asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of nursery school places; and if he will make a statement.

:There is provision in the Government's expenditure plans for modest capital expenditure to enable those authorities that wish to do so to increase their nursery accommodation, mainly by converting spare primary accommodation.

:Does the Minister agree that nursery school education is of great importance and that it can be of crucial importance to disadvantaged children? Is that not borne out by the fact that all Conservative Members ensure that their children have pre-school education? If, as is reported today, the Secretary of State proposes to charge for nursery school education, does he realise that that would be a disgraceful decision and that there would be total opposition to it from Labour Members?

:: Two-thirds of nursery provision comes in inner city and urban areas where there is social and economic deprivation. The Government and local authorities have given priority to such areas. I cannot say what percentage of Conservative Members have children in pre-school education, but I should imagine that it is the same as in the rest of the community.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about charging for nursery school education, section 61 of the Education Act 1944 prohibits the charging of fees in respect of education provided in maintained schools. The Government have taken no decision to alter that provision relating to nursery education.

:Is my hon. Friend aware that the first answer that he gave will be welcome to many Conservative Members? Is he further aware that about 85 per cent. of all young children come from homes where mothers go out to work, either full-time or part-time? Does that not strengthen the already strong argument that nursery education should be provided wherever possible?

:Few hon. Members on either side would advocate nursery school education for all. The most that any Government have done has been to increase provision for those who wished it. Many people feel that it is always satisfactory when the mother can be at home with the children. We realise that there is deprivation in various other areas, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the way in which nursery school education has developed is helping those who need it.

:Is the Minister aware that many women who wish to go to work place the highest priority on nursery education for their children, not only for their benefit but for that of their children? Will the hon. Gentleman now firmly and finally rebut any belief that the Secretary of State may have that charges for nursery education may fall outside the 1944 Act and are therefore being seriously considered by the Government? Is he aware that such fantasies on the part of the Secretary of State or his Department have been firmly and totally rejected by the women and families of this country?

:I am sure that every hon. Member is aware that at times of economic recession all forms of education expenditure have to be examined to see whether there is a means of making economies or cut-backs. The hon. Lady is a member of a party which in 1975 and 1976 cut back heavily on education in many areas, probably with few shouts from Labour Members.

:Has the Minister read the reports of the Secretary of State's speech yesterday suggesting that the Government might introduce charges for nursery education? Does he agree that poor children benefit most from nursery education? Is he aware that under any means-tested form of support large numbers of poor families fail to claim their help? Does he accept that if the Government introduce means-tested charges for nursery education that will be possibly a fatal blow to the educational attainment and, thereby, the job opportunities of many poor children?

:: As I have said, obviously the Government are looking at all areas of educational expenditure. I remind the hon. Member that over the last year 6,500 more children entered nursery education, under the present Government than in the previous year, and in the first year in which we were in office the number was 5,200.

I have here two quotations from what my right hon. Friend said yesterday. The first is this:

Secondly, my right hon. Friend said:

:I appeal to the House for briefer supplementary questions and answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in England in each of the past three years at constant prices.

:Net institutional recurrent expenditure at 1980 survey prices for secondary pupils in England was £572 in 1977–78, £593 in 1978–79 and £601 in 1979–80.

:Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he expects expenditure per secondary pupil in England this year to be higher in real terms than it has ever been?

:We have no actual figures for last year or this year, but, taking into account the larger number of teachers who were engaged last year than was anticipated, I think that the answer to my hon. Friend is almost certainly "Yes".

:Has the Secretary of State yet replied to Mr. Bernard Barker, the head teacher of the Stanground school, Peterborough, who wrote to him a couple of weeks ago to inform him that in his, Mr. Barker's, opinion, due to the cuts, his school was now breaking section 8 of the Education Act 1944? If the Secretary of State will not accept Mr. Barker's practical illustration, will he accept his own evidence, as he said yesterday that many teachers were teaching age groups for which they are not trained in subjects for which they are not trained? If that is the case, how does the right hon. Gentleman think that the further cuts that he promised yesterday to assistant mistresses and masters will further improve standards of provision and performance in Britain's schools?

:: I have not yet answered Mr. Barker. I entirely accept that I have inherited a position that has prevailed under all Governments since the war of a dramatic mismatch, as it is called, between teachers teaching subjects and their training to teach those subjects, or indeed, in many cases, to teach the age group that they are teaching. There is a mismatch, and it is difficult to cure. The present Government inherited it from the previous Government.

I did not say to the conference yesterday that there would be any cut in schools education. I said that at this time of the year all Governments normally examine all sectors of public spending.

:Does the Minister not realise that the cuts in education are now so drastic that they are eating deep into the fabric of education, while public funds are being siphoned off into private education, and that our children are being made to suffer so that private education can expand on taxpayers' money? That is the reality. Does he realise that a depleted and dedicated teaching force is now having to struggle because, as the Book Publishers Association and the equipment associations are coming to tell us—they are coming to our group tonight—sales of books have dropped and the schools do not have enough books or equipment with which to educate our children?

:: Many different factors affect the costs of education—both ways. Local education authorities make their own decisions, both about resources and about how to spend them. The fact is that there is a sharp difference of effectiveness as between one LEA and another, both in the resources that they decide to spend and in the effectiveness of how they spend them.

The party that destroyed the direct grant schools has no right to complain when, on behalf of those who are most able to benefit from education and least able to get good education in their areas, the present Government, through my right hon. and learned Friend, my predecessor, have introduced the assisted places scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the reductions in grant proposed for Aston, Bradford and Salford universities; and whether there have since been any changes in the grants for engineering and scientific subjects.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the representations received from Bradford university regarding future grant support.

