Student Awards (Hansard, 5 December 1984)

§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
On 12 November I announced changes to the student awards system involving the abolition of the minimum award, increased contributions from parents in the middle and upper reaches of the income scale and the extension of contributions, for those most able to pay, up to the maximum of the designated tuition fee of £520 a year. The resources released by these measures were intended in part to meet increases in the already substantial bill for student awards—about £700 million in 1984–85—and in part to provide additional money for science.
Our system of student support—amongst the most generous in the world—has long been based on the sharing of responsibility by the Government, the student's family and where appropriate the student himself. When resources are limited, it is, I believe, right for those parents who can afford to do so to carry a larger share of the costs of their children's higher education, in order to release money for urgent needs elsewhere, particularly at the moment for science.
I recognise the concern expressed in the House and elsewhere that the increase in parental contribution that was proposed was too sharp and the notice given too short to enable parents to make such a substantial adjustment in their financial affairs. I believe also that parents will want to know where they stand in relation to the next academic year.
I should therefore tell the House that it remains the Government's intention, subject to the decision of Parliament, to abolish the minimum award and to increase the level of parental contributions to maintenance for those in the middle and upper reaches of the income scale. I have, however, decided to withdraw the proposal that parents should make a contribution to tuition fees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided similarly. The cost of this concession in England and Wales in 1985–86 is £21 million. In order to find this extra sum, I have been through my recently announced expenditure programme again and I have been able to find £11 million savings towards it.
I have three savings to announce. First, there will be a reduction of £6 million in the addition to the equipment grant for universities in 1985–86. This means that universities will get £4 million for this purpose in that year instead of the £10 million that I announced earlier. I intend, however, that the selective scheme, with the agreement of the University Grants Committee, should now be extended to cover the three years to 1987–88: £7 million a year will be available in each of the two later years.
Secondly, there will be a reduction of £3 million—from £14 million to £11 million—in the amount which I had told the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils was a planned addition for science in 1985–86.
Thirdly, there will be a number of smaller economies amounting to £2 million. This will mean among other examples a smaller increase than already announced for 361 the PICKUP programme; and less for educational research, adult education and the microelectronics programme.
The remaining £10 million needed in 1985–86 will, exceptionally, be found by an addition of that amount to the public expenditure planning total.
The Government propose to consider—and consult widely about—whether a radical change in the student support system, which might include loans, should be made so as better to meet the needs of students and their families whilst safeguarding the interests of the taxpayer.
I believe that these proposals meet the two main concerns of the House: first, that the increase in parental contribution was too sharp and too sudden; and, secondly, that the system of student support in the longer term should be reviewed.

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.

§ Mr. Wilson
It is very important—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. All points of order are very important.

§ Mr. Wilson
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
No; I said that I would take the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards.

§ Mr. Wilson
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will take his point of order afterwards, and I will.

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I will take it afterwards. I will not take it now!

§ Mr. Wilson
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I will take the point of order afterwards. I will not take it now.

§ Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)
Is the Secretary of State aware that by withdrawing the proposal to charge for tuition fees he has been forced into a humiliating climb-down? Is he further aware that since the Government came to power they have reduced the real value of student grants by 14 per cent.? The right hon. Gentleman still proposes to abolish the minimum grant and is still not prepared to set up a wide-ranging and independent — I stress "independent"—review of financial support for all those in higher and further education.
Is it not also the case that the right hon. Gentleman is now cutting over £9 million from the increase in the science budget, which he told the world was so important that parents and students must pay for it? Terrified by their own Back Benchers, the Government have climbed down. How can the House have confidence in a Secretary of State who has displayed such incompetence and insensitivity? How can the Secretary of State have any confidence in himself?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we would feel more respect for Conservative Back Benchers if they also used their muscle on issues affecting far greater numbers? 362 Where is the Tory rebellion on the reduction in the pensioners' heating allowance? Where is the Tory rebellion on the cuts in regional aid? Where is the Tory rebellion on unemployment? We will take the Tory Back Benchers seriously when they force the Government to climb down on those other issues of fundamental importance to many millions throughout the country.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The Government's purpose of strengthening the science budget — though admittedly less than we would have liked—is still being achieved.

§ Mr. Mark Carlisle (Warrington, South)
While obviously regretting the need for any increase in the parental contribution, I nevertheless say to my right hon. Friend that I and many of my hon. Friends will be glad that he has thought again about the question of tuition fees. We welcome the change and thank my right hon. Friend for what he has done in that regard, thereby preserving the principle of free higher education in this country.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I very much respect the desire of my right hon. and learned Friend to find the best answer to the problem of student support, and I am grateful for what he has said.

§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)
It will not be lost on the House that a rebellion by Tory Back Benchers has for the first time been half successful when it involves the interests of their better-off constituents.
The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position if he thinks that the public outcry is about the suddenness of the announcement. The outcry has arisen because the announcement comes on top of a steady erosion of the value of the student grant during the right hon. Gentleman's period of office. That is why it is unacceptable. Why is the right hon. Gentleman messing around trying to find £11 million by damaging cuts in other areas of education when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is keeping £1,500 million in reserve for tax cuts in the spring? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the effects of the cuts on the Scottish budget, about which he said nothing in his statements?
Finally, why should there not be a review before any changes are made rather than after the right hon. Gentleman has aready made some damaging decisions?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
All the better-off will still pay more in parental contributions, despite today's announcement. The question of arriving at the optimum balance between students and families on the one hand and taxpayers on the other will be at the heart of the review that has been announced. The cuts of £11 million are reductions in increases and leave substantial increases for the science budget.

