asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the savings to public expenditure by the increase last year in the number of children joining independent preparatory schools.

The number of pupils aged between 5 and 12 in independent schools of all kinds was 6,500 higher in January 1980 than a year previously. The average recurrent cost of educating that number of pupils in maintained schools this year is estimated to be about £4 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he had the doubtful privilege of reading a book called "Private Schools" issued by the Labour Party? Does he agree that the savings to the public purse that he has instanced are a tiny proportion of the estimate of at least £1,500 million that would be the cost if the Labour Party's plans were implemented? Does this not constitute a most vicious attack on parental choice?

My hon. Friend is right. I have to disabuse him about my having read the document, but I have read press reports about it, as have my colleagues on the Government Front Bench. Everyone in the country has a right to be deeply concerned about this intrusion on freedom. My hon. Friend referred to the likely cost of £1,500 million if this so-called 10-year programme were to be implemented. It could be in excess of that figure. In addition, about £400 million is now saved to the taxpayer by parents who send their children to independent schools.

Even the £4 million, let alone the £400 million, that is saved would be useful to pay for the integrated education provisions which the Warnock report recommended and for which the Government have not voted any money.

There are many purposes to which any savings in the education service could be directed. Those who have read press reports of the joint document issued by the Labour Party and the TUC will realise that it is thoroughly irresponsible. As usual, the Shadow spokesman on education is leading with his mouth rather than with his brain. In many cases he has not acknowledged the massive cost or the massive injection of money from overseas pupils at independent schools. About 35,000 pupils a year come to this country, representing a significant contribution to our balance of payments.

If the Minister is so confident on this issue, will he accept the challenge by the Opposition and publish a detailed paper on the supposed savings to public funds? Will he detail in that paper the handsome subsidies that many parents who use the private sector of education get from the tax system? Will he also detail the large subsidies that local authorities give to the private sector through buying places in that sector? At a time when there is rioting in the streets of many of our cities, does the hon. gentleman not see the cost to the community of an education system which divides children on the basis of class rather than strengthens their common humanity?

The only divisiveness comes from the Opposition Benches. On frequent occasions in the past 18 months my right hon. and learned Friend and I have published figures of the estimated savings and the estimated cost to the Government of pupils entering independent education. There is no question of the Government's publishing a paper. Those figures have always been readily available to the nearest approximation when requested by Opposition Members.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increased number of students receiving private education must, unhappily, be a reflection on the maintained sector, since parents are prepared to pay so much to send their children to private schools?

I wish to make it clear that the independent and the maintained sectors can help each other. There are no doubt many reasons why this figure has grown over the past 18 months to two years. We are the party of freedom of choice, and we believe that parents should be allowed to spend their money how they wish. In Committee last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and I listened to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) talking about compassion and freedom. That was pure claptrap and humbug.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South West (Mr. Butcher) Official Report, 16 June, c. 849, he will ensure that the Government will provide for the continuance of the increase in the number of children in nursery classes.

Our allocation to local authorities for capital expenditure on education building allows for the provision of about 2,000 new nursery places per year, which should cater for about 4,000 children.

Does the Minister accept that a positive programme of nursery education would help to stabilise the inner cities and the declining industrial areas of the United Kingdom? Does he further accept that some parents in these unfortunate areas need guidance and some form of parental training to assist them in these difficult times? Does he also accept that the introduction of early education might enable him to forge a worthwhile link between parents and institutions of the State?

The Government, like the previous two Governments, have tried to help nursery education within the resources available. Giving priority to nursery education for the handicapped and those in city centre areas with intense problems is a policy that we shall continue.

Would not a better solution be for nursery classes to be somewhat curtailed so that working mothers could spend more time with their children, improve family life and help to reduce unemployment'?

The Government have said that we shall move towards the provision of nursery education for those parents who desire it. I take the point made by my hon. Friend. In the long run, the only way to solve childhood delinquency is by strengthening, not weakening, the family. That should never be forgotten.

As the Government are being educated about Labour Party policy after the next election, does the hon. Gentleman not consider that it is about time that nursery education was made part of the State system for all children aged 3 to 5 whose parents need and want it?

The simple answer is "No". The Government have said that nursery education should be provided for those who want it. It should not be compulsory for those who do not want it. The best pupil-teacher ratio of all is one parent to one child at home.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest estimate of the total reduction in university income resulting from both the overseas student fees policy and the decrease in the recurrent grant.

