asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will now consider recommending to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work that pre-professionals who hold social science qualifications be recognised as professionally qualified social workers.

No, Sir. The council is an independent statutory body. Like the bodies which were responsible for the award of professional social work qualifications before the council was established in 1971, the council has decided not to recognise these qualifications because the content of the courses leading to them is not, in its judgment, fully equal in the relevant respects to that of approved professional courses.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these people have been working in social services for many years, that there are about 1,500 such people and that as a result of this decision they are disadvantaged as regards salary and promotion prospects? Is he further aware that almoners, with no social work qualifications, were given professional recognition under the National Health Service Act 1946? Can nothing be done for these people?

The council recognises that this group of social workers often find difficulty in obtaining places, especially if they are not graduates. The council is now ready to try to increase the training opportunities for these people. As for their financial position the central council has raised with the responsible bodies the position of staff employed in the National Health Service before April 1974 who did not have the same advantage as those who were employed by local authorities.

In view of the disastrously low percentage of trained social workers, will the Under-Secretary tell us what steps he will consider taking to increase the number of social work courses so that people can be professionally trained before they are given immense responsibilities?

The responsibility in this field chiefly lies with the central council, which was established in 1971. However, I shall certainly draw the council's attention to the point raised by the hon. Lady.

In view of the need to expand the number of trained social workers in Wales, will the hon. Gentleman discuss with the central council the location of its offices which is now to be in Bristol? In view of the devolution of social work responsibility to the Welsh Office, will he at an early date discuss this with the council?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that, like him, I have an interest in the position in Wales. I shall certainly carry out his request.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information she has of the likely growth in the number of private beds outside the National Health Service in the current financial year.

Although I have seen reports in the Press and elsewhere of proposals for new private hospitals, and am aware that some applications have been made to local planning authorities for permission to develop private hospitals, I have no information about the likely growth in the number of private beds outside the NHS during the current financial year or by any particular date.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a firm called Allied Investments, which has a lot of backing from merchant bankers and insurance companies, is responsible for private hospitals in this country? Is she also aware that it runs a private insurance scheme and the largest nursing agency, which is creating difficulties in her Department? [Interruption.] I see that we have friends. Does not my right hon. Friend think that the activities of this organisation should be curtailed by her Department and that it should not be given any more help in furthering its activities abroad, using the resources of her Department?

I am unclear about what my hon. Friend means by the second part of her question. However, on the first part I can assure her that I am aware of the developments to which she has referred. I shall be considering them along with the other questions which will need to be settled in the light of the Government's policy of separating private practice from the National Health Service.

Will the Secretary of State repudiate the comments that have just been made by her hon. Friend and agree that people should be free to spend their money on health if they wish and that doctors should be free to practise privately if they wish? Does she also recognise that the uncertainties which now exist in this whole field and the disruptive action taking place over pay beds in some National Health Service hospitals are bad for private practice, bad for the National Health Service and. above all, bad for patients? Will she clear up the uncertainty by making an early statement about the Government's intentions in these matters?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that disruption from any quarter is bad for the National Health Service. I have made it clear that the Government's policy is not one of abolition of private practice but of its separation from the National Health Service, and I shall be making a statement before too long.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the concept behind the National Health Service still is to make available, when it is required, free medicine to everybody? Will she confirm that she will follow this principle? Will she also refute some of the arguments suggesting that the National Health Service is incapable of meeting the needs of people. particularly in the screening of breast cancer?

I believe that there is a separate Question on that latter rather specialised point, but I entirely accept my hon. Friend's definition of the rôle, purpose and function of the National Health Service. It is my determination to strengthen it in that work. We accept as a basic principle that medical priorities should be the governing consideration in the National Health Service and not ability to pay. That is why we are separating the private beds from the NHS.

On the question of private patients, will the Secretary of State pay a little less attention to what doctors say and a little less to what the party politicians say? Can she say how far the demand for private beds is growing or contracting? If she does not know the answer, will she do some research and find out?

I would say categorically that from our information patients of course prefer to get service free if they can. One of the reasons why people pay is to jump the queue. One of the answers to that problem is to reduce the waiting list in the National Health Service, and that is what we are doing and have announced our policy so to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied with the payment of DHSS benefits in respect of the operation of qualifying days.

If my hon. Friend has any particular aspects of the system in mind, I shall be pleased to consider his view.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his Department's local officers have what are known as signing-on days? In practice this means that workers falling sick or becoming injured on any day other than a signing-on day can, and in many cases do, lose benefit as a result. Will he today ensure that a directive is sent out to all those local officers, particularly in my constituency but in other constituencies too, to ensure that people in this predicament, and, indeed, all those claiming social security benefits of all descriptions, do not lose money as a result of this practice?

