asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much Government money has been made available to the six partnership committees and 15 programme authorities for each of the last two years.

The total resources available under the urban programme for the relevant authorities were some £133 million in 1980–81 and some £146 million in 1981–82. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for individual partnerships and programme authorities in the Official Report. Allocations for 1982–83 will total £179 million.

I recognise the value of these considerable sums of public money in rebuilding the principal urban areas. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Liverpool city council is planning to pull down Clayton Square in the inner neighbourhood, which has 30 shops, banks and even a Catholic shrine? Will he tell the leader of the Liberal city council that, if the council continues to have buildings demolished, the Government will stop the grant of public money?

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the details of what he has described. On the general policy of seeking, where possible, to avoid demolition and encourage renovation, there has been considerable progress. All who are working in inner city areas are well aware of the need to conserve the best and renovate wherever possible.

Is the Minister aware that the part of his answer dealing with the 15 programme authorities relates to the majority of authorities which, as I understand it, received substantially increased allocations in real terms? However, the city of Leeds has had its allocation reduced by 6 per cent. in real terms. Will he explain why the city of Leeds has been discriminated against? Is he prepared to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament representing that city and members of the city council to explain and discuss this matter?

I cannot do that without notice. There are 15 programme authorities. I must be sure of the reasons for the decision in this case by my noble Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Environment. Ministers are always willing to receive deputations from Members of Parliament if they wish to raise matters. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when I have made inquiries.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, before any decision could be taken by the Liberal-controlled Liverpool city council in the partnership area, it would require the support of either the Conservative or Labour Party on that council? Therefore, to hold one man responsible is absurd. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be far more beneficial to the partnership area if the £500, 000 being cut from the Merseyside police budget were to be restored this year rather than frittered away on things such as gardening centres in Toxteth?

The hon. Gentleman's first point, of course, is correct. I take note of the second point, but it goes rather wider than the original question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the vast amount of Government money spent on inner city areas, there will not be a solution to inner city problems until we have sorted out the problems of crime, particularly violent crime? While we are considering spending more money, will he also get on to the Police Federation, which is campaigning for the reintroduction of capital punishment, so that we may have more effective means of sorting out the problems in inner city areas?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is involved in that matter. I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity, but that is not a question directly for me to answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the advantages to his Department of the introduction of the MINIS system.

MINIS enables Ministers and senior officials, among other things, to conduct a regular and systematic review of all aspects of departmental policy, to understand what services cost, to monitor closely the manpower implications of policy decisions and to examine the structure of the management of the Department on a regular basis.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his is the only Department in Whitehall that has installed such an effective and useful system? It is to his great credit that he has introduced such a system. When does he expect other Departments to learn the lessons that he has taught his Department?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to discuss those matters with Ministers responsible for other Departments, not with me. It is true that, coincidental with the introduction of the MINIS system, the Department is now saving the equivalent of £70 million a year on wages that it no longer has to pay.

Does that explain why the new chief executive of the Property Services Agency gets 50 per cent. more than his predecessor when the department concerned is being reduced in size?

I think it will rapidly be found that he earns the extra money that he receives.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to receive the report from the National Building Agency concerning repairs to houses in new towns.

As I told the hon. Member on 20 January, my right hon. Friend expects on present plans to receive this report by the end of May.

How much longer does the Minister intend to prevaricate on this matter in relation to the new town of Peterlee? The delay is little short of a scandal. Is he not aware, as a result of the visit to Peterlee by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), a few weeks ago, of the tremendous difficulties suffered by literally hundreds of families there? Will he authorise an immediate substantial payment so that Easington district council can proceed with many of the repairs now needed for some of these people to live in decent conditions?

The hon. Gentleman refers to prevarication. I remind him that the Association of District Councils first made representations on this issue to the Labour Government in March 1977. The Labour Government produced no outcome by the time they left office. Within a matter of months of the Conservative Government taking office an offer was made to the Association of District Councils, which, unhappily, it was unable to accept. We hope to have the report by the end of May. I remind the hon. Gentleman that three-quarters of the way through the present financial year Easington had spent only 58 per cent. of its housing capital allocation and housing capital receipts.

On what basis does the Minister have the effrontery to put the blame on the previous Government when three years have elapsed since the present Government came to office? Does he not recognise that this problem has been handled in an absolutely clumsy manner and that there have been completely unjustified delays? How on earth does he expect new town local authorities to plan when they have experienced similar problems over rate support grant decisions?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). The previous Government did nothing for two years. We made an offer to the Association of District Councils within a matter of months of coming to office. The association was not able to accept the offer. That is why we have had to go to the National Building Agency for the survey.

Will the Minister bear in mind that anything less than a generous response will be seen as totally inadequate and in bad faith? Does he acknowledge that councillors have been very patient? Will he confirm undertakings previously given that, before the level of grants is finally determined, full consultation will take place with the councils involved?

I can confirm what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on what became the New Towns Act and that there will be consultation with the authorities concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed his consultations with industry and local authority associations about his proposals on the import of hazardous waste; and if he will make a statement.

Following the Department's review of the controls over imported waste, I announced proposals on 17 December 1981 in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). Consultation with industry, local authorities and other interests began on the same date. A few of the principal consultees are still considering their response to the proposals.

Is the Minister aware that the present situation can justly be described as absurd, not least in regard to weaknesses in the collection and use of information which may be a factor as Britain becomes the dumping ground for every dangerous item of waste in Europe and from further afield?

I repudiate the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is referring to the importation of Dutch waste, which was 95 per cent. water.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the importation of hazardous waste into Britain, there are also problems associated with the transportation as well as the final disposal of waste within Britain? Will he look into these aspects?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the arrangements made by waste disposal authorities for the selection of sites suitable for handling special waste. I have already reviewed the regulations on this matter and am satisfied that they are working satisfactorily.

Does the Minister appreciate that, despite his disapproval of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said, Britain is becoming widely regarded as the dustbin of the world not only for Dutch waste but for waste from the United States, Japan, Eire, Denmark and other parts of the world?

Does he not realise that much of this hazardous waste is stored in east coast ports or is simply poured down disused coal mines? When will he treat this as an urgent problem? When can some action be expected from the Government following the review?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government took immediate action over the incident relating to the importation of Dutch waste. That led to the review of the regulations and to the consultations that are still proceeding.

In regard to the hon. Gentleman's claim that the United Kingdom is becoming a dumping ground, I remind him that we have a significant legitimate trade in the processing of waste. Much imported waste becomes primary raw material for other industries—for example, paper and board. Many jobs are at stake. I am determined to preserve those jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have, since May 1979, carried out schemes for the improvement of dwellings for sale.

The improvement for sale scheme under the Housing Act 1980 came into effect only in November 1980. We understand that since then approximately 71 local authorities have undertaken improvement for sale.

I thank my hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. What evidence exists that this is helping people, who otherwise would be unable to move into home ownership from rented accommodation?

The initial results are very encouraging. The Housing Corporation has conducted a survey of purchasers of the initial houses bought under the improvement for sale scheme. That survey showed that nearly 60 per cent. of the purchasers were under 30 years of age and that one-third of them vacated either local authority or housing association rented accommodation, thereby easing the pressure on rented accommodation.

Is the Minister aware that some people in St. Helens are living in privately owned accommodation that is unfit for human habitation? The hon. Gentleman was asked about the sale of council property. Will he also consider a special grant to allow local authorities to build more council houses so that people may have homes that are fit to live in?

I hope that St. Helens will make full use of the additional allocation provided by my right hon. Friend for the 1982–83 financial year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the substantial expansion of improvement grants announced last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Are there not many instances of private firms being denied opportunites of tendering for work of this nature because of the activities of direct labour organisations in local authorities? Will my hon. Friend consider reducing the threshold from £100, 000 to perhaps £50, 000 to enable those firms to tender for that sort of work?

My hon. Friend will be aware that this matter does not arise directly out of the improvement for sale scheme. He may be aware also that my right hon. Friend has laid an order that will have the effect of reducing the tendering threshold for highway works from £100, 000 to £50, 000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the demand for bricks.

Brick deliveries in January this year were 161 million.

The Minister has not answered the question. Is he aware that last year the demand for bricks was the lowest in any peace time year this century due to the cutback in public sector housing and the decline in demand in the private sector? What does he intend to do to ensure that brick firms are producing bricks in two years' time when the Labour Party takes over and starts the building programme again?

The hon. Lady asked for the latest estimate of demand. The best estimate of demand is the figure for deliveries—161 million. I hope that the brick industry will respond to the measures taken in the Budget, but the industry has to compete with other construction materials. The industry has been losing its share of the market. It is not solely a matter of the recession affecting the industry.