§ Sir William van Straubenzee (Wokingham)
rose—

§ Mr. Wilson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will take his point of order afterwards, and I will do so.

§ Mr. Steel
rose—

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
rose—

§ Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am very surprised that the leader of the Liberal party and other should rise on points of order in the middle of a very important statement which the House wishes to hear. I am here to protect the interests of the whole House.

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. Wallace
rose—

§ Mr. Maxton
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) does not resume his seat, I shall have to ask him to leave.

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. Wallace
rose—

§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I would be reluctant to have to ask the hon. Gentleman to leave. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I call Sir William van Straubenzee.

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. Wallace
rose—

§ Mr. Maxton
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that I can almost anticipate the point of order that the hon. Member for Dundee, East wishes to make, although there is so much noise that the situation is very difficult for me. I believe that he wishes to say that we have had Scottish questions this afternoon, that there was a question on this point, and that the Secretary of State did not answer it as the Secretary of State for Education and Science has done.

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I may be able to call him.

§ Sir William van Straubenzee
Does my right hon. Friend recall that I ventured yesterday afternoon to identify —and the point seemed to have approval—the inclusion of fees in the parental contribution arrangements as the issue of principle that was bothering so many hon. Members on these Benches? I said that that principle potentially affected not just the better-off but students from far less well-off homes than is normally supposed. What my right hon. Friend has now done, therefore, has gone a long way towards setting at rest the anxiety of Conservative Back Benchers.
Will my right hon. Friend venture to suggest to his Cabinet colleagues that the other lesson of principle is that Conservative Back Benchers who are anxious to support the Government must, in difficult matters such as this, be brought into consultation at a reasonably early stage?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am glad to pay tribute to the effectiveness of my hon. Friend's insight. The review and the following consultation will give an opportunity for the thorough canvassing of the options.
I gather that a question was asked by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), which I did not hear. I cannot answer for Scotland myself, but I am told that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has yet to announce the allocations to programmes within the Scottish block. The effect of this change will be covered when he makes that announcement, which I understand he hopes to do shortly.

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Has not the Secretary of State been kicked into grasshopping from one penny-pinching point to another? He has no answer to the accusation that, while giving public funds to the assisted places ,scheme and cutting down on education left, right and centre, he has now been brought to book, and, in order to please his own Back Benchers is having to make a concession that is not really a concession. He is stealing funds from other areas when he could take money from the rich to ensure that working people have a proper education.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, as is often the case, that is inaccurate. On an exceptional basis, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has helped to achieve a situation which allows an increase in the science research budget.

§ Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about fees and future inquiries into student support, but can he confirm that, as the student population is rising, the extra £15 million for awards in 1985–86 is safeguarded?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Wilson
As the Secretary of State for Scotland put off the leader of the Liberal party earlier this afternoon in Scottish Question Time with a promise that a statement would be made on this matter setting out the Scottish implications, will the Secretary of State tell us—we demand it — what the effect will be on the Scottish education budget?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
No, Sir. I have told the House that my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement shortly.

§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have already gone over this matter.

§ Mr. Douglas
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have received notification that the Opposition Front Bench wishes to raise a point of order at the end of the statement. I intend to take points of order then.

§ Mr. Douglas
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already said that I shall take the point of order later. I call Sir William Clark.

§ Mr. Douglas
rose—

§ Mr. Wilson
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already said that I shall take the point of order after the statement.

§ Sir William Clark (Croydon, South)
Is my right hon. Friend aware—

§ Mr. Douglas
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, is not trying to challenge what I have said. I have already said that I shall take the point of order at the end of the statement. That is exactly what I intend to do. I call Sir William Clark.

§ Sir William Clark
rose—

§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)
rose—

§ Mr. Douglas
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that this is intolerable.

§ Mr. Douglas
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is intolerable that Privy Councillors—

§ Mr. Donald Stewart
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is intolerable that Privy Councillors and experienced Members should seek to challenge a decision that I have already stated. As I have already told the House, I intend to take the point of order at the end of the statement. I have an obligation to the whole House, not just to Scotland.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart
rose—

§ Mr. Douglas
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I call Sir William Clark.

§ Sir William Clark
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed here and throughout the country? Is he further aware that, rather than this being a humiliating defeat for him, we admire him for agreeing and admitting that his first assessment on student awards needed amendment? He showed political honesty and courage. In his long-term consideration of student awards, will he look into the extension of the business loan guarantee scheme for students?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We can ensure that his suggestion is taken into account in the review.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
As someone who is not renowned for causing any trouble in the House, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No—ask him."]—may I let him know that Opposition Members are not averse to any Government taking notice of what Back Benchers think? It would be a good thing if all Governments did that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that many of us are deeply anxious about the suggestion of loans to students, as such a proposal would result in ordinary working-class youngsters who have previously been given the opportunity to go to university not getting those opportunities because their families are unable to meet the cost? Is he aware that student grants are tremendously important to ordinary working people as they have given thousands of youngsters from working-class families the opportunity to go to university? Is he further aware that if the Government continue with the proposal of student loans they will meet the greatest resistance from both sides of the House—I hope?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The idea of partial or total loans in replacement of grants is one that should surely be considered during the review. The experience of our neighbours in north-western Europe shows that a suitably drawn partial or total loan scheme does not discourage access to higher education in any way.

§ Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are pleased that the voices of 366 his colleagues and those who have spoken through them have been heard by the Government? Will all options be considered in the review, including the possibility of our not being committed to further increases in parental contributions?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the review will aim to consider all the options before consultation.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister in their respective statements talked about the Community's advance in high technologies. Precisely how many alpha research projects, many of which are already being refused, will now be refused when they would otherwise have been successful? What number of peer-group diagnosed alpha research projects will be refused as a result of taking money away from the science budget?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman has evidently not absorbed the fact that the Government are proposing an increase in the science budget, although it is slightly reduced as compared with what we proposed at first. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question cannot be given by any Minister from this Dispatch Box, because the decision is for individual research councils. I can give him a general reply that the number of approved and funded alpha grants will be substantially greater because of even the reduced increase which is now proposed.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that some 70,000 students were taken out of contributions by themselves and their parents under the package that he announced first? Will he assure the House that they will be safeguarded, as was first announced? Will he bear it in mind that adult education has suffered severe cuts already and should be subjected to no more? Will he remind the Opposition and everyone else of the importance of maintaining the access of able people to university, wherever they come from, as they will create the wealth which will pay for the welfare programmes that we all want? That is the only way in which that will be achieved.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
Those at the lower end of the income spectrum who would have benefited from the Government's first proposals will still benefit exactly as was originally proposed. I should not like the House to get the wrong impression about the diminution of the money that might have to be made in the allocation to the adult education programme. As far as we can tell, it will be about £100,000 a year.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is absolutely right, that a loan scheme for students would undoubtedly disadvantage many working-class families and, although today's climb-down by the Cabinet shows that he has been listening to Back Benchers, the substitute proposals that he has put forward will be no less damaging to education than the earlier proposals and should provoke the same protests from his own side?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The effect of a loan scheme, whether partial or total, depends on the detail of its construction. As for the 367 hon. Gentleman's comments about the implications for education, even after the adjustment, we are proposing an improvement in the education and science budget.

§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this very healthy day for parliamentary democracy his proposals on tuition fees will be broadly welcomed by Conservatives and by the country as a whole? Nevertheless, will he explain in more detail his proposals for grants in the middle-income groups so as to allay our fears that some families in that group may suffer unduly?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind. We are removing the danger or the probability of any individual with just one child in higher education having to pay more than £205 per year, except in very unusual circumstances. What we do afterwards will depend on the review, which will take all the options into account, and on the consultations that follow the review.

§ Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his climbdown will be totally unacceptable to students and parents in Scotland? He has said that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making an announcement on a future occasion. Why is that announcement not being made today, after the right hon. Gentleman's own statement? May Scottish Members have a guarantee that any such announcement will be made on the Floor of the House so that we can ask questions on it and not through a private notice question or a press notice issued from Edinburgh?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I cannot really answer that beyond saying, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, "Yes."

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that his statement today will be widely welcomed in Scotland as a recognition of the unfairness of the parental contribution system? In carrying out the review, will he bear in mind that partial loans for students will be welcomed by students and parents across the political spectrum in Scotland as a fairer system whereby working class families will not have to subsidise others?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I suspect that many hon. Members agree that the interests of taxpayers who do not have children in higher education and who may themselves have relatively low incomes must also be taken into account.
I should correct an error that I inadvertently made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). It is possible that some parents may have to pay as much as £270 per year more.

§ Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)
Is not the Secretary of State simply playing ducks and drakes with his own budget and merely offering a continuation of the thin gruel of education cuts and turning the clock back to before the Education Act 1944? Will be guarantee that more funds will be made available for education and that the 20,000 places in higher education that have been lost in the past five years will be restored? Does he agree that it is immoral to give away £1.5 billion in tax cuts when this money is being denied to higher education?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong. The number of students in higher education is nearly 60,000 per year higher than it was in 1979.

§ Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)
Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that many students are receiving grants in excess of the amount on which many pensioners have to live? Will he confirm that, in view of the need to restrict public expenditure, it is only fair and just that all sections of the community should pay their share, including those earning between £20,000 and £30,000 per year?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
Yes. We must also bear in mind the contribution of those on low incomes to the total tuition fees from which students in this country benefit, which vary from £3,000 to £8,000 per year.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
Is the Secretary of State aware that, however humiliating this partial climbdown has been for him, it is an even greater humiliation for Conservative Back Benchers who have shown no spine or guts and have accepted a statement which, if anything, will damage the future of education even more than the original proposals?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman is being unduly churlish. The result of today's announcement is to leave a substantial — a significant — increase in the money available for basic science research, which I should have thought would have been of interest to Members on both sides. It is also a recognition by my right Friend the Chancellor of a quite exceptional case so that he has been able to contribute to that result.

§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most welcome part of his statement is that serious consideration will be given to the whole system of financing students in higher education and that there will be full consultation on this? Does he agree that the review is long overdue and that it must take particular account of those students whose parents cannot or will not pay for them?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
Yes, but I should not like any hon. Member to ride away with the thought that the reduction in savings accepted by the Government today can be free. We have had to make reductions in other forms of public expenditure.

§ Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is not unknown for students with extremely rich parents to live on chip butties because their parents will not accept responsibility for the parental contribution? In carrying out his review, will he bear it in mind that the only egalitarian way to finance education expenditure is through taxation and that that is the way in which the matter should be tackled?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
That is an approach that the Labour Government felt unable to adopt. There is a limit to what can be asked of the taxpayer.

§ Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)
Most of us recognise that it takes great courage for a Minister to change course as my right hon. Friend has done today, and he should be given credit for that. Nevertheless, will he take a longer, harder look than he seems prepared to do? Does he agree that investment in minds is the finest investment that we can make for the future but that many 369 of us are dubious about some forms of research expenditure? Will he take a close look at some of the unethical research taking place in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Medical Research Council?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
A large number of people will agree strongly with my hon. Friend, but the Government, like many previous Governments, have given the research councils autonomy to make their own decisions on such matters.

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
The Secretary of State has said that there will have to be other cuts to pay for this. How are those cuts likely to affect organisations such as the Workers Educational Association, which helps those who have not had the privilege of a university education? Has he considered cutting the present £30 million subsidy from taxpayers to the public schools?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is none; there will be no effect on the WEA. In answer to the second part, the Government reviewed all the possible sources of savings, including that one.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome on the Conservative Benches and in the country for the commitment to study in the review the part that a loans scheme might play in student finance? Does he agree that the availability of loans in conjunction with grants could do much to widen opportunity and responsibility in higher education, as well as help to meet the Government's financial commitment within the bounds of what can reasonably be afforded?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I welcome my hon. Friend's comment, but I should not like the House to imagine that a part-loan scheme, which I have long favoured, can be introduced without complications and costly options. It will need a great deal of thought before deciding whether the Government would be wise to adopt any option that would involve extra costs.

§ Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)
Does the Minister feel that by saying over the weekend that it would be impossible to cut a further penny from the scientific budget but coming three days later to the House with cuts amounting to £11 million he will have enhanced his status in the scientific community?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman is right. I did not, as I should have done, interlard every statement that I made on televison with the phrase "Parliament permitting" or "With the approval of the House". I was talking about the provisional allocations. I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment.

§ Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his original proposals seemed to some of us wholly right in principle, although perhaps somewhat wrong in execution? Is he also aware that millions of people who voted Conservative, including a large number in my constituency, have incomes that are nothing like £19,000 a year? If we are a national party, is it not our duty to look after all classes, not just the middle band? Furthermore, if we are to control Government spending, should we back down just because we receive a few letters from our constituents?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I agree very much with the first part of what my hon. Friend says. How much the taxpayer should contribute to the expensive education costs of students is an important question to decide. Although students will almost certainly in most cases benefit the public, they will also—and good luck to them—benefit themselves.

§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)
Surely the Secretary of State is aware. that the cuts that he has announced this afternoon are even more reprehensible than the parental payment towards fees? Does this not demonstrate that the Conservative Government attach more importance to the disposable income of their highly paid supporters than to science, which is crucial to our future? As the Secretary of State has made such a public capitulation on this issue, will he resign?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The Government's purpose is being achieved. There is some redeployment towards scientific research, which will receive an increase even after the reduction from that increase this afternoon, and we shall embark on a review to sort out part of this complex matter, which arouses strong feelings on both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening and acting. However, I am somewhat disappointed that it has not been possible to find the extra £11 million, in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is likely to have £1,500 million to spare. Bearing in mind that people are adults at the age of 18, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reaffirm the pledge that he and his predecessor gave to the Select Committee, that it remains the policy of the Government to phase out parental contributions?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
No, I cannot give a pledge such as that. We have long recognised that it would be desirable to treat an adult as an adult in terms of the costs of higher education, but we do not judge it practicable in the present and foreseeable circumstances to be able to do as my hon. Friend suggests.

§ Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
Does the Secretary of State agree that he has broken his word to the University Grants Committee and to the research councils? Does he not understand that this statement, far from allaying criticism, will be viewed with anger and contempt by the universities, by people interested in research and particularly by parents and students? Does he realise that he no longer enjoys the confidence of the House in his handling of education, and should he not resign?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. The vice-chancellors of many universities objected to the scale and the short notice of the proposal that I originally announced. I have had many letters from them urging some reduction in the proposed increase. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find support for what he is saying among universities or among the science community.

§ Mr. Gordon Brown (Dunfermline, East)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, instead of cuts in one sector, there will be cuts in almost every sector of the education budget, and that in postponing the erosion of student grants in the short term he is proposing the elimination of student grants in the long term? Will he 371 come clean and say that it is to make possible tax cuts at Easter that he is prepared to cut science, training, adult education and research in universities' budgets?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The result of this afternoon's decision is that the science budget receives more, although slightly less than was originally announced.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
Will my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that he has correctly identified one of the outstanding points of principle that concerns Conservative Members shows that he has displayed high personal courage, which can only increase the esteem in which Conservative Members regard him? In the deliberations that will follow, will my right hon. Friend be able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the remaining £11 million that has made this change possible?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am grateful, but it is a dangerous illusion into which we fall when we talk of the Government, or even my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, finding money. It is all the taxpayers' money.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who have been highly critical of him will welcome his decision to maintain the status quo in tuition fees, which shows good sense? However, will he go further and say that, as the grants that many students obtain from local authorities are tax free, any contributions that parents make should be allowable against their tax?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
That is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Will the Secretary of State accept that the way in which he has dealt with this problem in securing the interest of articulate organisations and the middle-class lobby may in future mean that, instead of taking them on, he will turn his attention to the more deprived elements of our society and their education needs? Will he give an assurance that he will not do that?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be aware that in 1979 the Labour Government left a minimum award that was highly regressive in its affects, and that has only been removed by the decision, which has been confirmed today, to abolish the minimum award.

§ Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
Bearing in mind that the Representation of the People Act 1969 set the legal age of adulthood at 18, is it not incongruous that young people are even more reliant on their parents at a time when they are judged to be legally adult? When my right hon. Friend has his inquiry, will he examine closely the estimate that 46 per cent. of students do not receive the full parental contribution, which is a matter of concern? It is of great sadness to his colleagues that he will have to look round for the odd million here and there when it is so easy to find hundreds of millions of pounds, as we did last week, to throw at the National Coal Board.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
My hon. Friend has inadvertently misled himself. I think that he was intending to speak of the 46 per cent. of students who receive contributions. The 372 House must recognise that any Government face a dilemma in balancing the adult status of the student child with the sheer budgetary burden of removing the parental contribution.

§ Mr. Wallace
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during Scottish Question Time the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Secretary of State for Education and Science would reply to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party. I repeat the question in the hope that the Secretary of State will answer A. I do not think that it depends on the work allocation that is always being referred to. What will be the savings in the Scottish Office budget as a result of the cuts which have been announced, and how many Scottish students will this affect?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I still cannot reply to that question. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

§ Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there will be some who will say that he has not gone far enough, the majority will acknowledge the importance of having a fundamental review, which all Governments over the past 10 years have been asked to carry out? The concession on fees which he has announced will have the single most important effect of reducing the burden on parents who are contributing to the maintenance of their children in university or other higher education. Will he ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does something in the Budget to offset what has been done to science, the pickup scheme and micro-electronics to help modernise industry? He has only to see what is happening in Japan to recognise the importance of that.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The Government have provided extra money for all these schemes. I hope that the erosion of their finance will be marginal compared with the increases with which they have already been provided.

§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is some relief and gratitude that, after much hard pounding, some common sense at least has been brought back to student grants? Does he think that it is worth the agony and the anguish to the great body of the middle class that for £11 million so much ill will has been caused? This time last week some of us stayed in the Chamber at a late hour because £800 million was to be put through on the nod on behalf of the greatest pressure group of all, which is formed by those who insist on going on strike in an industry which continually loses money. Does he agree that if we can get our priorities right those who contribute most, who are members of the middle class, will not be hit as hard as they have over this stupid matter?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
Under the constraint of various burdens on public expenditure, I can understand my hon. Friend's complaint. I hope that he and the House will recognise that it is a national interest to safeguard the quality of our scientific research base. It seems imperative to the Government to take urgent action to preserve it.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will bring great relief to many parents, especially those of younger children who are not yet at university, who were worried that, once established, the principle of tuition fees could soar to an 373 impossible level? Will he make it abundantly clear that the figure which has been arrived at is unlikely to re-emerge in any review?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
No, I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that this or that possibility will not arise in the review. The review will give us the opportunity to consider all the options and then we shall consult upon them.

§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)
Is the Secretary of State aware that a recent NEDO report described British micro-electronics and information technology as being in serious crisis? Is he aware also that the gap between our main competitors in Japan, the United States, France and Germany and ourselves is widening? Does he realise that his proposal to introduce a cut in the micro-electronics programme will accentuate the gap, which must be bad for all modern or new industries in Britain?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman has entirely wrong the scale of what might be involved. The erosion in the micro-electronics programme — the programme has been growing—might be £250,000 to £500,000 a year. That is dwarfed by what the micro-electronics programme is achieving.

§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the many parents who save conscientiously towards meeting the cost of the education of their children, who would have been unable to bear the additional burdens that it was proposed to place upon them? Will he accept also my thanks for the offer of a review, which will be greeted with great pleasure? People like to feel that they have influence in anything as important as the matters that will be examined during the review.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Radice
Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us are dissatisfied with his answers, especially on the science budget? I return to the review of student support. Given the mess which he made of his original proposals and the controversy which surrounds the issue of loans, will he guarantee that his review will be independent?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The Government have not yet decided the form that the review will take. I cannot give any such commitment.

§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Carscadden)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the damaging and rather disgraceful situation that has arisen this afternoon. After the statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, we know nothing about the thoughts, actions or reasons of the Secretary of State for Scotland on student grants. All that we have is a statement from the Department of Education and Science that the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided similarly. That is added as an afterthought almost insultingly, at the fag end of the Secretary of State's statement.
I ask you for some protection, Mr. Speaker. It is important that we know what is happening in the Scottish Office. We know the total figure that is involved for England and Wales and we know where the education cuts will fall, but when it comes to Scotland we are left in a 374 black hole of uncertainty. We are left with the unfortunate impression that, whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided or not, he does not really know what has been decided in his name.
Is it not intolerable that, on a day that has included Scottish Question Time, we should be left with less information than the rest of the United Kingdom about a key decision of interest to universities, students and the people of Scotland generally? Will you consider, Mr. Speaker, whether it was not most unfortunate that when a precise and specific question appeared on the Order Paper — it was Question No. 4 from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) — we were told that it could not be answered because there would be a statement from the Department of Education and Science? Any reasonable person would have deduced from that that the Minister making the statement would be in a position to deal with the Scottish figures and answer specific questions on Scotland. The Secretary of State for Education and Science was not in a position to do so. I presume that we were misled unintentionally during Scottish Question Time.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not try to shirk his responsibilities. He is responsible for these matters in Scotland. He is quick enough to claim the credit if there are differences of approach in Scotland and England, but when the going becomes rough he must come to the House and not shelter behind another Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is in his place and the Leader of the House is in his. Can we now have, through you, Mr. Speaker, an assurance that there will be an immediate statement that will give us the details for Scotland?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not in a position to give immediate guarantees that statements will be made. That is not a matter for me.