My hon. Friend has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this general matter and also on a specific constituency case. I am now considering any general implications arising from his letter and from his supplementary question. It is vitally important that there should be equity as between one claimant and another within the rules and administration of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be cautious in considering the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on any subject, particularly this one? Will he instead turn to the problem of abuse of sickness benefit? Is he aware of the extraordinary figures of the growth in the number of claims for sickness benefit over recent years, and has he seen the recent figures which showed apparently unaccountable differences in the levels of claims for sickness benefits as between different regions? Will he institute a study of the method by which sickness benefit is now operated and the extent to which abuse is growing within the system?

I would treat with far more reserve any proposition put to me by the hon. Member than by my hon. Friend. Before the hon. Gentleman pursues further the question he has raised, it would be sensible for him to consider the detailed comments in the recent publication of the figures showing the pattern and development of sickness benefit claims. There is a whole range of factors to be taken into account, and I think he would accept that it is extremely difficult to come to any firm conclusions on the figures. Nevertheless, what the figures certainly do not demonstrate is that there has been any extension of unsound claims for sickness benefit in recent years, under either administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in which NHS hospitals private practice is undertaken; and if she will make a statement.

Seven hundred and twenty-two NHS hospitals in England are currently authorised to provide up to 4,574 pay beds for private patients. These hospitals and the number of beds authorised are listed in the Hospitals and Health Services Year Book, a copy of which is in the Library.

Is the Secretary of State aware that when she comes to implement her plan for separating private and National Health Service medicine there will be a real risk that research will be impeded? Is she aware that private practitioners are attracting to National Health Service hospitals at present not only patients and money, particularly from abroad, but a great deal of research leading to the building up of valuable teams of experience in the National Health Service? How does she propose to provide for these matters when the separation takes place?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has outlined a real difficulty and danger. Research and treatment of patients from abroad can and do continue in specialised hospitals. The difference is that the fee does not go privately to the consultant but goes to the hospital. That is the distinction.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the abolition of pay beds is a policy which will require legislation? Will she also confirm that her policy will add millions of pounds to the cost of the National Health Service, is totally irrelevant to the needs of that service and will please only the kind of men who a few weeks ago sought to starve out patients in one London hospital?

It does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members, who consistently refuse to condemn the consultants' industrial action, to raise questions of that kind. Without accepting any of the hon. Gentleman's premises, I must ask him to await my statement.

Will the Secretary of State issue a directive aimed at stopping the unkind treatment in some NHS hospitals of patients who are there in private beds, and who are treated unkindly simply because they are in private beds? Will she point out to those concerned that before meeting the cost of their fees these people have usually paid just as much as any other NHS patient towards the facilities and treatment they are having?

Of course, I would expect the standards of care to be the same for all patients in the health service, whether private or NHS, and that applies both ways.

Is the right hon. Lady aware, although it does not fall within her area of responsibility, that there are only 68 pay beds in all the NHS hospitals in Wales and that this has had no detrimental effect on the standard of the health service there?

I fully accept that. I am sure that the same position applies in Scotland. Perhaps one day England will catch up.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study she has made of the number of elderly people who are dependent on electrical central heating; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the supplementary benefit allowance for heating keeps pace with the cost.

The Family Expenditure Survey indicates that approximately one-sixth of pensioner households rely on electricity as their only form of fuel. All normal requirements, including heating, are covered by the supplementary benefit scale rates. These were increased in the week commencing 7th April 1975. A further increase has been promised before the end of the year.

Does my hon. Friend accept that even if he supports the debatable economic pricing policies there are special problems as more and more elderly people are housed by local authorities and become increasingly dependent on electric central heating? Whatever may be the general level of inflation as it affects heating costs, may I ask him to ensure that the supplementary benefit allowance for heating keeps pace with the real increase in such costs which have to be faced by these people?

I am sure that we would all want to do everything possible to help the category of people described. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the commission is at present reviewing the extra heating addition to try to deal with this special problem.

Will the Minister encourage the offices of his Department to be in contact locally with the advisory services of the appropriate electricity board so that advice can be given and steps taken to prevent what often happens, to the great distress of elderly tenants—namely, the piling up of unnecessary bills for electric heating?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is necessary to have the fullest co-operation between local offices of the Department and electricity boards, gas boards and other organisations.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that no matter what allowance is arranged by the Supplementary Benefits Commission it is always well below the average cost of heating, especially for old folk? Will he say whether the review will apply not only to electricity but to gas and a solid fuel known as coal where I come from? Will he also consider that as Scotland has a much colder climate than the South the Government might be a bit more generous towards it?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the review of extra heating additions to which I referred applies to gas as well as to electricity and certainly to Scotland, England and Wales.