Turning to the position in two years' time—when we shall be continuing to have responsibility for the construction industry—I point out that the Government have given the Construction Industry Training Board an additional £3 million this year for the continued training of apprentices and award holders.

Is not the demand for bricks likely to be increased considerably by the recent excellent decision to cut the mortgage rate and by the help given in the Budget for improvement work?

My hon. Friend is quite right. I hope that all hon. Members will rejoice in the increase in private sector starts that has already taken place.

Will the Minister confirm that there are record stockpiles of bricks in Britain? Will he also confirm that there are enough bricks to house 250, 000 people, to build a new city the size of Leicester, or, indeed, three Tonbridge and Maldons? As there are 400, 000 building workers unemployed, why does the Minister not advocate more action to bring those resources together and build much-needed houses?

Tonbridge and Maldon would be a very interesting constituency. There are about 25 weeks' supply at current demand levels. I am sure that the incentive that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave both to home buyers and to the construction industry will ensure that those stocks start to be used.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homeless people were housed by local authorities under the provision of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 during 1981.

Statistics collected by my Department relate only to England. In 1980–81 some 43, 000 council dwellings were let to the homeless.

Is not the operation of this Act a disgrace and a scandal? Does the Minister not appreciate the misery and suffering endured by many thousands of single homeless people in England and in Scotland? Does he not appreciate that Government policies are responsible for that misery and in a very real sense for the tent city that will grow up as a result? It was the present Government, not Peter Tatchell, who thought up that idea.

As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are currently reviewing the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the code of guidance. We hope to announce our conclusions shortly. We are certainly considering all the representations that have been made to us. In the meantime, my Department has taken some initiatives to solve the real problems facing the homeless, including an increased allocation to the Housing Corporation to help people in that category.

As the operation of the Act is, in practice, monstrously unfair to those already on homeless housing lists, because it enables others from outside to jump the queue, will my hon. Friend expedite his proposals for its amendment?

We have received many representations on the subject, and several local authorities have made the point made by my hon. Friend. We have taken that point on board, and we hope that the review will be completed shortly.

Does the Minister accept that the problems of the single homeless have been a major factor in increasing housing waiting lists in many London boroughs? Will he do more to encourage local authorities to tackle the problem by promoting shared use of some of the less attractive family flats that stand empty for so long?

I agree that much could be done by local authorities within existing resources to help the homeless. Certainly the imaginative use of empty houses is one possibility. More properties being used as hostels is another. Some of our initiatives—for example, to allow public sector tenants to take in lodgers—have helped to reduce homelessness.

In the review that my hon. Friend has mentioned, will he undertake to consider those instances where more than one local authority is claimed as the possible supplier of housing, and especially the way in which the giving authority sometimes suffers at the expense of the taking authority?

All hon. Members are aware of people being shuffled from one local authority to another. There is an arbitration procedure that should work in such cases to resolve once and for all which local authority is responsible.

Is the Minister aware of the near-crisis in London in the provision of hostel and housing accommodation for the single homeless? Will he assure the House that he will not give in to demands to weaken the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 in any way? Rather, will he seriously consider how more resources can be allocated to those local authorities that are trying to tackle the problem?

We have already increased the resources available to the Housing Corporation to try to tackle the problem. As to the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman must await the outcome of the review.

Does my hon. Friend accept that every time he uses the word "shortly" in reply to a question about when the review will be completed, he is getting away with murder, because the review has now taken four years? Does he recall his predecessor's answer to me that an announcement could be expected after the Summer Recess 1980?

We seem to have fulfilled that commitment. The issues involved are complex and wide-ranging, and it is important that we give them careful consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the workings and finances of the Sports Council; and if he will make a statement.

I have already reviewed the overall structure of the Sports Council with the aim of refining and improving its workings. I am in the process of slimming down membership by about one-third, and the chairman has reorganised the committee structure.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the Sports Council's grant-in-aid for 1982–83 will be £22·8 million. I have already met the chairman and agreed his budget proposals for that year. They reflect Government thinking by concentrating resources on the inner city areas. My officials have also discussed with the council's officials their long-term strategy and five-year rolling programme, which I expect to be submitted to me shortly.

When continuing his discussions with the Sports Council, will the Under-Secretary of State draw to the attention of the chairman the damaging effects of the untimely and ill-considered visit that he and some of his colleagues made to South Africa in 1980 and the contribution that that has made to the weakening in Britain of the back-up to the Gleneagles agreement? In future, will he ensure that the Sports Council does not subordinate the interests of other sports in Britain to those pressure groups from South Africa that wish to make that racist regime respectable, and in that way not follow the example of the Conservative Party's Back Bench sports group?

Perhaps I might set the record straight. The fact-finding visit by representatives of the Sports Council was made in January 1980. On 1 May 1981 the Sports Council agreed that it would continue its policy of supporting the Gleneagles agreement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Sports Council's main objective should now be to provide more facilities for the young unemployed? Is he aware that there are many playing fields attached to schools—the matter has been raised by some of us before—that are not used for large periods of the year? Is it not time that he contacted the education authorities and used his influence to get them to make those facilities available for use?

Yes, I accept that. Some issues have emerged in recent months. A sample survey, completed a few months ago, showed that in about 10 per cent. of local authorities, generally speaking, dual use in our schools is extremely encouraging, but there is still much work to be done. I have recently commissioned a survey, conducted by the chairman and management of the regional councils for sport and recreation, which shows good evidence that there is adequate provision of school playing fields for dual use. However, I am not yet satisfied that they are doing enough, and I shall make further moves in the next few weeks.

In view of the unprecedented offers now being made to British sportsmen to forgo the interests of British sport, what action is the Sports Council taking through the governing bodies, and through talking to individual sportsmen, to protect the livelihoods of those still playing in Britain and to protect the great international sporting occasions, such as the Commonwealth Games, which will certainly be under threat if this activity continues?

The right hon. Gentleman's point is important, but it is not necessarily the sole prerogative of the Sports Council to communicate the views of the Government to the governing bodies. I, too, discuss matters with governing bodies. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the Sports Council, as recently as 1 May 1981, reaffirmed its intention to support the Government on the Gleneagles agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend section 30(5) of the Water Act 1973 to provide that retirement pensioners and those in low income groups are given special consideration.

No, Sir. Water service charges are already taken into account when calculating supplementary benefit. In addition, water authorities will, on request, allow customers to pay by instalments. Several areas operate saving stamp schemes.

Does the Minister realise that his reply will be noted outside the House? Is he aware that he has not taken into consideration those who are now appearing before the county courts and that to pay the water rate bailiffs may have entered their homes to take away furniture that they have had for a long time? Does he also realise that, for the first time, the water authorities have imposed a standing charge of £5? Will he now reconsider his answer and at least rid people of this water charge?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about customers threatened with disconnection, but in the last full year the total number involved in England and Wales was 6, 294, of whom the vast majority were in the Thames water authority area. It is against that background that the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the absolute risk to people is not great. At the same time, the Government have a duty to support the water authorities in the recovery of legitimate charges.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the burning resentment of pensioners, single people and childless couples who live next door to families of five or six, yet they pay exactly the same water rate?

It is, in part, for that reason that consumers are now offered optional metering. The amount of water consumed can then be related to their charges. I suspect that that will help to relieve some of the comparative problems raised by my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that many pensioners, and widows in particular, have for the first time in their lives received a rate demand for water and sewerage? Some of the widows and pensioners who have written to me have received demands for £80·85, but they cannot pay that sum because they do not have the money. It is no use sending a sympathetic letter stating that they may be allowed to pay by instalments. Widows and pensioners do not have that kind of money. Therfore, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay)?

I shall not reconsider the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay). I emphasise that in many cases those who find it difficult to pay their water charges can get relief through the DHSS system. We are concerned about payment for a service that they receive, not rate rebate.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the annoyance felt by many pensioners in the West Country who are called upon to pay an environmental charge when they have neither water nor sewage facilities connected to their properties, and the fury of commercial ratepayers who are called upon by the water authorities to pay a full rate when they also have neither of those facilities?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. Many customers who do not enjoy the full range of facilities resent paying in part for the facilities enjoyed by others. The fact remains that water charges are levied largely upon consumption, partially on the contribution to the supply and partially on the environmental and other aspects that are shared by everyone in any region.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available information on the average increase in council rents in England.

The average unrebated council house rent in England for 1981–82 is estimated to be £11·50 per dwelling per week, compared with £8·18 per dwelling per week for 1980–81.

Is the Minister aware that the latest disgraceful increases are regarded by the 6 million council householders in this country as a tax on council tenants? Is he aware of the deep distress in the Northern region and in my constituency, where council tenants are now required to pay a higher proportion of their incomes on council rents than at any time since 1931? Does the Minister also understand that when he removes £¾ million from the local economy in Workington, he is throwing people out of work? That is the result of his rents strategy.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, at least half of all local authority tenants will not pay the increase in the rents for which his local authority is asking.