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that there is great concern and anxiety in the House about the Scottish dimension of this afternoon's business and a wish that it should be made available to the House. I shall not comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Glasgow, Carscadden (Mr. Dewar) save to say that I think that they are rather contentious. At least that is how they are heard by English ears. I assure the House that an oral statement will be made as soon as possible, the modalities of which can be determined through the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House will fully understand my position. The House has heard what the Leader of the House has had to say. I am not certain that I shall be able to answer any points of order, but I will do my best.

§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)
May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as the Member who asked question No. 4 on the Order Paper? It will be within your recollection that the Secretary of State for Scotland specifically asked us to wait until the statement was made this afternoon. Rather foolishly, perhaps, we agreed to that request. In retrospect, perhaps we should not have agreed to it. Indeed, in retrospect there is no earthly reason why we should have agreed to it. The Secretary of State for Scotland is not a subsidiary Minister. He is 375 entitled to give us the information. My specific point of order is to ask why we should have a separate statement taking up the time of the House. Could we not direct the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer question No. 4?

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot do that.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
Mr. Speaker, you will recollect that during Scottish Question Time this afternoon you called Opposition Members in consecutive order on more than one occasions. In one instance, four of them were called before anybody was called on the Government side of the House. I am not making any criticism, because I was called. I ask you, however, Mr. Speaker, to reflect that you were rewarded by the behaviour of Labour Members, even those on the Opposition Front Bench who attempted to disrupt the proceedings.

§ Mr. Wilson
Could I raise a point of order that includes three separate aspects? First. I raised a point of order during the statement because it became clear, from the answer that was given, that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had no intention of replying—or, indeed, may not have had information to enable him to reply — to the question about the Scottish education budget. I did not wish unnecessarily to interrupt the statement because I know of your preference for dealing with points of order at a later stage, but for Scottish Members a point of order was essential at that time. Without any knowledge of whether there would be a separate statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland, we could not know whether it was appropriate for us to direct our questions to the English Minister for Education and Science.
The second part of the point of order that I wish to bring to your attention is that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has control over the Scottish universities but, by reason of an anomaly, does not have control over the grant or budget of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The particular aspect to which I wish to draw your attention and to ask you to consider raising with the Procedure Committee, is that if Scottish Members of Parliament—it has happened frequently in the past—cannot expect to receive statements from the Secretaries of State for Scotland on policy matters affecting Scotland when equivalent statements are made by their colleagues, they are effectively treated as second-class Members of this House. Immediately after the Treaty of Union I believe that one of your predecessors wrote in terms of the orders of this House that it was the English House of Commons which was to continue. If the Procedure Committee and you, Mr. Speaker, do not direct your minds to the rights of Scottish Members of this House, that is exactly what it may be.
The third aspect of the point of order that I wish to bring to your attention, following upon the point of order raised by the leader of the Liberal party concerning question No. 4, is that we were misled. We look upon you to defend our rights as Members of this House when promises are made by Cabinet Ministers. We now know how the statement on grants will impact upon the education system in England and Wales. It will do so in a manner that must cause us concern over the equivalent budget for Scotland.
Either the Secretary of State for Scotland—who has acceded to the decision announced today in the House by his colleague — is aware of how he will fund it, in 376 which case he is cowardly in not facing hon. Members, or, if he does not know, he is incompetent. It may be that he is both, but in either event a serious point of principle is involved. As Scottish Members we should be entitled to answers from our own Ministers. Otherwise, our attendance at this House is a waste of time.

§ Mr. Douglas
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rather reluctantly may I ask you to reconsider some of the remarks you have made. During the exchanges that took place this afternoon you said, if I understood you correctly, that you represented the interests of all Members of the House, not just Scottish Members. On this occasion I ask you to consider what has happened. Scottish Members have been treated not as equals but as inferior to other hon. Members. You will be well aware that in Scotland we have a separate and distinct education system. It is not sufficient to have the Secretary of State for Education and Science answer for English universities and polytechnics when in Scotland the colleges of education, central institutions and student grant system form a separate and distinct system of education.
I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware of that and whether it is within your power and province to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland simultaneously, so far as is possible, comes to the House and answers on a co-equal basis for Scotland when the Secretary of State for Education and Science answers in this House for matters within his province. When is the Secretary of State for Scotland going to come to the House today to make such a statement?

§ Mr. Maxton
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have the responsibility to protect the reputation both of this House and of every single Member in it. The reputation of this House will today have been severely damaged in Scotland by the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has refused to make a statement on the matter. The Secretary of State has an opportunity to do so now. If he is saying that he does not know what is happening in the universities he should not be in the job. The fact is that, already, during the last three weeks, we have had two examples of Ministers coming to the House late in the day, as a result of pressure from the House. The Secretary of State is in a position to do that today. He does not have to leave it until another occasion. It is right that the Secretary of State, who is present and who is in a position to answer questions, should answer questions now from Scottish Members and not make a statement later.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
The Secretary of State is rising to his feet. It might solve the matter if he were allowed to speak.