:Ministers have received over 1,000 letters about the allocation of grant to the universities of Aston, Bradford and Salford by the University Grants Committee. I am not aware that the UGC is proposing any change in allocation.

:: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment—which I hope has removed any doubt about chips.

From those 1,000 representations, has my hon. Friend understood the serious concern felt in the West Midlands that the reductions proposed by the University Grants Committee strike directly at the technological departments of the university and ignore those research efforts at the university funded by industrial firms?

:I hope that I understand the quite comprehensible concern expressed in the West Midlands. My hon. Friend's commitment to the University of Aston is well known. We must surely remember that the university system is to be regarded as a national whole. Overall, of the former colleges of applied technology, three have been asked to increase their engineering and two have been asked to diminish it. Understandably enough, we have heard more about the two than the three, but the increases are true, as well as the decreases.

Does the Minister accept that the reductions proposed at Bradford will diminish the opportunities for young people, place jobs at the university in jeopardy in an area of high unemployment, and undermine the potential viability of the university? Does he realise that the local authority, the university and local trade unions and people bitterly oppose the cuts? As a new Minister with a reputation for cultural achievement, so-called, is he not opposed to these philistine policies, and is he about to embark on a reversal of them?

:I am grateful for the hon. Member's kind words. It is the opinion of the UGC that after the cuts, which it has been compelled to make, no university will be unviable. Of course the cuts are losing us valuable provision, and——

:Resign.

no one would want to deny that, but at a time when all public programmes, even the most valuable, must have limited resources applied to them, not even the most valuable of all public provision—and the University of Salford is and will remain a fine institution—can be wholly protected.

:Behind the understandable anxieties of individual universities mentioned in this question and others, is not the point touched on by my hon. Friend of very great importance—that for virtually the first time the UGC has intervened positively and moved resources towards the technologies, in a way that very large numbers of people in the House and outside would very warmly applaud?

:My hon. Friend is right. Within the reduced overall total of students the University Grants Committee has arranged for an increase of 1 per cent. in the sciences and in technology. It has also arranged for an absolute increase in numbers in engineering and technological subjects.

:I thank the new Minister for bringing a fresh mind to a stricken field. Will he consider the position of those universities that are sending out redundancy notices that will add to the overall bill of £250 million in redundancy payments? Will the hon. Gentleman note that students at Aston university are suing the university for breach of contract? What will happen to those legitimate claims from both staff and students? Will it be a matter of a supplementary grant, or will the Minister tell his Department to rethink the whole problem? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation has contributed to—as the hon. Gentleman has called it—the socially reactionary nature of this Government?

The hon. Gentleman—no less than I—knows the unpredictability of the extent of the redundancy problem. It would be foolish for Ministers or others to deny that there is a problem. However, we must tackle that problem when it comes. Since the cases involving the Aston students are being brought to court, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on them.

:If my hon. Friend acknowledges the importance that technology, particularly as practised by Aston university, plays in industrial life, will he agree that the Government are courting unfair, unfortunate and unjustified criticism because of the decisions made by the so-called independent UGC? Will my hon. Friend consider consulting his right hon. Friend to see whether a breath of fresh air can be breathed into the UGC's independent decisions, thus restoring some emphasis on the technological institutions?

I regret the use of the words "so-called". In its academic judgments the UGC is entirely independent of Ministers. In a recent book Lord Robbins called the institution—

"one of the happiest of our constitutional inventions."

It would be wrong for Ministers or for my hon. Friend to try to direct the UGC about its judgments on academic policies.

:Although the Minister may not be able to comment directly on the Aston students who are suing the university, will he at least make it a principle that students who have been accepted on courses do not find them axed? Will he agree that, as at Brunel university, students who have started courses should not find them axed?

:That is a matter for the individual institutions concerned.

:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally inadequate nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to take up the matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now introduce school grants for all students between the ages of 16 to 19 years; and if he will make a statement.

:As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) said in reply to the question asked on 14 July by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), 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 accept that if it costs about £6,000 million to keep 1 million people out of work there is some sense in keeping more young people in that age group at school? At the very least that would keep them off the streets and give them some purpose in life. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would do more than that? It would provide several thousand jobs for school teachers at a time when at least 6,000 teachers are on the dole. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, in the midst of my hon. Friends, I think that I can say that this issue is part of our alternative strategy on which we are all united.

:I am sure that the country will be amazed when it reads that last statement. In future, people will follow Question Time even more closely than before. All the evidence shows that more 16 to 19-year-olds now stay at school. Local education authorities already have powers to pay maintenance grants to children aged between 16 and 19. According to the figures for last year, about £3·7 million was paid to 16 to 19-year-olds who attended school, and a further £3·7 million was paid to those in further education. Therefore, certain things are being done.

:Does the Minister recall that during the "no confidence" debate on 27 July the Prime Minister announced that an additional £60 million was to be provided in the next financial year so that 50,000 more youngsters could stay on at school or college? Despite many requests from the many different authorities for information, the Department has failed to give an answer. Will the Minister tell us, for the first time, to whom the money will be given, how it will be spent, how it will be calculated and the policies that the Government have in mind regarding either the payment of 16 to 19-year-olds or the provision of facilities for the hundreds—possibly thousands—of young people who are turned away from further education because of cuts in this academic year?