What about the other half?

Given the number of local authority tenants in receipt of supplementary benefit and rent rebate, there is a substantial measure of rent protection there. The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of rent increases. One wishes that the Labour Party would show the same concern about rate increases, for example by the GLC, that are also imposed on council tenants.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that had the Labour Party not been so lily-livered when in Government, and had it increased rents reasonably in line with incomes, the rent increases now proposed by the Secretary of State would not have been so great? Does he further agree that the increase in rents as opposed to incomes is only half as much for the council sector as it is for those in the private sector with mortgage repayments?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the position under the previous Government. During the previous Administration, rents increased by only 65 per cent. while earnings went up by 110 per cent. Therefore, in no way did rents stay in line with incomes. My hon. Friend is, therefore, absolutely right.

Does not the blame for this third increase in three years lie squarely on this Government's shoulders? As an owner-occupier myself, is it not grossly unfair that council tenants should have their subsidy reduced by £600 million—nearly half—in one year while at the same time the subsidy for owner-occupiers should go up to £1, 960 million a year?

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is in favour of a reduction in mortgage tax relief for owner-occupiers—

No, the opposite.

—I hope that that will become widely known, because many owner-occupiers would like to know whether that is Labour Party policy.

As half the number of council house tenants receive rent rebates of one sort or another, would it not be fairer to compare rent levels with average earnings? Has there been a movement in the percentage of the former relative to the latter over the last decade?

Broadly speaking, during the last decade—taking into account the period of this Government and the period of the last Government—rents have remained broadly in line wth earnings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider his decision to exclude the private sector from membership of partnership committees.

No, Sir. I want to keep the partnership committees and the attendant bureaucracy as small as possible. Partnership authorities have been told, however, that their inner area programmes will not be approved if there has not been adequate consultation with the private sector. This appears to be producing the involvement I want to see.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at some meetings up to 60 participants, all from the public sector, are present? Does he not agree that, with regard to the Lambeth partnership scheme, where every Conservative councillor is excluded—even though there are 22 Conservative councillors to 36 Labour councillors—some change in the balance of representation is desirable?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's suggestion that we wish to see a greater private sector input. My own experience—not in Lambeth, but elsewhere—is that we are able to achieve a substantial private sector input without the question of the formal membership of the committee being involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the latest number of (a) private and (b) council housing starts for the Greater London Council area.

In 1981, about 2, 000 local authority and 5, 000 private sector dwellings were started in the Greater London area.

Is the Minister aware that that deplorable reply illustrates the total collapse of the Government's housing policy? Is he further aware that next Tuesday there will be a major lobby of this House by the unions involved in the construction industry? Will he give an assurance that he will meet representatives from those unions so that he can learn at first hand just what is happening to building workers who are now on the dole as a direct result of the Government's failure to deal with housing need?

I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has agreed to see Len Murray on this subject. Housing starts as a whole in Greater London, including the private sector, were 8, 082 in 1981—an increase from the figure of 7, 500 in 1980. The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that last April 40, 000 local authority dwellings in London were empty.

Does the Minister accept that London is one of the areas with the greatest housing stress? Has he yet been able to study the report of the Housing Research Foundation, which assesses the overall need for housing to be something in the order of 270, 000 houses a year—a figure close to that contained in the 1977 Green Paper, on which the Secretary of State has poured such scorn? Do the Government now accept that they are completely failing to meet urgent housing needs, which have been positively confirmed by the report?

The hon. Gentleman has failed to mention that the Government have introduced many initiatives to boost low-cost home ownership involving the private sector, thereby bringing home ownership within the reach of many. He has failed also to take account of the home improvement scheme. To take housing starts as a proxy for meeting housing need is to consider only part of the picture.

If my hon. Friend meets representatives of the construction industry next week, will he encourage them to investigate the amount of work that is still being farmed out to direct labour organisations instead of being put out to proper tender to help the construction industry? Will he encourage them also to ask local authorities to use some of the funds that they have available from the sale of council houses to produce more capital construction?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. He will know that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid an order dealing with direct labour, from which I am sure he will draw encouragement. Last Saturday my right hon. Friend drew attention to the tremendous underspend that many local authorities incurred during the current year because they failed realistically to respond to our campaign to enable council tenants to buy their own homes and failed to spend the receipts that that policy generated.

In view of the low number of starts and the length of council house waiting lists in London, will the Minister dissociate himself from the statement of the recently knighted Sir Laurie Barratt, who has said that there is an adequate stock of council housing? Will he say publicly that he rejects Sir Laurie Barratt's other suggestion that when a council tenant's income rises above a certain level he should be forced to move into the private sector?

It is not the policy of this Administration to force council tenants to move into the private sector and we have never so made it. Next year London will receive HIP allocations equivalent to over £200 per household compared with less than £100 per household in the rest of the country. We have tried to look after London's needs.

I welcome all the initiatives that the Government have taken. Does my hon. Friend recognise that housing starts in neither the private nor the public sectors appear to be able to reduce the growing number of single homeless, especially in greater London?

I have referred to some of the initiatives that the Government have taken to try to tackle the problem of the single homeless. I understand that there' is an Adjournment debate on the subject tomorrow evening, during which the arguments will be developed further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional public funds from his Department's Vote have been allocated to projects in Liverpool since his visit last summer; whether any projects in Liverpool had the level of public funds available to them reduced in the same period; and if he will name the projects concerned in each case.

I have allocated £18 million additional funds to Liverpool for 1982–83. The principal programmes involved are the urban programme, the housing investment programme and that of the Merseyside Development corporation. A number of other proposals are under active consideration. In addition, the Liverpool city council is free to use the flexibility of the capital expenditure controls system to supplement its allocations by, for example, using its capital receipts and the 10 per cent. year-to-year tolerance. I know of no project for which I have a direct responsibility where the level of public funds has been reduced.

I am grateful for the fact that some of the £23·5 million that Liverpool has lost over the past two years appears to have been restored. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most chronic problems that Liverpool has to face is the escalation of crime to a level at which one crime is committed every four minutes? In that context a reduction this year in the budget of the Merseyside police of £500, 000 is unacceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman take every step possible to have that money reinstated so that 1, 000 extra community policemen may be put back on the beat in Liverpool?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point about the £23 million. That is an allocation to the county as opposed to the district, and that sum has not left the area. The disposition of the Merseyside county council police budget is a matter for the authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the secret of the successful regeneration of the inner areas is not more provision from public funds but the involvement of those living and working in the inner city areas in the decision-making process? Is my right hon. Friend considering how he can extend the involvement of local people in the programmes that he has so ably started?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has great experience in these matters. I do not think that I would go quite as far as to say that it is an either, or situation. There is probably a need for both aspects of the problem to be examined. However, the provision of more public money is not of itself a solution to the inner city problem.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has been widespread disappointment on Merseyside since his appointment last July? What initiatives does he intend to present to the Cabinet with a view to reducing unemployment and deprivation on Merseyside, especially in inner Liverpool? Will he make a statement on his recent meeting with the newly elected leader of the Merseyside county council?

I make it my responsibility to keep in close touch with the leaders of the elected majority parties on Merseyside. In that context I asked to see the new leader of the Merseyside county council for an informal discussion of the way in which I could work with the authority. I cannot accept the assumption that there has been disappointment with the work that I have been doing on Merseyside. I never tried to pretend that the general economic decline, which stretches back perhaps over 70 years, could be reversed in seven months.

All of us on Merseyside will welcome my right hon. Friend's work in Toxteth, following the most distressing events that took place last year. However, does he accept that there is genuine concern among those in other parts of Liverpool, who feel that they are perhaps becoming disadvantaged by an over-concentration on the events that took place in Toxteth and an over-concentration of the moneys that are available to Liverpool in that area?

I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend mentions. I stress that much of my time is devoted to areas other than Liverpool 8, and to areas outside Liverpool. I have been widely involved in projects that extend across Merseyside and I shall continue to be so.

Will the Minister direct some of the money into Burnley—

Order. On that basis we could go round the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) should table a question on Burnley. If he does so, he will obtain a more adequate reply.

May I persist for a minute or two, Mr. Speaker?

Order. I hope that the House will be tolerant for a moment. There are some special reasons in this instance, which I am not free to disclose.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are sound reasons, because the Minister and ministerial colleagues whom he has sent to Burnley have produced a succession of reports and he has done sweet Fanny Adams in response to them.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has conveyed his views.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's Government will issue advice to sportsmen intending to visit South Africa on the application of the provisions of the Gleneagles agreement to such visits.

All governing bodies are aware of the Government's position on the Gleneagles agreement. It is for them in the first instance to advise their members.