The reduction in universities' total income for 1980–81 as a result of the overseas students fees policy and the reduction in recurrent grant is provisionally estimated to be about £30 million, or less than 2½ per cent. of universities recurrent income. No reliable estimate is available of the reduction in universities' total income for 1981–82 because of uncertainties about student numbers and fee income.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that estimates of £55 million have been made as the possible reduction caused by the policy on overseas students' fees? Even if it is less, can he honestly state any purposes of public policy that are served by the Government's intentions on overseas students?

Of course I can. The answer, as I have made clear, is to reduce the indiscriminate subsidy going from the taxpayer to all overseas students, irrespective of their personal financial situation and of the wealth or otherwise of the countries from which they come.

Has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been called to an article by Lord Balogh in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, which calls for a complete review of higher and further education as a whole? Does this not fit in neatly with the contribution made to the debate last Wednesday by the hon. Member for Cambridge?

I listened to my hon. Friend's speech last Wednesday—which I thought was extremely good—and I shall read with interest Lord Balogh's article, which I am sure will be equally good.

If, as the universities calculate, the cuts over the next three years will mean an excess of 17 per cent. and a fall of 20,000 in student numbers, will the Minister say what the DES has done to calculate two further figures? First, how many students next year and the following year will not now get university places, and what will happen about those who have already been given conditional acceptances? Has the Department any information on whether those acceptances are valid in law, or what will be position be? Finally, will the Minister say what the position is on the buying out of the academic staff who have now been made redundant? Is he aware that figures have been brought to our attention suggesting that those amounts may be 10 times more than the paltry sum that has been set aside by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman asked many questions, and I shall do my best to answer them.

Order. The ration is one.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should ask the hon. Gentleman to choose which one. However, I shall try to deal with them all.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the principal of Aberdeen university has described the Government's proposals through the UGC as a sin against knowledge and has likened the effects of Government policy to the educational vacuum that followed the Chinese cultural revolution and the book-burning in Nazi Germany? Faced with such savage criticism by a very moderate person, will he think again about the cuts in university finances?

If the vice-chancellor made those statements—

The principal.

The principal seems to be guilty of the exaggeration that one normally expects from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from members of the public and interested parties on the different methods of selection for places in secondary schools conducted by local authorities by geographical, catchment-area, transport, and sibling-related criteria.

Local education authorities are free to make their own arrangements for admissions to schools in their area, and in general my right hon. and learned Friend has no role to play in this. However, the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend are often raised in the context of individual admission cases and occasionally by objectors to proposals made by local education authorities under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is, of course, a matter for local authorities to determine. However, would he consider it a good idea for the Department to give guidance about the design, style and content of the forms which parents have to fill in at the initial stage? Will he further consider the possibility of modernising and improving the appeals procedure and the option of parents being interviewed, at least for the first part of their appeal, so that their up-to-date views can be heard?

That theme was an integral part of the Education Act 1980. All those criteria are echoed not only in the Act, but in the regulations which are about to be issued. They are all important factors. The intention of the 1980 Act was to pursue those important objectives.

Does the Minister agree that all the matters about which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) complains were foretold and forewarned in the Committee stage of that legislation, and that the problems have all come home to roost?

Not at all. There was much exaggeration on the part of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in Committee on that Bill. The matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred form an integral part of the intention of the Education Act 1980 that parents should be fully involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now introduce a system of school grants for 16 to 19-year-olds; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are keeping the arrangements for financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds under review but have no plans at present for changes.

Does the Minister realise that there are many advantages in using the 16 to 19-year-olds' school grant as part of a package to reduce the impact of unemployment? Is he aware that there is no sense in sending school leavers on to a saturated labour market, some of them ending up as part of the slave labour trade in the Manpower Services Commission's scheme at £23·50 a week? Would it not be sensible to keep those who want to stay on, on a voluntary basis, under the school grant system, thus providing for a few more skilled teachers to be employed?

At the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question I thought that he was serious about this important issue. However, as usual, unhappily, some of his comments became a little destructive and perhaps jaundiced.

Does the Minister agree that there is now a positive financial incentive for young people to leave school at the earliest opportunity? Does he further agree that in areas such as the North-East, where participation rates are particularly low, education maintenance allowances would be an essential element in encouraging many more young peole to stay on at school, thus avoiding going on to the unemployment registers?