:I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) for having drawn our attention to the fact that just before the Summer Recess the Prime Minister said that £60 million more would be provided for England and Wales and that provision would be made for about 50,000 more 16 to 19-year-olds to stay at school. As yet I have not gone into the details, but I understand that the money will be given to the local authorities—after discussion with them—via the rate support grant. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Bedwellty may not like that, but if the Government allocate the money direct it will cause uproar among the local education authorities, including most of those that are Labour-controlled.

:For the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Department co-operates even more closely with the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment so that skillcenters can be opened up to young people aged between 16 and 19? Will he also ensure that we tackle the problem of the shortage of instructors in skillcenters?

:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and agree that such steps must be taken. There are obviously discrepancies in the sums paid to young people on youth opportunity programme schemes, to those receiving unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit, and to those at school. Those discrepancies must be looked at not only by the Department but by other Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many overseas students have enrolled in universities for the 1981–82 academic year; and how many enrolled for the 1980–81 academic year.

:Information for 1981–82 is currently being collected and will be made available, we hope, by the end of the year. In 1980–81 there were 33,200 overseas student enrolments in the universities of Great Britain. This figure includes students from European Community countries who were charged home fees.

:What merit can the Minister see in a reduction of 43 per cent. in the number of students from Caribbean countries and in a reduction of 46 per cent. in the number of students from Sri Lanka, where Her Majesty received such a warm welcome? How does he compare that with the substantial increases in the numbers of Third world students in the Soviet Union?

:Even within the overall drop there have been welcome increases from some countries. It is a correct Government decision that questions of foreign policy should be decided by the Foreign Office, which has £42 million available for expenditure in this area.

:Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of overseas students both in terms of export potential and of our image abroad? Will he undertake to monitor closely the numbers of overseas students in British universities to ensure that the numbers do not fall beyond a level that the Government believe reasonable?

:The answer is "Yes". The Department is already engaged on such monitoring. As the information becomes available, the Department will analyse it closely.

:Order. Question Time is going very slowly indeed today. We must move on.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about introducing greater flexibility into school leaving dates.

So far this year my Department has received some 30 letters from hon. Members and members of the public, mostly in respect of individual pupils who wish to leave school before the school leaving age.

:May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment? Does he agree that although many 16-year-olds would undoubtedly benefit from staying longer at school, others have jobs to go to, have alternative sources of education available, or have strong social reasons for being allowed to leave before they are 16 years old. Before the last election did we not promise that we would allow greater flexibility than before? Will my hon. Friend examine that proposal sympathetically?

:I know the interest that my hon. Friend has shown in this matter. There is a problem, but, given the high level of unemployment, we do not think it right to encourage youngsters to leave school for the work market. The recent joint working party concluded that where youngsters had finished their school courses but had not attained leaving age it might be possible to transfer them to full-time courses of further education. Consultations are taking place and the results of the consultations will be studied.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is satisfied with the methods used by local education authorities to monitor and reduce higher levels of school truancy.

:These methods vary from area to area, and neither the authorities nor my Department can ever be fully satisfied that such a complex issue as truancy is being tackled in exactly the right way.

:I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that hard core truancy is the kindergarten of crime, particularly in the inner city areas? Has my hon. Friend considered the resolution passed by the National Association of Head Teachers at its annual conference, that parental condoned truancy is still on the increase? Has he had the opportunity to consider Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report, which suggests that parental condoned truancy exists in about 20 out of every 100 schools? Has he any suggestions about how that can be contained or reduced?

:My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a serious problem. There is an increased problem of truancy condoned by parents. The short answer to my hon. Friend is that there is no way of tackling truancy nationally, other than by making courses in schools more interesting. The Government have already taken the initiative by examining the school curriculum. Furthermore, there are plans to introduce pre-vocational examinations at 17-plus, with a move to pre-vocational training in a balanced curriculum in the fourth and fifth years. We believe that that will do much to reduce truancy.

:Perhaps the Minister would care to examine the French system whereby child benefits are paid against satisfactory school attendance records —[ Interruption. ]

:I shall certainly take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will carry out a study to identify why primary education in the Inner London Education Authority costs almost twice as much as it does in Northamptonshire; whether it achieves higher standards; and to what extent the additional cost is borne by the general taxpayer.

No, Sir. The Government have already carried out a comprehensive review of the ILEA and in February this year announced their conclusions. Because ILEA's expenditure this year of about £700 million is almost 50 per cent. above the Government's assessment of its needs, it is likely to receive no grant, whereas Northamptonshire will receive about £74 million grant on its total expenditure of £174 million.

:Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the ILEA, for all the money that it receives, provides as good education as that provided by other counties, such as Northamptonshire? If not, will he introduce a system whereby ILEA can produce that quality of education without subsidy, like the rather more efficient counties?

:The HMI report, which came out just over a year ago, indicated that there were deficiencies in a number of secondary schools in London. In the ILEA 14·09 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers passed five O-levels, whereas in Northamptonshire, in which my hon Friend has a great interest, the figure was 16·7 per cent. We have said that we shall watch what is happening in the ILEA and that it must have a better return for the money that is being put in in terms of achievement. Otherwise, the situation will have to be re-examined.

:Now that at last the Minister has some responsibilities for the schools about which some of us had some fears, will he re-examine the complaints by Northamptonshire parents to the Secretary of State that the law is being broken in Northamptonshire? Will he review the decision by the previous Secretary of State and discover whether the decision in Northamptonshire fulfils the law under section 8 of the 1944 Act?