Will my hon. Friend emphasise that the Gleneagles agreement, however innocuous it may be, is merely a discouragement of sporting links with South Africa, and that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of restricting the freedom of choice of sportsmen who intend to play as to where they play and against whom they play? Will he advise sporting bodies, such as the Test and County Cricket Board, that they have no right to victimise players or to withhold a livelihood from players who exercise their own freedom of choice to go to South Africa?

I hope that my hon. Friend will raise his surveillance to the world problems and the importance of multi-racial sport at home and abroad. The Government signed the Gleneagles agreement in 1977 and reaffirmed it last October in Melbourne. It is entirely for the Test and County Cricket Board how it approaches the dialogue with the cricketers who have gone to South Africa. It is not for me.

rose—

Who went to Moscow?

The suggestion that I went with Aston Villa to Moscow to give comfort to the Russians is ludicrous. As it is the return leg tonight, will the Minister join me in sending greetings to Aston Villa in the hope that it will complete the discomfiture of the Russian football team?

Does the Minister agree that the cricket authorities have done all that they can be expected to do to uphold the Gleneagles agreement, and have been stopped from doing more only by the deception of the cricketers involved, which has put the livelihood of their colleagues in jeopardy? Have the rugby authorities taken a similarly strong line about the clubs of Gloucester and Cardiff? In view of the importance of this issue to world sport and to the Commonwealth Games, will the Minister, either himself or through the Sports Council, call all sports bodies together to consider those great questions for the collective good of British sport?

I gladly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's hopes that Aston Villa, and our other football clubs, should do well in European trophies and championships.

The International Cricket Conference and the Test and County Cricket Board over the years have made it clear that they will not have matches against South African cricket teams. A number of other international governing bodies have followed suit. So far the Rugby Football Union has not given such directions, but I believe that it is something that it will have to consider, as over 100 nations now play Rugby Union. On the other hand, individuals are free to leave the country to participate in sport, but they must acknowledge the problems. The previous Administration took a similar view.

As the Government went out of their way to reaffirm the Gleneagles agreement, is it not likely that in the months ahead the people of Britain will appreciate that the activities of the so-called sportsmen in South Africa are shortsighted, selfish and in the long run against the spirit of multi-racial sport, the interests of their colleagues and the long-term interests of the Commonwealth?

No one should underestimate the implications of what is involved. We are waiting to welcome the Indian and Pakistan cricket teams. I can only hope that they will still come here to play. They are welcome in the United Kingdom, as are all multi-racial sporting teams.

Will the Minister confirm that South African agents are in Britain to recruit teams for boxing, football, rowing, tennis and so on to visit South Africa? Should not the Government make such agents personae non grata, as we are bound to the Gleneagles agreement? Will the hon. Gentleman be forthright in his condemnation of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle), who is such an advocate of South African sporting links, especially as he is chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee on sport?

Hon. Members are entitled to then-views. I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's observation. I would not know whether there are South African agents in Britain to co-ordinate a campaign to attract sportsmen to South Africa—

The Minister should know.

Hon. Members may suggest that I should know, but this is a democratic State.

But the Minister knows everything about us.

People are entitled to come and go freely if they have suitable visas or passports and their papers are in order. I see it as no part of my job to monitor the comings and goings of visitors to the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his intentions concerning the future of section 52 planning agreements in the Lake District.

I am still considering the representations made on the modifications that I have proposed to the relevant part of the structure plan.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many are concerned to know the fate of section 52 agreements, both people such as myself, who are opposed to them and, to be fair, those such as the planning authorities, who impose them? Will he discuss the matter with his colleagues, as an early decision is of the utmost importance?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. We intend to review the matter and arrive at a decision shortly.

Is the Minister aware that the Lake District planning board wishes to retain the powers? Does he accept that one way to deal with the problem of second homes is to amend financial legislation? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in these times it is utterly unacceptable that a person with two homes, one of which is within a national park, can claim tax relief against mortgage interest payments on the first home?

I understand that the issue of second homes causes the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) a great deal of difficulty. That is why we must take great care in examining the policy. A number of section 52 agreements have been enforced and some cases are coming before the courts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will facilitate the employment by local authorities of private contractors for refuse collection, waste disposal, cleansing and ancillary services; and if he will make a statement.

My colleagues and I will continue to encourage local authorities to examine the scope for using private contractors for these and other services. I understand that there has been a significant increase in the number of authorities actively considering that option, as the benefits are becoming more widely appreciated.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer is good news for the local authorites that have increased the use of private contractors? Will he ensure that all the information about the comparative costs of direct labour and private enterprise is made available to elected councillors on local authorities that have not yet had the good sense to use private enterprise, so that empire-building officials cannot pull the wool over their eyes?

The message is now much more widely understood. The obvious savings and possible economies in a number of areas are widely convassed, and I believe that that will lead to a much greater take-up, A considerable number of authorities are inviting tenders from outside contractors for a range of different council activities.

Is the Minister aware that in Southend, which was one of the first local authorities to try privatisation, Exclusive Cleaning Ltd., which succeeded in getting the contract, has a director who is a leading Tory councillor in St. Albans, and that the firm did not submit the lowest tender, which came from Southend's direct labour force? Is he further aware that, in the tender, Exclusive Cleaning Ltd. agreed to take on additional houses for £15 per 100, but when it got the contract it changed that to £15 for each house? Does he also know that the matter is before the district auditor, because of the massive losses arising from the acceptance of the contract by the Tory-controlled council? Will the Minister therefore issue a circular pointing out the dangers of accepting such a contract?

One would like to think that the hon. Gentleman's question was motivated by genuine interest in the most effective way to provide a service in Southend. The hon. Gentleman's distorted version of the facts does not tally with my understanding. I understand that Southend council is satisfied that substantial savings are being made. What is more, the people in Southend are pleased with the vast improvement in the service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of vacant and derelict land have been detailed in the registers set up for that purpose; and what percentage of it has been sold.

The 35 registers so far published reveal over 21, 000 acres of unused or underused public land of more than one acre in size. Over 500 acres have been disposed of since the scheme started and a number of other sites are in the course of negotiation.

I welcome the progress described by my right hon. Friend, but does he agree that auction might produce faster progress in the use of land that is shown publicly on the registers? Does he agree also that auction might bring that land into use more quickly? Is he aware that in my constituency, Sir Laurie Barratt, whose firm has been mentioned earlier, bought some publicly owned land and had starter homes up and occupied in substantially less than a year? Is he not to be congratulated?

I certainly congratulate Sir Laurie Barratt on his remarkable achievement of providing low-cost homes for a large number of people who are buying their first house. I sympathise with the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to get a move on with the disposal of such land. I am encouraged to discover that although we have so far produced only 35 registers, about half of the land is suitable for development and one-sixth of it is suitable for housing. This is, therefore, a great opportunity.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the cuts made by Her Majesty's Government in higher education in Scotland, which are denying eductional opportunity to qualified young people, causing disruption to university finances and staffing, leading to loss of morale in all sectors of higher education, and imposing hardship on students; and calls for access to higher education to be made available at an adequate level of students' grants to those qualified and able to benefit from it.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I noticed immediately that the Prime Minister's amendment contained no refutation of the point made in our motion, that the Government's attitude to higher education and particularly the university sector will mean the denial of education opportunities to thousands of young people. Nor does the Government amendment give any educational reason for the Government's recent action. The reason is simple. They can give no educational reason for the cuts in university and other finance now being imposed. The Government simply wish to save public expenditure. They are not concerned about the educational consequences and there are no educational reasons for anything that they have done.

This country does not overspend on higher education. Comparisons can be made with other countries, but I am always somewhat sceptical about them, as they do not always compare like with like. I shall not go into that today, but such comparisons, even heavily qualified, in no way lead one to conclude that the United Kingdom is particularly generous or extravagent in the provision of higher education. Compared with most of our industrial competitors in other parts of the world, we spend relatively poorly on higher education, and I believe that some of the deficiencies in our industrial, manufacturing and economic structure are not unconnected with that fact.

Secondly, as a general preliminary point, I should point out that what is happening in higher education today is part of a pattern affecting all our young people leaving school and amounts to a general denial of educational and employment opportunity. There is an appalling unemployment problem among school leavers, especially among those with no qualifications. The latest figure for Scotland is about 22, 000. The real figure is considerably greater, as there are 31, 000 young people on the youth opportunities programme. The real total is therefore more than 50, 000. Moreover, the vast bulk of young people find no jobs on completing a YOP course. The number finding jobs has fallen from 78 per cent in 1978–79 to 30 per cent. now.

Large numbers of 16 to 19-year-olds receive no education whatever. They are not involved in the formal or informal education system in any way. There has also been a reduction in the number of apprenticeships in Scotland. Furthermore, those who receive education in universities or elsewhere face great problems in finding jobs when they quallify. What is happening in the universities and other sectors of higher education is part of a pattern which is making the situation much worse for many young people.