The hon. Gentleman has a detailed understanding of the problem, and I pay tribute to him for that. My right hon. and learned Friend and I and other Ministers have made clear our objectives regarding maintenance allowances. We believe that it is important for young people to stay on in education for as long as they can. It is worth noting that in England and Wales £3·7 million was paid in 1979–80 by local education authorities in maintenance allowances. That is not an insignificant sum in school education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which subject courses he expects will be most affected as a result of the decisions of the University Grants Committee following the reduction of Government grant to the universities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the expected reduction in the number of university students over the next five years in courses of science and engineering; and what is the comparable figure for students of the humanities.

The student number targets set by the University Grants Committee on the basis of its allocation of grant for 1981–82 and its provisional indications to 1983–84 provide for a fall of 8·4 per cent. in the number of arts-based students and a fall of 1 per cent. in the number of science-based students, compared with 1979–80. Within this overall reduction, however, the Committee has provided for increases in medicine, in physical and mathematical sciences, and in engineering and technology.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if the rationalisation of university finance on which the Government have embarked results in a reduction in the endless surfeit of sociologists and social scientists, he will be popular with many people? Will he confirm that it will also strenthen the country's scientific and technological base, on which much of our future prosperity must depend?

I can assure my hon. Friend that it strengthens the technological base. There is an increase of 2 per cent. in engineering and technology, an increase of 3 per cent. in mathematics, and an increase of 7 per cent. in physical sciences. Cuts are being made not on subjects which are going to be needed in greater numbers in the future but on subjects which are possibly going to be in less national demand.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should maintain the number of technological places in our universities? I draw to his attention the plight of Salford university, which is having to resort to very severe cuts? Should not the University Grants Committee be compelled to explain the reasons for its actions?

I appreciate the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings about Salford. The remit of the University Grants Committee is the rationalisation of provision. If every university in the country provided laboratories and libraries in every subject, the cost would be tremendous. The UGC has looked at the matter nationally. It has increased the number of technological and science students by rationalisation and by ensuring that the money goes as far as possible.

Does the Minister agree with what the UGC has done at Aston, Bradford and Salford?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. We support what the University Grants Committee has done. A lump sum goes to "the UGC" as it has done every year since 1919. By convention we accepted, as we always have, the advice which it has given us. Nationally, there is no doubt that the money will be spent more efficiently, although I appreciate the hard feelings that must be felt by people in areas which are the subject of rationalisation.

rose—

Order. I shall call the Front Bench Member but that means that I shall not be able to call as many Back 13enchers as I would have done.

Will the Minister answer my question?

I thought that I had answered it. I said that the Government support the decisions made by the University Grants Committee. Nationally, there is no doubt that the money will go further and be spent more effectively. I am not commenting on every decision made by the University Grants Committee. If we did that, we might as well do the lot ourselves and not leave it to the UGC.

Did the UGC not make it clear, rightly or wrongly, that it wanted the numbers of social studies students to be reduced but that it wished staff numbers to remain the same and for more research to be done?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that the UGC has said that the student ratio for social studies is so high that research is not being done. By decreasing the number of students on the social science side, the research level will be raised. The hon. Gentleman is right.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to the remark that you made when most of those now present were not in the Chamber? Rightly, we make no objection when you give preference to Front Benchers, especially those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, who often do not table questions but come in on hon. Members' questions. But then they take liberties by asking three or four supplementary questions, thus infringing the rights of hon. Members who have taken the trouble to table questions. With respect, Mr. Speaker, this matter is within your control. I have heard you, rightly, stop Back Benchers from asking more than one supplementary question. May I ask you to ensure that there are fair shares for all, including Front Benchers?

As the House will probably have noticed, I was making a conscious effort to try to reach question No. 4 at least during Prime Minister's questions. I was hoping to achieve that today. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) had a substantive question on the Order Paper. I have tried to encourage substantive rather than open questions. I shall give consideration to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not expedite the passage of Question Time if the hooligans of the Right and Left were to contain themselves and allow the proceedings of Parliament to proceed along the lines set out in the many letters that you, Mr. Speaker. have received deploring the ya-boo politics of the discredited political parties?