:Any complaint to my Department is examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As Chairman of the Select Committee on the subject, the hon. Gentleman will know that inspectors are inspecting the schools. Any complaints will be examined carefully and answered to the satisfaction of right hon. and hon. Members.

Will the Minister explain to parents in London why he is willing to pay £70 million towards expenditure on education in Northamptonshire where, in the opinion of parents there, there is an inadequate standard of education, but unwilling to provide one shilling towards inner London's education costs? Does he agree that his own malignant officials and his own malignant colleagues on the Front Bench have decided that the ILEA is providing a decent standard of education?

:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Inner London, for which the hon. Gentleman asks for more money, spends almost twice as much on the education of children—£925 per child—as Northamptonshire. I do not believe that it requires any more money to achieve the same standards.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the figures of the total number of pupils in State primary and secondary schools, respectively, in this academic year; and how they compare with last year.

:The total number of full-time and part-time pupils in maintained nursery and primary schools in England is projected to fall by 200,000, from 4,225,000, in January 1981 to 4,025,000 in January 1982. In maintained secondary schools the projected fall is 60,000 pupils, from 3,840,000 in January 1981 to 3,780,000 in January 1982.

Since those figures indicate a greater reduction than the modest cutbacks in the increase in expenditure on education in the last year, will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost per pupil in primary and secondary schools has risen in real terms in the past year? If so, does he accept that many people believe that that is an extremely welcome trend, given the economic realities and the fact that total Government expenditure this year will be 10 per cent. in excess of income?

:Expenditure on individual pupils has been rising in real terms in Britain for the last 30 years. Since the decrease in expenditure is only half that of the percentage decrease in the number of pupils in our schools in two or three years' time, as well as next year under present plans, more will be spent on the individual child than is being spent now.

:Why has the Department of Education and Science frustrated for so long the genuine attempt by the Manchester education authority to tackle the problem of falling rolls by the reorganisation of its schools? Is the Minister aware that it is nine months since the Department unnecessarily called in Manchester's scheme for examination? Is he aware that if the scheme is brought in next year it will produce many economies, but that the decision must be made by the end of this month? When will the decision be announced?

:I understand the concern felt by Manchester Members. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The matter had to be called in by the Secretary of State because complaints had been made. The 1980 Act is specific. It states that if complaints are made the Secretary of State must call it in. I realise that the matter has been with us for nine months. There has been a change of Ministers in the Department in the last four or five weeks. We have been looking at the matter closely since then. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a decision will be made very soon.

:Will my hon. Friend confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio has continued to improve during that period?

:I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) says. At 1 January this year the pupil-teacher ratio was the lowest in British history—18·6 pupils per member of staff.

:Does the Minister agree that the pupil-teacher ratio should not be used as a rigid guide for the staffing of any particular school? Is he aware, for example, that the loss of one teacher in a small primary school can have very serious effects on education in that school? Is he also aware that the loss of specialist teachers in a secondary school can have an equally serious effect?

:The hon. Gentleman has distinguished teaching experience. I am well aware of what he says. That is why the reduction in staff numbers and money is less than the reduction in the number of pupils. We want schools to be able to operate their full curriculum despite falling rolls.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the most recent evidence he has received on the comparative performance in terms of examination achievements of comprehensive and grammar schools.

:Evidence shows that grammar schools as a whole have better examination results than comprehensive schools as a whole. This is not surprising, because grammar schools are selective and comprehensive schools are not. All of us must be concerned that more and more comprehensive schools should have as good results as some comprehensive schools already have.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the rising curve of examination successes in 1971 seems to have been halted by the introduction of universal comprehensive education and that the abolition of the 11-plus, with over-large schools and mixed ability teaching, means that the education system increasingly fails to produce the right results? Would we not, as a country, do better if we maintained as wide a range of education as possible?

:I agree with both propositions. The simultaneous destruction of direct grant schools and grammar schools, while comprehensive schools were installed as near universities as Labour Governments found possible without experiment, was tragic in educational and human terms.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as long as independent, direct grant and grammar schools, in that pecking order, cream off the brightest children, the examination results must be in that order, too?

:That is precisely what I explained in my main answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations he has received about the level of fees charged to students from overseas.

:Since the beginning of May, 170 representations have been received from hon. Members, academic institutions, students and student associations and other interested national organisations.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the consequence of charging higher fees to overseas students is seen not only in lower numbers of such students, but, more especially, in the poorest students from the poorest countries being badly affected? How does that square with what the Prime Minister said yesterday on her return from the Cancum summit in Mexico?

:The hon. Gentleman is not stating the precise position. The Government have provided a substantial sum to help pay the fees of those who come to Britain from poor countries.

:Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the numbers of overseas students in our universities now compare with what they were targeted to be under the previous Labour Governments' quota scheme?

:There are more.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed what has happened to trade between Britain and Malaysia in recent months? Is he aware that an all-party group of Members of Parliament that visited Malaysia recently was told that the reduction in trade had resulted largely from the discrimination that Malaysia felt over overseas students? For the sake of a small proportion of a £100 million saving in overseas fees, is it worth jeopardising billions of pounds of United Kingdom trade?

:The hon. Gentleman is being rather crude in assuming a single cause for a trend that may have many causes.

:Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this period of great difficulty, especially when cash is tight in every area, taxpayers are entitled to expect students from OPEC countries and other countries that have held Britain to ransom to pay full fees?