Before dealing with the universities, I wish to deal with the sector of higher education in Scotland which is the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State. In doing so, I shall comment briefly on the recent report of the Council for Tertiary Education. Clearly, discussion of that report and the way in which non-university tertiary education is organised in Scotland requires a separate debate, so I shall not be diverted into that today. I make just a few preliminary comments.

First, the report is not very persuasive about the links between the universities and non-university higher education in Scotland. I certainly agree that a national overview is required, which will have to include the universities as well as the non-university sector. I am also not particularly attracted to the continuation of what is in effect a two-tier system, with the central institutions on the one hand and the local authority sector on the other. Finally, from our experience with the University Grants Committee, with which I shall deal later, the prospect of 100 per cent. funding by the Secretary of State for further education in Scotland does not fill me with any great enthusiasm, given the kind of Government that we at present have. As those matters clearly require a separate debate, I shall not go into detail today, except to say that this whole area of provision is extremely important and it is vital that we get the structure right.

The position of local authority further education colleges in the Scottish education system was the subject of a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on 17 November last year, from which it seemed that the Government actually expected a reduction in full-time equivalents for vocational education in further education colleges as well as reductions in the university and central institutions sector. If that has not happened, it is not for good educational reasons. If the reduction has not taken place, it is basically because unemployment has forced more young people into education. Also, there is now greater provision in further education colleges relating to the youth opportunities programme, as there will be subsequently for the youth training scheme. We do not yet know the educational content of the youth training scheme in any detail, but it certainly does not by itself provide any real additional educational opportunity in terms of the overall view of education at further education colleges.

With regard to the colleges of education, I shall not go through the sad and shameful history of the Government's attitude and actions. That ground has been traversed thoroughly on previous occasions. The Government have reneged on the promises that they made in Opposition. They have now closed two colleges and rationalised another, and the number of students entering the colleges in the years after 1982–83 is likely to be substantially reduced, particularly on the secondary side.

The Government will claim that as the number of pupils in secondary schools is going down, the number of students going into colleges of education will naturally fall as well. What the Government do not point out, and what the Under-Secretary of State in particular, who is always boasting about the fine pupil-teacher ratios does not disclose is that, as the public expenditure White Paper published the other day demonstrates, the Government are planning not for an improvement in PTRs over the next few years but for a substantial deterioration. The figures are disclosed on page 60 of the White Paper.

At the moment the PTR at the primary stage, which affects the entrance to colleges of education, is 20·3. According to the Government, in 1982–83 that should deteriorate to 21·8 because that is all that they are providing finance for. In secondary schools the 1981–82 PTR is 14·4, but for the next three years the Government are providing for a deterioration of the PTR to 14·6.

These figures simply mean that if the local authorities allowed a deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio to bring them into line with the amount of financial provision that the Government will make available in 1982–83 and subsequent years they would have to get rid of 2, 000 teachers. When the Under-Secretary of State boasts about PTRs, the House and the country are not told that the reason for these good PTRs is that local authorities are deliberately providing better ratios than the Government are providing finances for. This is part of the excessive local authority expenditure about which the Secretary of State is always complaining.

If the local authorities were to reduce PTRs in this way they would have to make teachers redundant. At least that is taken care of in the public expenditure White Paper because we are told that there is provision in subsequent years for redundancy payments to primary teachers. Far from improving the position the Government are asking local authorities to make the position worse in primary and secondary schools, by sacking primary teachers now. They will subsequently sack secondary school teachers as well.

In secondary schools in particular it is hypocrisy for the Government to be asking for the deterioration in PTRs. As the numbers of secondary pupils go down there are certain diseconomies of scale that mean that if standards are to be maintained PTRs have to be improved. The Government are keen on Munn and Dunning and want to have it implemented in secondary schools, but if that is to happen PTRs will have to improve because that requires more staff. At the very time when the numbers of pupils are going down, and Munn and Dunning is supposed to be introduced, the Government are telling local authorities to make the PTRs in the secondary schools worse. I do not believe that that will happen but if it did it would mean a considerable deterioration in standards. That is part of the background against which we must consider colleges of education in Scotland.

The Government have gone further than closing two colleges of education and rationalising one other. They are now talking about rationalisation of the courses at the secondary school level. They are also talking about reducing the secondary intake into our colleges of education from 1, 400 last year to 1, 000 this year and 500 by 1985–86. If these reductions are made we cannot maintain the college of education system that we now have in Scotland.

The Government will have to provide new tasks for the colleges of education or they will have to link the colleges in some other way with other educational institutions unless there are to be further closures in colleges of education in Scotland. If the Government proceed upon this path and insist on these reductions in the PTRs and the colleges of education there will be further closures of those colleges. The Secretary of State must be frank, as he has not been so far, and tell us what he has in mind for colleges of education.

Some colleges thought they were all right when the previous closures were announced and that they did not have to fight with their colleagues to maintain their colleges. Some of them have already been rudely awakened by the figures published yesterday and some will have an even bigger shock in the future. So too will some Conservative Members who have listened to the honeyed words of the Secretary of State on this matter.

Central institutions are the other part of the system under the direct control of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State can tell us about their funding today. As I understand it, he is talking—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—about level funding as a whole for 1982–83, with some switch of resources from art to technical colleges.

Whatever is happening, the one thing that we can be sure of is that central institutions, any more than the universities of colleges of education, will not be able to meet the demand for qualified young people leaving school who want to enter them. In particular, they will not be able to meet the demand from those young people who are denied university and college of education places because of the university and college cuts. There will be no solution to the Scottish problems through the central institutions, although I shall listen with care to what the Secretary of State has to say.

Turning from the Secretary of State's direct responsibilities, and before going on to the universities, I wish to say something about students' grants. A critical problem is developing, about which the general public are not yet fully aware. Between 1976 and 1979, the last years of the previous Labour Government—as the National Union of Students, I am glad to see, acknowledged in its submission to the Government for the grant increase for 1982–83—student grants kept pace with changes in the retail price index. Since 1979 there has been a deliberate reduction in the real value of the student grant.

The NUS reckoned that the increase that would have been required in 1982–83 to bring the grant back to the 1979 value would have been 17·4 per cent. The Government offered an increase of 4 per cent. No doubt they can argue that other people are getting 4 per cent. and that is what they are asking people to accept as a salary or wage increase in the public sector. Yet, the students will not have anything like the 4 per cent. increase, because as well as increasing the grants by only 4 per cent. the Government have also frozen the scales of parental contribution. That means considerably less than 4 per cent. in practice.

First of all, for those on the minimum grant, which is £410, the grant is frozen. About 10 per cent. who are on that grant now will have no increase. Rather more students will move on to the minimum grant because of the freezing of the parental scale. Some students who get grants above the minimum will go down to the minimum and will have a reduction. Those already on the minimum will have no increase.

On the maximum grant the increase is 4 per cent., but the number on the maximum grant will be reduced. It will not be the same percentage as in the current year because the freezing of the parental scale will reduce the total percentage of students, which is now about 35 to 40 per cent. Some of them will have the 4 per cent. increase and some will have a reduced grant because the freezing of the parental scale will bring them down from the maximum.

Students who receive a part grant, which assumes a parental contribution, will suffer. About 50 per cent. of students are in that category. They will receive no increase. If the income of such students' parents has risen in accordance with the national average they will receive severely reduced grants in 1982–83. I hope that Government Members understand that. If they have not already received letters of complaint they can expect many when people who no doubt voted for them at the last election discover that their student sons and daughters will receive reduced grants because of the freezing of the parental scale and the small 4 per cent. increase in grants.

We do not yet know what all this means. The public expenditure White Paper is a mine of information. I am glad that the Minister responsible for education and science in Scotland is present. Page 38 of the White Paper sets out the results. Student awards in 1981–82 will cost £912 million. In 1982–83 they will cost £760 million. That is a reduction in cash terms of about £150 million. There is no adjustment for inflation in the figures.

I do not know how that figure is arrived at, but the Secretary of State must have known the average grant in Scotland for 1982–83, compared with 1981–82 before the White Paper was published. The figures in the White Paper have to be adjusted because of changes in fees. The reduction that I have mentioned is not entirely accounted for by the amount of money going to students. We should like the matter cleared up. What is the real increase for 1982–83 for England and, more particularly, for Scotland?

The Secretary of State must have the figures. What was the average grant for 1981–82 and what, after this generous settlement, will be the average grant for 1982–83? I hope that the Secretary of State will give the figures when he replies to the debate. Whatever the figures, large numbers of students will not even receive the 4 per cent. increase. Many students will receive a reduced grant in cash terms in 1982–83, despite the cost of living, for students as well as for everybody else, going up substantially.