Order. I hope that I receive no more letters of that sort, because it is not I who am making the noise. If such letters are sent, they should be sent to Members who represent the constituents who write the letters and not to me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise the strength of criticism about noise in the House, which is reflected in the letters that are sent to you. I hope that in your replies to the writers of such letters you indicate that noise in the House is frequently associated with genuine feeling and emotion about the conduct of the Government, and that one of the ways in which Ministers are tested and deterred from doing stupid things is by having to face a racket in the House. Anyone who has stood at the Dispatch Box knows what a salutary means of enforcing democratic rule that is. The noise that we make in the Chamber is part of the way in which we serve our constituents.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have stood at the Dispatch Box. I always liked the House to listen to what I had to say.

rose—

Order. I think that we have had enough points of order on these matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are concerned about the reputation of the House, would it not help its reputation if those elected to this place in the name of a party and who resign from that party—

That is not a point of order for me. I suggest that we move on to the statement by the Lord Privy Seal.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

It will be unfair to those who have to stay late into the night if we spend our time now on issues that have not so far been points of order. If the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) is seeking to make a point of order, I hope that it is a genuine point that relates to the rules of the House.

I make what I genuinely believe to be a proper point of order. I make it to assist you, Mr. Speaker. As one of the Back Benchers who feel exasperated when you, Mr. Speaker, in trying to be fair, have to call hon. Members representing other parties, such as the Social Democratic Party, at Question Time, may I ask, when considering whom to call, that you bear in mind, for example, the 48 questions directed to the Prime Minister that appear on the Order Paper today? None of those questions has been tabled by the Social Democrats. Will you bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker, when you are deciding who should be called?

Go back to Moscow.

Order. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) may be giving me good advice.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the provision of textbooks in schools.

I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 16 June.

Since the Secretary of State's inspectorate has expressed grave disquiet at the position in many secondary schools, is it not incumbent on the Minister to do something to remedy the position? Is it not disgraceful, at a time when we need to encourage the ability and talent of our young people, that the Government are denying them that opportunity through cuts in the education services, including cuts in the provision of textbooks? Does the Minister accept that, at the same time, the Government are prepared to embark on expenditure of at least between £5 billion to £6 billion to produce means of extermination? Does the Minister think that they are the best priorities?

In the answer on 16 June I expressed concern about the shortage of textbooks in certain parts of the country. For that reason, at least in national overall planning, we had assumed a 2 per cent. increase in rate support grant for expenditure on equipment and books. I repeat that I think that textbook expenditure is an important part of education. I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman into the latter part of his argument.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how the total expenditure on books compares with the cost of implementing the Labour Party's proposal to abolish private education?

Yes, certainly. The answer is that the overall expenditure on books in the country, at current prices, is about £60 million a year. The cost of implementing the Labour Party's proposals would be £400 million a year. Many people will feel that it is far better to spend money on books than to spend six times that amount on merely providing for the State to educate children whose parents are at the moment prepared to pay for their education.

Is it not a fact that many people who produce textbooks and cater for other needs in schools are faced with a catastrophic fall in demand for their products? What sense is there in rendering unemployed people who might produce goods for schools, when pupils are being forced to go without these goods?

There is nothing particularly novel in the fact that in certain areas there is a shortage of school books. Of course, if there is a shortage of school books there will have been a reduction in sales by educational book manufacturers. However, many such manufacturers have substantial markets overseas as well as in Britain. I repeat, we have assumed a slight increase in expenditure on school books. I remind the House, as I have reminded it before, that expenditure was 33 per cent. a year less when the last Government left office than when they took office.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into the growing use by schools of textbooks containing questions with special spaces for the answers to be written straight into the book, which is subsequently thrown away? Does he agree that that seems extraordinarily wasteful when contrasted with the traditional method of the child writing the answer to the question either into an exercise book or on to a piece of paper, the textbook being retained and passed on to other children?

I am not sure why the use of such text-books should prevent pupils writing the answer into their exercise books rather than into the book itself. Clearly, one does not want wastage of books by unnecessarily throwing them away. However, the type of textbook used must be for the individual schools and the local education authorities to decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what importance he attaches to parental choice and expression of parental support for a school when considering proposals to reduce or close maintained schools.

My right hon. and learned Friend attaches great importance to the views of parents, alongside the wide range of educational and other factors that he has to take into account when making a decision.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a great deal of support from parents for many schools, particularly village and denominational schools. Although there must be good reason to reduce the expected vast surplus of school places over the next few years, does the Minister agree that such places should be found from the least popular schools rather than from the most popular schools?