:I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is a legitimate anxiety on both sides of the House to protect those who do not come from wealthy families or rich countries and who would otherwise benefit from education in Britain. Various reliefs have been provided by the Government to enable more students in that position to come here. The reliefs that the Government have provided should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

:This year Sheffield university has lost fee income of about £1 million. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the university should trawl the world for rich students or forgo that fee income and probably the courses associated with it? If he is making the former suggestion, may I ask how he squares that with the criticism properly made of it at the Mexico summit?

:The hon. Gentleman knows that Governments of both colours do not desire or achieve any control over universities. The universities have been on a rising diet of taxpayers' money for more than 25 years. They now face one of the first adjustments that they have had to make, and many of them are finding ways to adjust.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what figures are available for the impact of public expenditure cuts on higher education provision for science and technology; and if he will make a statement.

:In the universities, despite a slight fall in the expected number of all science-based students, the University Grants Committee's allocation of grant for 1981–82 and provisional indications for later years provide for growth in student numbers in engineering and technology, mathematics and the physical sciences and for the support of important new developments in the biological sciences. Comparable information is not available for the non-university sector.

Does the Minister accept that, whereas cuts for the universities and polytechnics are bad enough, the real indictment of the Government's policy is that the growth that could be achieved in mathematics, computing, engineering and high technology generally is not being achieved? There is a great demand from industry, but that is not being met because of the Government's financial policies.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said.

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

There is growth in exactly the areas for which he is arguing.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 27 October.

: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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

:Bearing in mind the heavy levels of unemployment, does the right hon. Lady not owe it to the country to make significant changes in her economic policy? Is it not now the case that she no longer has a majority in the House for monetarism and unemployment?

:By fighting inflation we are fighting unemployment. I thought that that was agreed on both sides of the House.

:Has my right hon. Friend heard that while she was away her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade signed an agreement worth £350 million for engineering exports from Britain to Brazil? Will she do all in her power to ensure that we have further successes of that sort by keeping our prices down?

:Yes. I congratulate all who were involved in that very big deal of about £350 million for goods to Brazil. It will help British Shipbuilders, Northern Engineering Industries, GEC and Ferranti. Much of the work will go to the North. I congratulate everyone involved.

:Has the right hon. Lady had a chance, since her return from Mexico, to consider the extremely critical situation in British Leyland? Will she undertake to use either her influence direct, or the influence of one of her Ministers, to intervene to ensure that serious negotiations take place? This firm is not on the verge of collapse. It could speedily be moving into a considerable situation of profits and success. I ask the right hon. Lady not to answer the question here and now, but to consider it afresh and to report to the House on Thursday on how the Government can assist in dealing with this situation.

:I should make it clear that the Government want British Leyland to succeed. We made that abundantly clear by the huge sums that the taxpayer invested in British Leyland in the past. The taxpayer has committed £990 million for 1981–82 and 1982–83. Industrial relations are matters for the company. The Government are not seeking to influence the company in that respect.

:May I plead with the right hon. Lady, once again, on this matter? I hope that she will take account of what may be said to her by some of her hon. Friends. It would certainly be said by all my hon. Friends who represent parts of the country where British Leyland operates. I believe that anyone who considers the dispute will come to the conclusion that there are many other factors on which some independent assistance is needed. Anyone who talks to the management and to the unions, as we have done, could, I believe, come to the conclusion that there is a possibility of a settlement without victory or defeat for either side, but solely a victory for the nation as a whole. I plead with the right hon. Lady, once again, not to say "No" now, but to return to the House on Thursday, to see what the situation is then, and to consider whether the Government can use their mediating powers to assist in this situation?

:All comments made by right hon. and hon. Members will be drawn to the company's attention. I must repeat that the Government want British Leyland to succeed, but they do not think it right to intervene in the handling of this matter by the company.

:I still hope that the right hon. Lady will make a statement to the House. She may not have fully appreciated the feeling throughout the country on this subject. If she looks at the matter afresh, she may wish to make a different statement to the House of Commons on Thursday.

:I have very much appreciated the feeling in the country. The taxpayer has invested a great deal of money in British Leyland. The sum of £990 million is allocated for this year and next year, so neither the taxpayer's nor the Government's good faith is in doubt.

:While Mrs. Gandhi deliberates over the fate of the British cricket tour, will my right hon. Friend make urgent representations to the Indian Prime Minister to allow the tour to go ahead? Will she condemn the latest United Nations black list that now seeks to prevent entertainers with a connection with South Africa from performing their arts?

:We do not recognise the United Nations black list of individuals. It appears to us to conflict gravely with our ideas on individual liberty. I have not discussed the cricket tour with Mrs. Gandhi. We believe that we have honoured the Gleneagles agreement, and, naturally, we hope that the tour will go ahead for the benefit of cricket in both countries.

:Is the Prime Minister aware that while she was away a new Member of Parliament was elected for Croydon, North-West? Will she at any time allow the judgment of the people to affect her draconian policies on unemployment?

:I was just about aware of that. I remember when Liberal Members were elected for Orpington and Sutton and Cheam.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 27 October.

:I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given.

:Does the Prime Minister agree that the magnificent march last Saturday by about 200,000 people in protest against nuclear weapons is a sign of massive public revulsion against those weapons of death? Will she now review her defence policies to take note of public opinion?

:The prospect of nuclear war is abhorrent to everyone. That is not in doubt. The purpose of our having nuclear weapons is to deter any aggressor who is a threat to this country from attacking this country. Many of us would look forward to the day when people were free to march in Moscow if they held that view.