That is not the end of the Government's meanness to students. The Secretary of State has announced that grants will no longer be paid for repeat years. A feature of our student grant system for as far back as I remember is that all students can repeat a year and still receive grant. They cannot repeat more than a year on a grant and if they have to they finance themselves. The repeat year provision is to be removed. Any student who has to repeat a year must finance himself for that year.

That is an attack on working-class students. Students from working-class backgrounds struggling through university who have to take a repeat year and who are not financed will have to abandon their courses. Students who are lucky enough to be on minimum grant, who have parents with substantial incomes, or who can find finance through their families, will be able to continue, but the Government's mean provision means that students from modest backgrounds will be forced to abandon their studies. The same is proposed for students who transfer from one course to another. Many students will not be able to continue with their university or other higher education courses.

Another meanness involves the postgraduate quotas which are to be made permanent. They were reduced in 1981–82 by 15 per cent. What will be the further reduction in 1982–83? The quota applies to everybody. Even students of the Church of Scotland and entrants to the legal and other professions will be subject to the postgraduate quota under the new system.

The public expenditure White Paper contains a sinister phrase. Perhaps the Minister responsible can explain what it means. The Government are trying to move from a system of grants to a system of student loans. I put it on record that the Labour Party opposes that. On page 40 a peculiar phrase suggests that grants to students will be frozen at the 1982–83 level for the next two years of the public expenditure programme. Do the Government intend that? Do they intend to freeze student grants for 1983–84 and 1984–85? The Government must be able to tell us whether that is their intention. If they do not intend to freeze grants I hope that the Secretary of State will explain.

Students' standards of living in 1982–83 will be reduced. It would be intolerable if in the following years there was a further reduction in the standards of living of higher education students.

When the cuts were announced by the University Grants Committee last July we made a number of criticisms. Those criticisms are as valid today as they were in July. We said that there was no educational justification for the cuts. No such justification has been produced since then. We said that there would be a denial of opportunity for thousands of young people who were able, qualified and willing to go to Scottish universities. That applies today.

Indeed, the figures published by the UGC last July understate the position. Read crudely, the figures suggest that the reduction of places in Scotland is about 1, 700. The real reduction is 3, 800, as a letter from the Under-Secretary responsible for Education and Science in Scotland to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) admitted the other day. The UGC paper in which the crude figures appear is riddled with inaccuracies. That is only one such inaccuracy.

The position is worse than that, because the figure takes no account of the fact that we have not reached the peak of potential student population in Scotland, although that peak will be reached in a couple of years.

We also said that the cuts could not be justified in terms of deployment between courses and universities, some of which are better or more attuned to modern needs than others. The favoured courses such as engineering and science will be badly affected by the cuts announced in July, as will courses in the arts, the humanities and the rest. We said that the UGC had its sums wrong. At some Scottish universities—Aberdeen is a prime example—the figures for student numbers and for finance are not even comparable arithmetically. I will come to the problem that we have in Aberdeen because of that. There was no fairness between universities. Some universities, including the new university at Stirling, were savagely attacked by the UGC.

We said that there was no point blaming the UGC because it was simply acting as hatchet man for the Government. It is the Government who are responsible, not the UGC. We said that the UGC provisions had not taken account of the four-year degree course in Scottish universities. That charge has not been answered. A number of those points were made at a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education and Science in November. He no more answered them then than he did in the debate the following day or has done since.

We said that the timetable was too short. Even if what the Government were doing was justified, to do it over three years was absurd and would cause—in the UGC's own phrase—disorder and diseconomy in the universities. That comment has been fully justified by what has happened since last July. We also said that to carry out such a policy on that time scale would be extremely expensive. It would involve large-scale redundancies and expensive redundancy payments because many academic staff have security of tenure. Even if one were agreeable to the reductions—which we were not—to do it over a longer period would save money rather than cause additional expense. In some cases, those reductions would prejudice the viability of individual universities; Stirling was mentioned in that respect.

When we put that point to the Secretary of State for Education and Science—I am grateful to him for being here this afternoon, despite what I am about to say about him—he said that he did not really want any universities to be closed deliberately. He did not rule out the possibility that some might be closed by accident or inadvertence, but he was not setting out to close any deliberately. All those criticisms have been fully justified by events since last July and none has been answered.

I think that the Government expected that the fuss and palaver would all blow over, that universities have had such crises before but that things would soon continue calmly and easily. That has not happened. Some university expectations were equally wide of the mark. Some of them, including Scottish universities, in their innocence felt that the injustice was so blatant that they had only to explain it to the UGC for some adjustment to be made. Not a single Scottish university has had any adjustment at all in its provisions following their representations to the UGC. Indeed, in some cases, the UGC has sent them a curt letter which has not answered their points at all but simply said that nothing can be done.

One change since July is that in January the Secretary of State for Education and Science, acknowledging that there would be 5, 000 redundancies among academic staff, said that he was willing to agree a standard compulsory redundancy scheme. We do not know how much that will cost. Figures of £150 to £200 million have been floating around. What is the Government's estimate of the cost of that scheme? They have taken on an open-ended commitment. It will cost £150 to £200 million to make people unemployed, to reduce standards of academic excellence in universities and to deny university education to large numbers of our young people. It is a complete waste of money. That money should be spent on improving our educational structure and giving additional educational opportunities rather than making people unemployed.

We are now coming to the crunch. Over the next few months some disagreeable and nasty situations will arise in particular Scottish universities. It looks as if Aberdeen will be the first with 160 redundancies among its academic staff. They will be fought and fought legally. It is an absolute disaster. The UGC has not justified what is happening to Aberdeen. In Stirling there is a critical situation, with which my hon. Friends will deal. There was talk of making 62 academic, and many other non-academic, posts redundant. In Glasgow there has been talk of 431 redundancies over the next three years, including 200 academic staff. In Strathclyde there has been talk of 250 redundancies over three years, including 112 academic staff. In St. Andrews over the next two years 50 academic and 70 non-academic staff will go. Of course, similar tales of woe are to be told at other universities that I have not mentioned.

The Government have produced unnecessary waste, confusion, bitterness and anger. At the end of the day they are not likely to have saved much, or any money. Nobody in the House or in the universities believes that our educational system must continue unchanged to the end of time. If that feeling existed in some universities until a few years ago, I do not regret that that feeling has passed. The residual lingering feeling that nothing can be changed except for the worse and that expansion in every direction, regardless of priorities, always produces better educational provision, exists only in a few departments. I do not believe that and I never have. I do not believe that it applies to other sectors of our educational system either. If change is to come, it must come within the context of a controlled overall expansion of educational opportunity and expenditure. We cannot get the necessary changes in our educational system, do justice to young people at school, deal with the appallingly difficult problems of 16 to 19-year-olds, or deal with the problems of those in higher education by a process of indiscriminate, ill-considered cuts which are doing immense damage to higher education in Scotland and elsewhere. However, that is the road that the Government have set out upon and that is why we condemn them today.

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"this House recognises the need for higher education in Scotland to bear a proportion of reductions in public expenditure and commends the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government and the University Grants Committee to re-order priorities to ensure a high standard of provision consistent with national needs."

I, too, am glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to cover this important subject. I am grateful to the Opposition for making this time available to us.

I start by making some complaints to the Opposition about the somewhat strange arrangements under which we are discussing this matter. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) quite properly devoted a great deal of his speech to the changes that have taken place in the universities. I should have thought that it would be appropriate to have proper arrangements for the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are directly responsible to have an opportunity to speak in the debate.

I am surprised that those Labour Members who are responsible for shadowing the Department of Education and Science—the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) made a short appearance—have not made an appearance. That is to be regretted. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who have direct responsibilities for the universities, have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

The right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate is deeply disappointing. He rightly expands at length and with great care on all the things that anyone could find that were unsatisfactory about educational provisions in the higher sphere, but if the right hon. Gentleman's position as Opposition spokesman on Scotland means anything, he should have considered the matter in a more responsible and round fashion.

Anyone can list the things that he would like to see in higher education without paying the slightest regard to the availablility of the money to finance it. It is the easiest thing in the world to do that. I could easily spend half an hour or more listing all the things that I should like to see in higher education, but I should have to ignore the question whether there was enough money to finance them or where one could find such money.

rose—

I have only just begun my speech and I shall not give way at present. It is understandable that a Back Bencher might make such a speech, but it is deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman should make no reference to the availability of money to finance the task to which he referred.

