to the fears of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is that Clause 18 is subject to Clause 19. Clause 18 begins:

"Subject to section 19 of this Act, the Assembly may make laws".

But that is only subject to Section 19, which says:

"A Scottish Assembly Act shall be law only if or to the extent that it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly."

Subject to what the Minister says, I believe that that rules out much ping-pong.

Although I hope later to make a longer speech about what I take to be the views of my constituents in Shetland—not necessarily only those of the Shetland Island Council, but, as I understand them, the varying views of the Shetlanders—it might be useful at this stage to clear up one or two points. First, there are two Acts of importance to Shetland. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned both, but I am not sure that he clearly distinguished between them.

There is the Act by which the Shetland Island Council was created. That was part of the general change of local government in Scotland. It is true that that Act can be amended or revoked by this Parliament or the Assembly. It is true that no Parliament and no Assembly— indeed, no local authority—can bind its successor. It may be that in the course of time the Shetland Island Council itself will wish to have new powers, and if so it will be entitled to ask for them. But at present, as far as I know, no party proposes to diminish the Council's powers in any way—certainly not the Liberal Party, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Scottish National Party. Therefore, at any rate for the time being, it is a fairly remote possibility. I suppose that it is possible that Plaid Cymru might suddenly come forward with drastic proposals, but, short of that, it is a bogy which need not worry us too desperately.

The other Act is the Zetland County Council Act, giving the Council certain powers in relation to oil and related matters. I must tell the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that it is untrue that the Act has not been considered. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) objected to it, quite properly. As a result of his objections, we had a prolonged debate in the House. The measure was then, again quite properly, debated further in the House and examined for no less than a fortnight in Edinburgh. A Committee of the House travelled to Shetland to look into the whole matter. It is not true that we have had no opportunity of finding out what the Act says. It gave the Zetland County Council originally, and now the Island Council, certain powers in regard to oil and harbours.

To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that I objected to the measure because that was the only procedure by which that important matter could be debated in the House. My only reason for objecting was that I thought that it should be debated.

That is only partially the true story. The hon. Gentleman was got at by one of the principal opponents of the measure in Shetland and took up the matter at his behest. However, I do not intend to go on about this. The hon. Gentleman had the right to have the measure debated here, and he had it debated. It is not true to say that it was not debated in the House, because it was debated here and in Edinburgh and Shetland