:Will my right hon. Friend spare a thought during the day for the unfortunate ratepayers of Nottinghamshire, who until May this year were in the lowest rated county in the country? Is she aware that since then an 18p supplementary rate has been imposed and that the Labour council is using nearly £10,000 of it for a basketball coach and £100,000 for a perfumed garden in Rufford Abbey?

:What about the old-age pensioners?

:Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger of our ratepayers that the Association of District Councils——

:What about the meals on wheels?

:Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger of our ratepayers that the Association of District Councils is implacably opposed to the reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to curb such excesses?

:: I did not know the full facts about the increase in rates in Nottingham, but I know that ratepayers everywhere are angry at some of the increases in rates which they are facing. In particular, small businesses are angry because the increases cause the loss of jobs on a considerable scale. Many people are wishing that they had never elected Labour local authorities, which are extremely extravagant with ratepayers' money.

Later —

:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, I do not habitually raise points of order. In fact, I cannot remember the last time when I did so. However, serious allegations were made about Nottinghamshire county council this afternoon. I think that a reply should be given on behalf of the old-age pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the have-nots of Nottinghamshire, not to mention the manifesto commitments of the winners of the Nottinghamshire county council election. Surely that should have warranted a reply from the Prime Minister.

:I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with tolerance, but, whatever else they were, they were not a point of order.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 27 October.

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

:Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to emphasise that if we are not to have higher taxes or higher borrowing leading to higher interest rates, calls for higher public expenditure can only mean printing money and that such debasing of the currency leads to chronic uncompetitiveness and loss of jobs? When production is increasing, when productivity is improving and when wages are taking an anti-inflationary trend, it would be folly to return to those discredited policies.

:I entirely accept that and agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolute folly ever to resort to printing money on the scale on which it has been printed in the past. It would do untold damage and ensure that we could not be competitive with our rivals in overseas countries. Any increase in public spending has to be financed either by taxation or by borrowing, and that could mean higher interest rates.

:Will the Prime Minister confirm that when the Salt II talks were concluded it was announced officially that there was nuclear parity between the Soviet Union and the United States of America? Why do the Prime Minister and President Reagan now say that they must install Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe to bring about parity before nuclear disarmament talks can proceed? Will she explain that to the House?

:It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should need an explanation, when the Soviet Union has so many SS20s targeted on Europe and when one comes into service every five days. It is remarkable that he should object to our having a deterrent to those.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. Joseph Luns, the Secretary General of NATO, has estimated that about £6 million was spent by Russia on anti-nuclear propaganda in Western Europe last year and that 10 out of 40 members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament national committee are Communists? Which country is likely to benefit most if Britain follows a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament?

:I was aware of that sum. I hope that people are not taken in by it. Anyone who goes for unilateral disarmament is not likely to get the Soviet Union to the negotiating table on disarmament as a whole. They would put that in jeopardy.

:Will the Prime Minister have discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the difficulties faced by universities in general, and Aberdeen university in particular? Is she aware that the medical school at Aberdeen is likely to lose 60 posts, many at consultant level, and that the principal has said that there is a danger that the university will go bankrupt? He has described the cuts as mindless and unthinking. Will she stop hiding behind the University Grants Committee and take a serious look at the damage that the Government's policy is doing to university education across the whole country?

:As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has just answered questions for nearly three-quarters of an hour. The University Grants Committee is independent. It receives a global sum and decides how it shall be allocated. The Government do not decide that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 27 October.

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

:I should be grateful if the Prime Minister would find time today to consider the latest calamity on Merseyside, which is the closure of the Speke motor car factory owned by British Leyland. Is it her intention to intervene to save that latest loss of jobs? Will she comment on the gratuitous remarks of the Secretary of State for Employment about unemployed people in Merseyside getting on bicycles and trying to and non-existent jobs?

My right hon. Friend did not make the exact remarks that the hon. Gentleman has attributed to him. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard my reply to the Leader of the Opposition. Industrial relations are a matter for the company. It is not my intention to intervene.

:Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high level of exports being attained by British manufacturing companies and the recent substantial orders that have been obtained are clear evidence that this country is becoming much more competitive and that we must do nothing to damage that competitiveness?

:The export figures for this month were good. Admittedly, they were figures for only one month, but they were 6 per cent. in volume higher than the last figures that we had in January and February. That is a matter for congratulations to all the companies, both the management and the work force, and evidence that they are becoming much more competitive.

:: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

The House is aware that at about 4 pm yesterday afternoon a bomb exploded in a Wimpy bar in Oxford Street, killing Mr. Kenneth Howorth, a Metropolitan Police explosives officer. Mr. Howorth had entered the building following an anonymous phone call received by Reuters news agency at 2.50 pm warning that three bombs had been placed in shops in Oxford Street, the other two places being the department stores Debenhams and Bourne's. Subsequently an explosive device was found in Debenhams and made safe. Despite an intensive search, a third device has not been found. The Provisional IRA has said that it was responsible.

The House will wish to express its revulsion at this vicious act. It will also I am sure wish to join in paying tribute to the courage and dedication to duty of Mr Howorth. Our deepest sympathy goes to his widow and family. We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those who, like Mr. Howorth, risk their lives to protect us.

This is the third bombing incident this month in London for which the IRA has said it is responsible. In the first, at Chelsea barracks, two people were killed. The second was the attack on Lieutenant-General Sir Steuart Pringle. The House will wish me to place on record our deepest sympathy with the relatives of the victims of the first attack and our tribute to the courage of Sir Steuart

The emergency services have responded swiftly and efficiently on each of these occasions. I can assure the House that the police are taking all possible steps—as they have done with success in the past—to bring the criminals to justice.