The right hon. Gentleman had the effrontery to mention teacher training colleges. Someone from Mars, listening to the debate, might think that that was the aspect that had most deeply shocked the right hon. Gentleman. He might think that the right hon. Gentleman was shocked that anyone should reduce teacher training provision, yet only a few years ago the right hon. Gentleman proposed to close or amalgamate no fewer than four colleges.

rose—

When the arrangements that the right hon. Member for Craigton had made were shown to be inadequate, he abandoned his scheme. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that today. He gave many figures for pupil-teacher ratios. Of all people, I should not have expected the right hon. Gentleman to make a mistake when using figures to make a point. He is far more expert on figures than most of us will ever be, but, from the way that he presented his case, I gathered that he had taken the present pupil-teacher ratios and compared them with the provisions in the rate support grant for the coming year.

If the right hon. Gentleman were to compare like with like, he would find a different story. If the right hon. Gentleman were to look at the rate support grants—about which he always complains—he would find that there had been provision in each year for an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary education. That goes for the coming year as well. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would know that that was the right way of doing things.

Does the Secretary of State want, or expect, local authorities to reduce pupil-teacher ratios to the levels in the White Paper? Is that what he is asking them to do?

Local authorities are perfectly free to do that. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Craigton and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) must face the fact that the provisions in the rate support grant settlements allow for the highest ever pupil-teacher ratios. [Interruption.] If local authorities have chosen to spend more and to produce even better ratios, that is their decision. My provisions allow for the highest ever ratios. The right hon. Gentleman should at least admit that.

The right hon. Gentleman is always lecturing local authorities on their extravagent expenditure. Will he now answer my question? He is providing only for badly deteriorating pupil-teacher ratios. Does he expect local authorities to reduce their standards to his?

That is the same question as the right hon. Gentleman asked before. I certainly expect local authorities to reduce their expenditure to reasonable levels. If they choose to do so by reducing their standards, that is their business. My job is to provide for them in the rate support grant. The right hon. Gentleman should know that the pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools that are provided for in the rate support grant have improved by 0·1 per cent. in each case from 1981–82 to 1982–83. Pupil-teacher ratios will be held steady at that level until 1984–85. Therefore, the lower figures shown for 1980–81 and 1981–82 represent the actual level of staffing and not the staffing levels provided for in the rate support grant. [Interruption.] I think that I have dealt satisfactorily with that point.

The debate covers higher education generally. I cannot speak for the chorus line on the Opposition Back Benches, but those members will get their chance to speak later.—[Interruption.] As this is a short debate I shall try to cover in the briefest time possible the whole spectrum of higher education.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for waking up Opposition Members after the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), it would be helpful to hear my right hon. Friend's speech. It is continually being interrupted by Opposition Members, who will no doubt catch your eye in due course.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate would be better and there would be less noise from Opposition Members if the Secretary of State had the courage to let hon. Members intervene in his speech.

The best way to debate the subject is to allow the Secretary of State to be heard.

I probably have the best record for giving way. In the space of about six minutes I have given way three times, and I shall not give way again. [Interruption.] Front-Bench Members are the most prestigious and one should give way to them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) for pointing out that I have succeeded not only in waking up the Opposition—itself quite a feat—and drawing some Opposition Members to the Chamber—which is an unusual pleasure—but in rousing the Opposition to make enough noise to attract the hon. Member for Bedwellty back into the Chamber. That is very welcome. [Interruption.]

In the brief time available I shall give as many answers as possible to the questions that have been raised about higher education. We should get the balance of our higher education system into perspective. The number of students in Scotland in higher education is divided into the proportion attending each of the sections that make up higher education. In the session 1981–82, 45, 000 students are taking full-time courses at our eight universities; 17, 000 in the central institutions and colleges of education and 11, 000 in full-time or sandwich advanced courses in the colleges of further education. That is a total of 73, 000, of which 62 per cent. attend universities and 38 per cent. colleges in the public sector. That clearly shows the great importance in Scotland of the central institutions in higher education as a whole.

It would have been much more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to deal with the universities, but as I keep in close touch with the Scottish universities and my right hon. Friend, I should be happy to say a few words about the university system in Scotland.

rose—

I must press on, otherwise I shall take up too much time.

We can at least unite in regretting that it might be necessary to halt a process of expansion in higher education that began in the Robbins era and that there now must be some reduction in the level of funding. However, there are two significant differences between the Government and the Opposition. First, we recognise the reality of the economic situation, while the Labour Party consistently refuses to do so. Over the years successive Governments have allocated considerable resources to the establishment of new universities and colleges, and to the development of existing institutions. Expansions could not continue in a period of economic stagnation, and therefore some retrenchment is inevitable.

Secondly, the Conservative Party recognises that what is happening to the universities does not relate in any way to the death blow attitude displayed by the right hon. Member for Craigton. I agree that there are painful and difficult adjustments to make and that the total level of activity in universities—because of those changes—will be reduced, but I am certain that these economies will do no fundamental damage to the structure of our university system, which will remain well able to respond to the challenges that it will face during the years ahead.

I say that partly because the significance of the economies requested is being massively exaggerated in relation both to the total size and the fundamental health of the university system, and partly because the selectivity with which the cuts have been made by the University Grants Committee has helped to ensure that the best is being preserved and that we shall continue to have a university system that is capable of responding to the demands of the future.

After all, the reduction in numbers that is required in Scotland amounts to 4·4 per cent. of a total number which has grown every year for many years. It is a reduction that we would have preferred not to make, but it cannot be described in the totally destructive terms that the right hon. Gentleman used today.

The Secretary of State said that he had been in close touch with the principals of Scottish universities. Can he name one who agrees with the type of selectivity that the UGC has asked the universities to undertake?

It is not for me to put words into the mouths of university principals. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the answer to his question. He seems to be engaging in a private discussion with his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—or possibly a private war. Of course I have been in close touch with university principals. I am sure that there is no university principal or headmaster of any school or further education institution who welcomes the fact that he is to get less money to spend next year. Who would? If I may say so, it is an absurd question.

My second general point is that, even if Opposition Members were to accept the need for a reduction in university expenditure, I should have thought that, on mature reflection, they would agree that it is right that the pattern of that reduction and the advice given to the universities should be decided not by the Government but by the UGC, which is used to apportioning funds between universities.

rose—

Surely I should have the opportunity to develop my argument.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He knows that the UGC has not explained to any of the universities the reasons why they have been treated in a particular way. Despite all the recommendations that have been made the information is still not available. The UGC has told me that it will not make the information public and that it will not answer my queries about what is happening. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the UGC to have a public debate about the secret way in which it has made the cuts?

That is not a matter for me, in any case. Of course, my right hon. Friend will note what the hon. Gentleman says in that regard.

He is not here.

I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to recognise, as I think the right hon. Member for Craigton did, that the UGC is only doing its job in implementing something for which the Government decided the basic pattern. It is therefore wholly appropriate to pay tribute to the UGC for the way in which it has tackled an exceedingly difficult job. It is right that I should say that.

I want to make two comments about the university system in Scotland. The first is that, as a simple matter of fact, Scottish universities have fared slightly better than their counterparts in England and Wales in terms of both money and student numbers. The second is that the UGC has specifically recognised two particular features of the Scottish system—the four-year course, and the special circumstances of those Scottish universities that have a larger than average proportion of home-based students. I am therefore satisfied that it would be wrong for any right hon. or hon. Member, in Scotland at any rate, to say that Scotland has been treated worse than any other part of Britain. Indeed, it has been treated slightly better. I emphasise, too, that both the Government and the UGC are doing everything that they can, in an admittedly difficult situation, to make a sensitive and flexible response to a difficult developing situation.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Under-Secretary have been deeply concerned about the Scottish aspects of these changes. Both have met the Scottish principals, and that has helped particularly my responsibilities for health in Scotland. As I announced last December, I have been able to recognise the heavy demands that the Health Service in Scotland makes on the universities, and I have made special provision to allow the replacement in NHS establishments in Scotland of any posts which universities were obliged to cut which were essential to the maintenance of patient care or the output of trained specialists essential to the Health Service.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has shown his flexibility by being willing to agree to a redundancy compensation scheme for academic staff, which is very similar to that proposed by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and which generously recognises that significant numbers of them have academic tenure to take into account. This has been of significant help to the universities in their task of managing this difficult process of contraction.

The UGC is also sensitive to the continuing needs of the university system in Scotland. I have discussed the situation with the chairman of the UGC, and I much appreciate the significant amount of time that he personally has given to meetings with the Scottish principals. Although the financial situation leaves it relatively little flexibility, the committee has made certain responses which are worth recording. First, it told Aberdeen that it is sympathetic to the university's desire to develop further its work in engineering, and decided that, if the university were to succeed in obtaining adequate external funding for an additional chair, the committee would consider providing a degree of supporting funding.

Secondly, it has continued the funding of Edinburgh's work as one of only two specially selected centres in the United Kingdom on the application of microprocessors in science and engineering subjects. Heriot-Watt has also been chosen by the Department of Industry as a centre for the work of its microprocessor applications project.