I accept the theme of what my hon. Friend says. Each proposal is considered on its merits by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. All those factors are taken into account in each case that comes to my Department. In relation to my hon. Friend's anxiety, he must observe that the educational content of each school is an integral part of each consideration.

Does the Minister agree with the recent statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts to the effect that if schools have to be closed, voluntary and county schools should be closed broadly in the same proportions as were the teacher training colleges?

If that question is directed at me personally I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have not read the exact evidence given. I take note of what he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what expansion in the educational provisions for the post-16 age groups he expects during 1981–82.

The Government's expenditure plans allow for an increase of nearly 6 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1981–82 in the numbers of post 16-year-olds staying on for full-time courses in school or non-advanced further education.

Does the Secretary of State accept that we need to see many more young people in schools than we envisaged a year or two ago when the forecast was made? May we assume that the Government will be reviewing their priorities urgently and will, having carried out that review, greatly increase the facilities available for the 16 to 19-year-olds so that many young people who are currently unemployed will be taken off the streets?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put that supplementary question. I share his view that we should do all that we can to encourage people to stay on in full-time education. That is the best form of post 16-year-old training for young people. I am glad to say that the information that we have—and it is still early information—shows that in various parts of the country the demand for staying on has increased considerably this year. The Government are reviewing generally their plans and proposals for youth unemployment.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are proposed cuts in further education because of a possible reduction in numbers? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friends the possibility of filling those places with post 16-year-olds who will be given the same advantages in pay as young people on the youth opportunities scheme, so that they can carry on with further education, just as they can take up a job in industry?

I am not sure that I follow my hon. Friend's question. We are anxious to see as many post 16-year-olds as possible staying on in education or training. We are aware that at present there are spare places in the colleges of further education, which we have identified. We hope that some of those places will be used for expanding and training opportunities available to young people.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the number of closures of village schools in each of the last three years; and if he will take special steps to retain them.

In 1978 approval was given to 53 secondary and primary rural school closures, in 1979 to 26 and in 1980 to 45. My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to consider all such proposals on their individual merits, taking account of educational and other considerations, including any objections from those affected by the proposals.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, but bearing in mind that the village school occupies a special place in our national picture, will he see whether there is any way in which a scheme can be formed so that, when a village school gets into difficulties, special steps can be taken to keep it open and alive?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern on this matter. He and I have talked about it on a number of occasions. However, we must face the fact that by 1986, clue to the falling birth rate, there will be about 3 million surplus places in the schools, costing £100 per place in service and maintenance. One cannot keep every school open. It is estimated that to cut back those places would require the closure of about 1,000 primary schools, which is only 5 per cent. of the number. I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. Wherever possible, knowing the disastrous social effects of the closure of village schools, we shall encourage those which are economically able to do so to remain open.

Will the Minister take special steps to try to retain village and other schools in the Consett and Stanley areas of County Durham, where the Government's policy of massive industrial closures now seems to be being followed by a policy of massive school closures?

I cannot comment on the hon. Member's point about the places that he mentions. It is likely that the closure of small primary schools will affect city areas more than rural aeas for the next five to 10 years because the inner cities are most affected educationally by a fall in population.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the ways in which school closures might be avoided is by permitting parents to contribute towards the cost of that education? Many parents wish to do so, but are prevented by the contents of the Education Act 1944.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. In many cases, parents wish to help, but it is important to see how that fits in with the 1944 Act.

Does the Minister realise the concern of parents of children affected by school closures? Those children, already travelling 10 miles to the existing schools, will have to travel perhaps a further six miles. Will he take into consideration that some of those villages, during inclement weather, are snowbound and therefore those children will lose about five or six days' education a year?

I certainly take note of what the hon. Member said. Any proposals come from the area. We do not propose the closures nationally. They are recommended to us. When closures are considered, questions of transport, schools being closed by inclement weather and so on are taken into consideration before my right hon. and learned Friend makes a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

I shall be meeting the chairman and vice-chairmen of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals tomorrow.