I should like to underline what the police have already said. They need help from the public and, above all, vigilance. Any suspicious objects or actions should be reported to the police immediately.

:: We join with the right hon. Gentleman in utterly and unequivocally condemning yesterday's outrage. As all such vicious acts are morally inexcusable, it is perhaps incorrect to draw a distinction between one outrage and another. However, for my part, I feel a particular revulsion at bombs being placed in a position and at a time which are likely to result in the death and injury of schoolchildren.

I add our tribute to the courage and dedication of Mr. Kenneth Howorth. We offer our sympathy to his relatives, and we offer our gratitude to his colleagues who at great risk to themselves continue to protect innocent members of our society. The Opposition also offer their sympathy to Sir Steuart Pringle and to the relatives of Mrs. Nora Field and to Mr. John Breslin, the victims of the Chelsea bombing.

Our hope is that the vigilance of the public and the determination of the police will both prevent future death and injury and bring the people responsible for these three murderous attacks to speedy justice.

:I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, because it shows a considerable degree of unity throughout the House, which is of enormous importance in situations such as this. I am particularly grateful for what he said, with which I entirely agree, about the risk to schoolchildren. I am sure that the House wholeheartedly supports his view.

:I and members of my party fully share the sympathy that the Home Secretary has extended to the victims of these tragic incidents. I assure him of our full support. The whole House recognises that once again we have been given an example of the selfless duty of those who work in the bomb disposal squad. Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept our assurance that we shall do everything possible to sustain the determination of people on the mainland, when faced with these bomb outrages, to follow the extraordinary example of the people of Northern Ireland who, unfortunately, have experienced similar occurrences for many years?

:I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for his comments. It is worth recalling that since March 1974 Mr. Howorth has been with the Metropolitan Police bomb disposal unit. Before that he worked in Northern Ireland. He gave considerable service to this country in that respect.

:We all agree with my right hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy with the widow of this very brave man. However, will he look into the possibility of making a special grant to the wives of men who are killed in such circumstances? They suffer constant and considerable stress because they know of the threat which their husbands face almost every day.

:Many people will have sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. His suggestion raises wide issues, and it would be wrong of me to commit myself this afternoon.

:May we take it that the sympathy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and the House extends to all victims of the Provisional IRA?

:Most certainly, yes, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

:Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have constantly risen in their places, but I know they will realise that guillotined business is to follow.

:As it is obviously the wish of both sides of the House properly to debate the matter and to pay tribute to the bravery of those concerned, will my right hon. Friend see whether this week—perhaps by doing away with some of Thursday's business—we can have a half-day debate on the recent run of terrorist bombings in London and the Home Counties?

:The arrangement of business is a matter for my right hon. friend the Leader of the House. However, if I were to hazard a view, it would be that the House should consider carefully what we gain by debates of that sort and whether we might make the situation more difficult by giving more succour to the terrorists, which is the last thing we intend to do.

:Why is it necessary to insist on defusing such devices, thereby risking the lives of brave men, when the only danger is to property?

:I would have to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. However I should have thought that there was considerable danger at that moment not only to property but to life. I shall discuss the hon. Gentleman's point with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. But, as I have said, I believe that there was considerable danger to life as well as to property at that time.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that the death of Mr. Howorth is a staggering tribute not only to his own bravery but to that of all bomb disposal officers, particularly in Northern Ireland? Without referring to any specific security measures, and bearing in mind the difficulties, can my right hon. Friend say anything which might reassure the public in the main streets and thoroughfares of London as the Christmas shopping season approaches?

:: On the first point, with regard to the Army bomb disposal units, anyone who has had some of the experience that I have had, as many right hon. and hon. Members have, both in Northern Ireland and here, will be the first to recognise the enormous bravery of these officers in many very difficult situations.

On the second point, I believe that our best safeguard against such attacks is vigilance, being very careful and at the same time reporting any suspicious incidents to the police. The other safeguard, of course, is what has been achieved by the police in the past in bringing the people who commit these crimes to justice. It is worth pointing out that at present there are some 69 IRA prisoners in English gaols who have been charged and convicted of serious offences.

The police have had considerable success in the past, and we must be confident that they will succeed again.

:: Of course one willingly pays tribute to those who have suffered, whoever they may be. Without denigrating anybody, however, is not it a fact—and I can prove this to the right hon. Gentleman—that one may, as indeed I have, report suspicious circumstances to the police and it is weeks before they do anything?

According to the press photograph, in the recent incident at Victoria, it looked as though the van was on the zig-zag line before a zebra crossing. It should not have remained there for five minutes. I have myself reported vehicles, but nothing is done about it. As we have the largest police force ever, with all the new electronic aids, why cannot the police take action sooner? Why does it take them weeks, if not months, to take action?

:They can and do take action immediately. If the hon. Gentleman tells me something is a fact, presumably I have to accept it, although I occasionally have my doubts. At the same time, I am perfectly prepared to look into what the hon. Gentleman says if he will give me what he alleges to be facts. Between us we can then ascertain whether they are indeed facts.

:Since terrorism has gone on unabated to a large extent in Northern Northern Ireland and to an extent in the United Kingdom the last 12 years, would my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the experimental reintroduction for a period of the death penalty? I am sure that there would be massive support for it.

:That is a matter upon which hon. Members have their own individual points of view. Those views have been expressed collectively in this Parliament. I do not think that I have anything further to say on that.