Thirdly, the UGC is planning an element of special support for biotechnology in its grant allocations for 1982–83 at a limited number of universities. I am confident that the undoubted expertise that exists in Scottish universities in biotechnology will ensure that they will attract a healthy proportion of the special funds available, and enable them to sustain and further develop their capability in this important area.

Will the Minister give way?

No.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if the Minister does not give way.

I have such respect for my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), that I want to protect him from making his usual intervention, because it usually rebounds on himself. It is in his own best interests if I let him off.

Finally, on the universities, I want to emphasise the significance of the broad thrust of the UGC's strategy and how important this is for the economy. The expansion of the university system was planned on the assumption that it could be sustained by continued growth in the economy, and over several years that just has not happened. This meant that when the expansion had to stop we were left with some institutions and departments within institutions that could no longer hope to reach the size originally planned. Some departments were, therefore, too small ever to become efficient or educationally fully effective.

In making its allocation within the new level of funding proposed for the system the UGC had to take account of this effect, amongst others, in considering how best to achieve the following four aims: first, to ensure the maintenance of a full range of subjects throughout the university system and to protect scholarships generally; secondly, to bring about a significant shift of emphasis in the system towards technology and those aspects of science central to our economic—

rose—

Order.

On a technology point—

—and industrial future from the point of view of our need both for research and for trained manpower; thirdly, to preserve the vitality of the system and its ability to respond to new needs and challenges; and, lastly, to ensure the continued viability of institutions themselves.

Given the broad canvas with which the UGC had to deal and the limited time in which it had to work, it is easy for anyone to pick holes in what has been done in detail one way or another, but it is essential to look at the broad strategy, which is what I have tried to do. I am convinced that it is right and that in years to come the breakdown of what has been done in this admittedly difficult matter will prove to have been extraordinarily farsighted.

I come now to that sector of higher education for which I have a more direct responsibility, the central institutions, the colleges of education and the colleges of further education, in which a considerable amount of advanced work is done. These institutions account for 38 per cent. of all students taking full-time or sandwich courses at degree or equivalent level. The number of students enrolling in these courses continues to increase. In 1979 the number was 20, 000. In 1980 it rose by 10 per cent. to 22, 000, and last year it increased by a further 8 per cent. to 24, 000. It says a great deal for the efficiency of the institutions concerned that they contrived to accommodate this considerable influx without a substantial increase in the level of funding. Ten years ago—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall break off for a moment to explain to the House that if I go on too long and give way to everyone who would like me to give way, no one else will get in. It is a short debate. I had hoped that I would have the support of hon. Members on all sides in trying to confine my speech to a reasonable length. I do not think that it is fair on Back Benchers on either side if I give way.

Ten years ago the student-staff ratio in the central institutions stood at 8:1; today the average stands at 10:1; and in the colleges of technology the ratio is even higher. This represents a very significant achievement in terms of the improved utilisation of resources.

While the Government's expenditure plans allow for the contraction in teacher training to match the declining secondary school population, they will enable grants to the central institutions to be maintained at about the current level, and the provision made for further education generally in the rate support grant settlement for 1982–83 reflects the emphasis which the Government continue to place on the supply of trained manpower for industry and commerce.

The provision made for the central institutions in 1982–83 allows for expenditure at a level 8 per cent. above that for 1981–82 and 20 per cent. above the level for 1980–81. The RSG settlement for 1982–83 assumes local authority expenditure on further education at a level of 12 per cent. above that for last year. This is a measure of the importance that the Government attach to this sector of education.

Are these cash or real figures?

They are cash figures. All figures shown are cash. It is cash figures that the rest of the country has to work on. [Interruption.] Except the Labour Party, of course.

This, indeed, is the strength of the so-called public sector of higher education in Scotland, namely that the colleges are engaged in the business of providing vocationally orientated courses which are mounted and constantly adapted to meet the needs of industry, commerce and the professions. Over the years students who have successfully completed these courses have experienced little difficulty in obtaining employment. It is signficant that at the end of 1980, for instance, of those who had graduated in the summer and whose destination was known, only 8·3 per cent. had failed to obtain employment. To put it another way, over 91 per cent. obtained employment.

The introduction of new courses at advanced level in the central institutions and the other colleges is subject to approval by my Department. The criteria for approval includes evidence of a demand for the course from both employers and students which is not being satisfied by courses already available. This mechanism of control provides a useful safeguard against the proliferation of courses and the waste of resources and helps to ensure that students who successfully complete the course have a reasonable prospect of securing employment. Within the total resources available to the central institutions, my Department is seeking to give priority to those areas which are of key importance to our economic recovery, such as electronics and electrical engineering, computer science and industrial design.

The consultative paper on electronics manpower which was issued by the Scottish Office in June of last year has been well received by industry and by the universities and colleges. Expansion in the output of both graduates and qualified technicians in this field has a high priority; and it is encouraging that enrolments in both BSc and HND courses in the central institutions and colleges of further education are steadily rising.

Listening to the doom-laden speeches of Labour Members, one would gather that everywhere in higher education the shutters were going up and the lights were going out. I have no time to catalogue all the innovative and exciting work being undertaken. I shall mention only a few examples: the microelectronics education development centre located at Paisley college of technology, which since its inception in 1980 has provided over 50 courses attended by participants from well over 100 educational, industrial and commercial organisations; the postgraduate courses in offshore technology which have been provided by Robert Gordon's in Aberdeen in support of the oil industry and the offshore survival unit in the same college, which in 1980–81 provided training for over 7, 000 in the industry; the emergence of the Scottish college of textiles at Galashiels as a major centre of textiles technology in this country; the beginnings of work on robotics at Dundee college of technology; work pioneered by Leith nautical college in the handling of hazardous cargo; the introducton at Napier college of a new course in energy engineering and of a distinctive diploma course in European languages and marketing; and the planning—now at an advanced stage—of a new building for the Royal Scottish academy of music and drama, which will further enhance the facilities available in Glasgow for the enjoyment and promotion of the arts.

If that is a catalogue of a system in total decay and disaster it is a distortion of the whole picture. I hope that Opposition right hon. and hon. Members will remember that there are people working and studying in these institutions who do not require to have the situation unnecessarily made seem worse than it is.

The painful process of contraction in the colleges of education that I announced in August 1980 has in large measure been achieved. My answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Craigton in his opening remarks is that no one can ever give a guarantee for ever more about any institution, but we have no plans for any further closures of colleges of education. The contraction process was not an end in itself, but part of the necessary process of enabling the colleges to come to terms with new developments in curriculum, assessment techniques and school organisation and to try to improve the quality of the teaching force even though the number of schools has to decline with the fall in the number of pupils.

One recent development has been approval of a new secondary teaching qualification in computing; at the same time arrangements are being made for an expanded programme of in-service training courses in computing to complement the rapidly spreading use of micro-computers in schools. In-service training is of increasing importance in a time of rapid technological change, and for this reason the level of funding of the colleges for in-service courses has been maintained at the level set in 1977.

These are all developments which dispel the notion that higher education in Scotland is suffering from some sort of paralysis. That these developments—and many others—are going ahead even though it is a time of financial stringency bears out my contention about the underlying strength of the system.

Both sectors of higher education—the universities and the colleges—have their own distinctive contribution to make. It remains Government policy that the role of the non-university institutions in higher education should be complementary to that of the universities and that the advanced courses they provide should have a strong vocational bias, with an increasing emphasis on meeting the demand for skilled manpower in industry and commerce.

I referred briefly to the machinery which exists to secure effective co-ordination in the provision of courses in the non-university sector. I am glad to say that more recently we have been able to institute informal arrangements for the exchange of information about prospective academic developments with the eight Scottish universities. There are, of course, difficulties in long-term planning in this, as in any field, and there is no suggestion at this stage of dovetailing the provision to be made in the university and non-university sectors. But there are obvious benefits to be gained from the pooling of information, not least at a time when resources are tight, and we have taken the first tentative steps towards achieving closer co-operation at national level.

There are already very useful links at local level between individual institutions, of course. These take a variety of forms. Co-operation between a university and a neighbouring institution may extend to the establishment of joint departments. An example of this is the link in respect of degree courses in architecture and town planning between the Heriot-Watt university and the Edinburgh college of art. The degree courses provided in some colleges are validated by a neighbouring university. There are also courses provided in a university to which a non-university institution makes its own contribution.

That kind of co-operation is illustrated by the institution of degree courses at Stirling university with a substantial input by Falkirk college of technology. I welcome this kind of collaboration and I am sure that it will increase as institutions recognise the importance of using to the best advantage the resources available to higher education in Scotland. My Department will continue to promote the exchange of information at national level which will facilitate that sort of collaboration.

The motion

"calls for access to higher education to be made available at an adequate level of students' grants".