Will the Secretary of State make a particular effort to get from the CVCP the numbers of students admitted in 1980–81—which I am sure they will be willing to provide—so that we can see the real baseline for the severe cuts that he has imposed on the universities? If those figures show that the real cuts include, for example, a 44 per cent. reduction at Salford and such a figure at other universities, will he reconsider his decision earlier this afternoon and give them a supplementary grant?

We already have the 1980–81 figures, which I have accepted. They are about 7,000 more than the 1979–80 figures, which was the baseline used by the University Grants Committee. Those were the most up-to-date, safe figures which the committee used when it did its work.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that rationalisation of university courses is long overdue and will be accepted by most fair-minded and sensible people?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. We spend £1,300 million a year in current expenditure on the universities. The purpose is to get a reduction of up to 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. in expenditure, which will make a difference of only 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. in total student numbers.

Will the Secretary of State consider seriously the proposal of the vice-chancellor of Aston that a supplementary grant should be given to the UGC and that an inquiry into educational priorities should be instigated so that universities such as Salford and Aston do not serve their sentences in advance of a trial?

I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there can be no possibility of my giving a supplementary grant to the University Grants Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: Why not?] I am saying that there is no possibility. I know that the chairman of the University Grants Committee has offered to see the vice-chancellors of the various universities which are particularly affected.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 14 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, and this evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

I accept that the vast majority of people are opposed to violence and lawlessness and are in favour of better protection for the police, but does the Prime Minister realise that many people consider it a serious step indeed for the Government to contemplate the use of water cannon, CS gas and rubber bullets on the streets of British towns and cities? Now that she has returned from Liverpool, will the Prime Minister give us her assessment of the reasons for the present wave of civil disorder? Will she tell us clearly to what extent she believes that her Government's policies have been responsible?

I accept what the hon. Member said at the beginning of his supplementary question, that it is vital to have our citizens protected and to see that the law is upheld. We on the Government Benches take the view that the police must have the equipment for that purpose, and part of the legitimate equipment for chief constables to use if they decide that the situation requires it would be CS gas and water cannon. The only question is whether the chief constables wish to have water cannon among the equipment available for any task that they may face. There may be a fundamental difference, but I believe that the majority of people take the view that we on Government Benches broadly take. With regard to the reason, this is not, as someone said to me in Liverpool, yesterday, the time for detailed analysis. We have a problem. We shall not be able to deal in practice with the economic and social aspects of it until law is restored and is seen to be restored. Therefore, the two things go hand in hand.

Before announcing any new long-term plans for the inner cities will the Prime Minister make sure that the general public is aware of what has already been done? Following her visit to Toxteth, will she say what has been done there, not only in terms of expenditure but in terms of the nature of the policies and the methods of carrying them out there?

It is evident that a great deal of money has been spent in Liverpool. Much has been spent on housing, as the local authority emphasised to me. Some time ago it took the view that the best service it could do would be to clear out many of the slum houses. It has spent a good deal of its resources on doing that. Much of the housing which I saw in Toxteth is very good, as has been stated in the House before. A great deal of money is also being spent on education. The tragedy is that some of the money that has been poured into some of the big schools is now not fully used because some of the schools must be closed down as there are far fewer pupils than we ever thought. One school that I opened in 1970 for 1,700 pupils now has only 900 pupils. Money is being poured into expenditure on more teachers and on paying extra for those in the deprived areas. Therefore, I do not believe that a shortage of money has been the problem in Liverpool. This year the full expenditure in Liverpool is about £361 million.

I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). Everyone agrees that law breaking must be stopped and punished, but the way that that is done in Britain is important for the freedom of our people. Has the Prime Minister had time to study the speech made by the Home Secretary to a group of Tory Back Benchers last night? Is it a new statement of Government policy? If so, when will it be made to the House?

Statements about changes in Government policy, if there are changes, will be made in the debate on Thursday, in the usual way. I would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would make it clear whether he is actually against the use of CS gas and water cannon.

Those suggestions, and the suggestions made by the Home Secretary—only some of which are approved and supported by the police—must be properly debated in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall not answer those questions until they have been properly debated. If the right hon. Lady wants the House to give proper consideration to these matters, I ask her, on behalf of her Government, to make a statement to the House of Commons in advance of Thursday's debate so that we can properly consider the issue. The Opposition are as determined to stamp out illegality as anyone else. However, we want to do it by fair methods that can be supported by the population and not by methods that drive a wedge between the police and the community.