:Is the Secretary of State aware that those of us who believe in the need for a thorough reappraisal of policies towards Northern Ireland have no hesitation in condemning these outrages and all the crimes and atrocities of the Provisional IRA and the other terrorist groups operating on the other side of Northern Ireland's political divide?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, particularly in so far as it shows that there is a united wish in the House to stand up for the people of Northern Ireland and to fulfil our duty to them whatever difficulties may confront us here.

:Does my right hon. Friend accept that equally serious hazards at this time are the hoax calls that the police have been receiving? I understand that this morning many hoax calls have had to be dealt with in London. Will he make it clear to the general public that his Department will take very seriously this terrible waste of police time?

:The making of hoax calls and wasting police time is a specific offence and will certainly be regarded as such. At the same time, if we ask the public to report all suspicious circumstances, Scotland Yard must expect a large number of calls of this kind.

:I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of repugnance and the condolences already expressed on both sides of the House. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether there is any evidence yet that those involved in the perpetration of these crimes are part of indigenous cells that have remained dormant in our cities for some years, or whether ports of entry such as Liverpool have been used as bolt holes by the terrorists concerned?

:I do not think that I would serve the best interests of the country by speculating on such matters. I have information, of course, but I think that it would be wrong to speculate.

:: I beg to move,

The aim of the Bill is quite simply to establish an independent machinery for investigating complaints about the police. I am well aware that I am not the first hon. Member to raise this issue. Indeed, my research in Hansard shows that many hon. Members have raised the issue in the past. I pay tribute to their endeavours in publicising the need for a change in the present set-up.

In recent months, however, more attention has been drawn to the operations of the police. The general public have become more worried, and the way in which complaints about the police are handled has been the subject of much more attention in the media and elsewhere. In the last few weeks, indeed, three chief constables have come out in favour of independent machinery for investigating complaints against the police. The chief constable of the Lancashire force, Mr. Albert Laugharne, said:

The Bill is therefore in no sense an anti-police measure. Indeed, I suggest that if the Bill became law it would lead to more public confidence in the police, because there would be more belief on the part of the public that legitimate complaints against the police would have a fair hearing and justice would be done and would be seen to be done.

The difficulty with the present method of investigating complaints is that it is seen and known by the public not to be independent, because the police themselves carry out the investigations. Accordingly, the public are reluctant to complain, partly because they feel that there is no purpose and partly because inevitably some of the complaints are of the way the police behave when the complainant may be under threat of prosecution.

A Home Office research unit report, unpublished but quoted extensively in The Times some months ago, drew attention to serious defects in the way that complaints of assault were handled in the Metropolitan Police area. Last year the Police Complaints Board completed investigations into about 15,000 complaints, Of course, the board does not have an "independent" element in the full sense of the word. The board considers reports of investigations and recommendations by the police. The effect of the board's work is to rubber-stamp the police reports. That is evidenced by the fact that in 1979 the board referred the report back to the police for more information in only 31 instances. The figure increased to 110 in 1980. That is still a drop in the ocean when one considers the volume of complaints made about the police every year. How would such an independent police investigating machinery operate? I shall call it the police ombudsman for short, because the public have come to accept that the other ombudsman machinery is truly independent of Whitehall, local government, or the service it may be investigating. I see the police ombudsman as having his own investigating staff. Some of them may be ex-police officers, but there would be no serving police officers in order to meet the need for a truly independent set-up in investigating complaints.

It is sometimes said that such an ombudsman may be bogged down by many trival or ill-founded complaints. Under the present set-up, when the police feel that complaints are trivial or ill-founded, they can refer them to the Police Complaints Board to save time. Last year 433 complaints were dealt with in that way. It is difficult to believe that, out of 15,000 complaints, only 433 were deemed to be ill-founded or trivial. The answer is that, because the police know that the way they handle complaints is scrutinised and criticised, they are understandably reluctant to say "These complaints are trivial and ill-founded so we will pass them to the Police Complaints Board." The result is that the police have to spend a great deal of time investigating trivial and ill-founded complaints. One of the benefits—although not the main one—of having an independent police ombudsman is that his staff could investigate complaints and report quickly without too full an investigation if there were prima facie evidence that the complaints were trivial, ill-founded or vexatious.

Furthermore, the police ombudsman could do something that is impossible under the present setup—that is, where appropriate, seek conciliation between the complainant and the police. That would be an enormous benefit and would lead to better relations between the police and local communities.

However, in some instances there would have to be a full and thorough investigation by the police ombudsman. That should not be confined only to instances of serious physical injury to a member of the public allegedly caused by the police, because there is a point of principle in some complaints against the police. Although they may seem to deal with a trivial event, there may be a major point of principle. The police ombudsman should have the power, when appropriate, to investigate fully the whole range of complaints.

The police ombudsman should have power to recommend, when appropriate, that the Director of Public Prosecutions institute proceedings against police officers or that the police disciplinary code be invoked. He would also have the duty to make a full report annually to Parliament. The Home Affairs Select Committee should have the power to deal in more detail with the reports and work of the police ombudsman. The police ombudsman should also have the power to make general recommendations to the police about overall policy and practice where that is appropriate in the light of one or more investigations.

The time has come to legislate. There is overwhelming support for this proposal and there is worry and disquiet about the way in which the system operates now. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill. We are nearing the end of the Session, but if I had the support of the House I should feel justified in reintroducing the Bill in the next Session. Then I should have the authority to ask for the support of the Home Office in putting forward such legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Christopher Price, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

accordingly presented a Bill to reform the procedures for making complaints about the police; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 207.]