§ Mr. Younger
I may be able to help the House. The House may not be fully aware of how the Scottish public expenditure system works. It works in this way. There is a block of Scottish expenditure within which the Secretary of State has discretion to make dispositions according to his priorities. None of the decisions on any parts of the expenditure within the Scottish block have yet been finalised. Therefore, this is merely one other part of the series of decisions that are being taken by my hon. Friends and myself within the Scottish block.
May I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said? I shall be making a statement to the 377 House when the full implications of the whole Scottish block — [Interruption.] Perhaps the House would be good enough to hear me out. It is an important point. When all the decisions are taken about all aspects of the Scottish block, which is imminent, and when all the decisions are clarified, I shall be making a statement upon which hon. Members from Scotland or anywhere else will be able to cross-question me. At this moment, quite irrespective of any changes that are taking place today as a result of my right hon. Friend's statement, there is no way in which I am in a position to give any of the figures for any of the expenditure within the Scottish block. I should be grateful if the matter could be dealt with in the normal way.

§ Mr. Dewar
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to be clear, through you, what the Secretary of State is saying. When the Leader of the House rose to say that there would be a statement, the timing of which would be agreed through the usual channels, I understood that that would be a statement about student grants in Scotland. The Secretary of State now seems to be saying something rather different. He seems to be saying that at some future date, probably some way ahead, there will be a general statement about the overall public expenditure system in Scotland, including education, social work, housing and everything else. Somewhere subsumed in that will be the information about student grants parallel to that which has been given by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
That is not satisfactory. We want a separate statement, parallelling the English one, giving us the information and the figure equivalent to the £21 million in England. Presumably that is known now and we do not want to wait until some future date.
Secondly, to save a further intervention, it would be helpful to the House and to the dignity of his office, if the Secretary of State for Scotland were to say that, with hindsight at least, he regrets the way that question No. 4 was dealt with. He gave a clear impression that the details requested would be supplied during the course of this afternoon's statement. That, as the Secretary of State for Education and Science made clear, was not the case. It is unfortunate that that impression was given and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will join me in regretting that.

§ Mr. Younger
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I am sorry if any misleading impression was given by me or anyone else. I did not imagine that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) would be expecting anything in detail until the Scottish public expenditure was settled. [Interruption.] The reason for that is perfectly simple. Whatever changes have to be made could affect many different parts of the Scottish block. Therefore, by the time I am able to make a statement about this precise aspect, all the other aspects must be decided too. They have nearly been decided and I do not expect a statement to be long delayed. But when I make a statement, of whatever sort, it will have to cover all aspects of the Scottish block because they are all interdependent.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House has heard the Secretary of State. We have an important debate before us—

§ Mr. Eadie
I am demanding my right to put a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have an important debate before us. Other hon. Members have their rights as well. If the hon. Gentleman persists in raising points of order all afternoon, I cannot stop him. Nevertheless, that is unfair to his colleagues. I shall take his point of order.

§ Mr. Eadie
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never unfairly exercised my rights in this Parliament and I demand to put a point of order in relation to this issue.
We are well aware of how this matter arose. To some extent, hon. Members have rights and are entitled to respect the Chair of this honourable House. I want to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that occasions can arise when it may be convenient for you to say that you will take points of order afterwards, but there are circumstances when it is right, and in accordance with the good workings of the House, that hon. Members who rise to their feet to make a point of order should be given the right to do so at that time.
I submit today that if that right had been given to hon. Members, the incompetence that the Government have shown today would perhaps not have been as bad as it has been. There may have been some reflections by the Government when hon. Members put the points of order on the Scottish aspect of the cut in student grants and fees.
Therefore, I say in all sincerity that this issue is occupying the minds of my constituents in Midlothian in relation to the whole aspect of university education, and, indeed, all education. We want the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box today to tell us what is happening to student fees and grants. I submit that we have the right to put that point of order to you.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. It is not a new doctrine that I do not take points of order in the middle of questions. It is long established and my predecessors, as far as I know, have always adopted that practice. It is right and fair to the House.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept fully the statement that you made earlier today that it is your duty to protect the rights of all hon. Members, from whatever part of the country they come. I also accept your remarks made slightly later that there is a responsibility on the House and on you to take account of important business that faces the House.
It will be within your recollection that yesterday there was a series of questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and during those exchanges the right hon. Gentleman sought, or attempted, to make it clear that he was not shifting his ground in any way. Therefore, if there is any encroachment on the important business of the day, it is precisely because the Secretary of State sought to return within 24 hours to try to change that position.
It is time that the whole subject of statements made by Ministers was re-examined. There was no earthly reason whatever why the right hon. Gentleman had to come to the House today and make the announcement that he did. It 379 would have been a courtesy to the House, to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to every hon. Member if there had been a period of calm and silence. That would have allowed consultation to take place so that the right hon. Gentleman did not place the Secretary of State for Scotland in the invidious and embarrassing position in which he has been placed today.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Education and Science has put you in an extremely embarrassing position. He has also put me in an embarrassing position. I am not one of those who constantly harps on about the specific and special rights of Scottish Members. But I feel strongly that, given the sequence of events — the Secretary of State for Education and Science answering questions yesterday, refusing to make an announcement, followed, 24 hours later, by questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland when a specific question dealt with the issue on which the Secretary of State for Education and Science was to make his statement—it beggars belief that we should not have had proper answers from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Nothing that the Secretary of State for Scotland says about the difficulties that he is facing in announcing his programme can make up for the fact that, if he had said earlier, during Scottish questions, that he would be making a statement after the Secretary of State for Education and Science—even if he had said then what he said later about the need to examine the budget—that might have been acceptable. But the contempt that the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland have for the House must be ended. You, Mr. Speaker, must look seriously at the issue of statements being made. Although "Erskine May" says that a Minister does not require either your permission or that of the House, that needs to be looked at so that we can judge whether our rights are being eroded in an insidious way.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. These are not matters for me. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the system is wrong, he has a right, even an obligation, to take the matter to the Procedure Committee. That is where such matters are looked at. The House decides. I am elected by the House to keep the rules as they are. That is all that I can do.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance. Earlier this afternoon the Secretary of State for Scotland said that no decision had been made about any part of the block grant allocation for Scotland. However, the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that the Secretary of State for Scotland had decided similarly on the question of student awards. That implies that a decision has been made. How can I find out which Secretary of State is misleading the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot advise on tactics.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)
Like my hon. Friends, I have no desire to be disrespectful to you, Mr. Speaker. I know that you will understand that. However, you will recall that hon. Members have an interest in this serious subject. My own interest was shown when you called me to ask a supplementary question to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick 380 and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). In common with the right hon. Gentleman and others, I failed to get information that is essential for the whole House.
Two important matters emerged. First, after a number of points of order, the Secretary of State for Scotland conceded that he had taken a decision on principle without considering the implications. That is of the utmost importance and deserves debate.
Secondly, you, Mr. Speaker, are right to say that you have a responsibility to the whole House. Equally, the House has a responsibility to you. The Government Front Bench has neglected that responsibility by presenting such a shambles to the House. We owe it to you to offer the apology to which you are entitled.