The right hon. Gentleman's statement is not of very much help—[Interruption.] As I said—[Interruption.]—

Order. Since last Thursday I have been inundated with correspondence from the public protesting at the noise during Prime Minister's Question Time. I honestly think that we do ourselves no good by such an exhibition. Everyone must be allowed to speak.

The right hon. Gentleman's statement is not of very much help or encouragement to the police when they are on the lines trying to quell a hail of stones, bricks, metal and petrol bombs. When they are doing that they need to know that they have the full support of the Government—in particular the Home Secretary—and the full support of local authorities, and they also need the full range of equipment in case they adjudge that its use is necessary. We must bear that in mind in view of the number of police injured when carrying out their job of protecting the public.

Nothing that I have said has been any discouragement to the police in carrying out their duties. The right hon. Lady has no grounds for making any such slur. I am asking her—and I have not yet had an answer—whether the Home Secretary made an important new declaration of policy last night. When will he make that declaration in the House?

There is to be a debate in the House on Thursday on this issue. The Home Secretary will make any statement of changes in policy then. In the meantime, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will support the police in their use of CS gas in difficult circumstances.

Has the Prime Minister had time to study the report of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities called "Investing in Recovery"? Will she pay particular attention to the section which calls for major home improvements in inner city areas as a means of restoring employment?

I shall look at that section of the report. We are anxious that home improvement, which is an excellent way to improve the standard of housing, should continue.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Now that the Secretary of State for Employment and the Home Secretary have admitted on a number of occasions that unemployment is one of the causes of the sort of disturbances that have taken place, does not the Prime Minister think it right to withdraw the statement that she made before the Brixton disturbances, that unemployment is not a factor? As she has not yet commented on the demands from Conservative Back Benchers for the use of rubber bullets on our streets, will she make her position clear?

I have answered the hon. Gentleman's first question several times before. He has asked it several times before. The question is the same, and the answer is the same. Unemployment is a factor, but I do not believe that it is the main factor. Some of the worst riots occurred in areas where unemployment was far from being as high as in other areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a woman teacher in the pay of the Birmingham city authority is actively engaged in fomenting the present troubles and encouraging the abuse of authority? Should such a person continue in the pay of the authority that she seeks to overthrow?

I am not aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would wish to receive details of that case. The local authority employs the teachers. If there are fresh facts known to my hon. Friend, I shall be grateful if she will bring them to full public attention.

The Prime Minister is largely responsible for the riots and the damage. Will she tell the House whether she intends to refund local authorities the millions of pounds of damage that has resulted from the riots?

The hon. Gentleman's first remark is absurd and unjust. On his second point, the law is well established. The compensation provisions operate to the effect that any expenditure up to a penny rate falls on local authorities. Any expenditure above that is reimbursed by the Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 14 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend have time today to tell the House what her opinion would be of the reintroduction of the Riot Act as a means both of clearing the streets and of bringing about quick, effective arid fair justice to rioters?

I agree that the Riot Act is a means of clearing the streets. It was repealed in 1967 by the then Labour Government in connection with the Criminal Law Act 1967. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor are carrying out an urgent review of the law. No doubt they will announce their conclusions in due course.

Notwithstanding the political opportunism and nit-picking that masquerade as an alternative to the Prime Minister's discredited economic policies, will the right hon. Lady take note that right across the political divide between Labour and Tory the overwhelming majority of people in Britain will support the police in their struggle against the looter, the mugger, and the anarchist? Is it not a fact that we are now paying the penalty for a decade or more of undermining and subverting respect for decent authority?

I agree with both of the main points in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the British people are fully in support of the police in everything that they are doing and are very grateful to them for the way in which they are carrying out their duty. I agree with him on his second point, that a large part of the problem that we are having now has come from a weakening of authority in many aspects of life over many, many years. This has to be corrected.

May I ask the right hon. Lady afresh to consider the proposition that I made earlier that we should have a statement on the Government's proposals before the debate on Thursday? If a statement is made, there will be time for hon. Members to consider the proposals. There may be proposals that some hon. Members favour and some that they do not. If the Government want, as I believe the country requires, a cool debate on Thursday, surely the right hon. Lady can respond to my appeal that we should have a statement from the Home Secretary before the debate takes place.

It is quite customary for a Minister to open a debate with a main speech, which is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do. He will make a major speech in opening that debate and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be winding up. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find that sufficient.