§ Mr. Ewing
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was involved in question No. 4 tabled by the leader of the Liberal party. I asked the Secretary of State why he did not intend to make a statement similar to that which was to be made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The record will show tomorrow that the Secretary of State said that I had read far too many whodunnit magazines and that, on this issue, he never made any separate statements. He said that when his right hon. Friend spoke about education he spoke for all education Ministers. The record will show that.
The Secretary of State for Scotland put the Secretary of State for Education and Science in an embarrassing position. The right hon. Gentleman had enough difficulties today without the Secretary of State for Scotland causing him more. The Secretary of State for Education and Science was in no position to fulfil the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Secretary of State for Education and Science would speak on behalf of the Scottish Office he knew that to be untrue. We are told that we misunderstood, but the Secretary of State for Scotland knew that what he said was untrue. I have a respect for him, but he has a duty to his office and to the House to withdraw the answer to the question so that when the record is produced it will be correct.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I can see several hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the next debate, but that will be made difficult if we persist with points of order. I cannot take the matter further this afternoon. The sensible course would be for the matter to be discussed through the usual channels. No doubt an arrangement will be made for a statement to be made to the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We shall then see what he has to say. I cannot take the matter further.

§ Mr. Dewar
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that this is a matter for the usual channels. However, I should like to say publicly that it is important for the effectiveness of the Scottish dimension within the United Kingdom parliamentary system for the statement, when it comes, not to be an overall wrap-up of public expenditure in Scotland in which the debate about student grants will be lost. We must have an opportunity soon to discuss the specific issue on the Floor of the House. If we receive a sympathetic response, I shall be happy to leave the matter there.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall hear the shadow Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, but it seems that two completely separate issues are involved. The first is the issue of a statement on student grants in Scotland which, as has been said, can be dealt with through the usual channels. The second is that a Minister has misled the House. When that happens is it not normal for the Minister to come to the House to make a personal statement? In addition to the statement about student grants in Scotland we must consider good behaviour in the House of Commons. That means that tomorrow at the start of business the Secretary of State for Scotland should come here and make a personal statement based on what the official record shows.

§ Mr. Speaker
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we cannot take the matter further this afternoon.

§ Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is about points of order. I agree that the House should consider your position. You were put in an intolerable position by the Government's inept handling of the issue. During exchanges you rightly said that Mr. Speaker can exercise discretion about when to take points of order. That is in accordance with precedent and with "Erskine May", which also says clearly that if an hon. Member has a point of order it is his duty to raise it immediately, if necessary interrupting a right hon. or hon. Member. More thought should be given to the position when contentious statements touching on principles are involved.
You suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Procedure Committee might be appropriate, but will you consider the conflicting difficulties in which you are placed? The usual channels will try to assist, particularly to ensure that hon. Members have adequate notice of which statements are to be made so that they can assess their possible effect on other Departments.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You made reference earlier—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) also raised the point—to the practice that has developed of points of order being postponed until later. Is it not the case that this was an innovation of Speaker Thomas and yet a further illustration of his many failures of judgment? May I ask you, Sir, to take this matter back very seriously and consider whether the traditional practice of accepting a point of order when it is put and allowing it should be resumed for the good health and conduct of the business of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that it is a wise practice to take points of order at the end of questions. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) thought this matter through, they would find that we would get through fewer questions if points of order were raised in the middle of questions. The hon. Member for Warley, East will know, because he has done this himself, that most points of order arise because the hon. Member did not receive the answer he expected.