Will the Minister go further and give an undertaking that he will do something about this situation before next winter? Is he aware that despite the fact that supplementary benefits have been increased by 15½ per cent. this month they are already beginning to fall behind the rise in the cost of living and the rate of national average earnings? Will he ensure that something is done before next winter to help pensioners who must rely upon heating the cost of which is above the average?

I must make it clear that the review to which I referred was not a review of the normal supplementary benefit rates but was a review of the levels of the extra heating additions needed in the type of case referred to. At the moment it would be unwise to anticipate the outcome of the commission's review.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of actual and prospective shortages of medically qualified personnel in the National Health Service, she is satisfied that enough is being done to recruit, encourage and ensure the effective deployment of women doctors.

No, Sir. I am anxious to extend the employment of women doctors in the National Health Service. A number of steps have already been taken to this end, including the extension of the women doctors' retainer scheme which I announced on 1st April. I have decided, however, that the whole question should be reviewed to see what more we can do. We are inviting representatives of the medical bodies concerned and individual practising women doctors to a special conference with me and my Department in July to discuss the contribution of married women doctors to the National Health Service; to consider the problems faced by married women doctors on re-entry to active medical practice and in combining family with professional responsibilities; and to make recommendations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her attitude is extremely encouraging? Is she satisfied that the British Medical Association is doing all it can in this matter? Does she agree that it has a vital rôle to play in the efficient operation of the National Health Service? Is she aware that many people feel it is getting a little out of touch? Does she realise that it has recently made redundant the only woman doctor it employed?

I am aware of that. Naturally, as co-chairman of the Women's National Campaign in International Women's Year, I deeply deplore the reduction in the employment of any women in posts of responsibility.

Will the right hon. Lady encourage medical schools to take a greater percentage of British-born students? Is she aware that a number of such students who apply are at present rejected? Does she know whether there is any practice of positive discrimination which results in up to 15 per cent. of non-British-born students being admitted to medical schools?

We attach enormous importance to the increase in the intake of our medical schools. We have a planned programme of expansion aimed at doubling the figures by 1980. One of the purposes of so doing is to enable this country to be less dependent on foreign doctors.

When meeting the women doctors and the organisations which purport to represent them will my right hon. Friend remember that almost all the women doctors who are protesting and asking to be considered for promotion, re-employment and so on are British-born, British-educated and British-trained? Is she further aware that the BMA, which is supposed to represent them, has done nothing to make use of their talents and apparently has preferred doctors from overseas with the attendant language problems of which we are aware?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the women doctors to whom we are referring are mainly British-born. It is my earnest desire to remove any remaining obstacles to the continuing employment of married women doctors and to their re-entry into the profession when they have had to leave it. Many of them want to work part-time. This sometimes creates difficulties either for the practices or for the health authorities involved. We have taken steps to overcome those difficulties. What I hope will come out of this conference is a way of overcoming the remaining obstacles in the attitudes of mind of the employers concerned.

Does the right hon. Lady believe that the London teaching hospitals sometimes give too great a priority to the performance of their rugby teams rather than to the recruitment of those who are to serve in the hospitals?

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a further statement on the review of salaries of hospital medical staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied that the Review Body recommendations will encourage doctors to remain in the United Kingdom and work full time in the National Health Service; and if she will make a statement in regard to the new contracts.

The Review Body's report was published on 18th April, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the Government's decision to accept the recommendations subject to the staging of increases at the highest salary levels, as in the case of top public service salaries.—[Vol. 890, c. 171–2.] I am glad to say that, prior to that announcement, the consultants' representative committee had decided to lift sanctions and to resume negotiations on their contract. I am satisfied that these events will improve morale in the health service and help with the emigration problem that is rightly concerning the hon. Members.

In view of the satisfactory progress which has been made and in which the right hon. Lady played a valuable part, may I ask her to give an assurance that she will maintain regular contact with the official representatives of the hospital medical staff to make sure that any long-term adverse effect on morale and good will within the hospital service will be removed?

I am only too ready to maintain these continuing contacts. We shall very shortly be resuming discussions on the changes in the consultants' contract for next year's review with the joint national council. My officials keep a close and continuing contact and I am always glad to develop personal ones.

Will my right hon. Friend re-echo the thought that a fresh start can now be made in rebuilding the consultancy services? Does she accept that two necessities now appear? The first is that there should be an acceleration of the incremental methods, so that a consultant can reach the top increments much faster. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend make an announcement that she is willing to abolish the infamous system of merit awards, which is so much detested throughout the medical profession?

Yes, Sir. The Department gave evidence to the Review Body, which has just reported, on the need to shorten the incremental scales. I am glad to say that the Review Body accepted our recommendation. Therefore, progress has already been made in the current review. With regard to the coming discussions on modifications of the existing contract, in time for next year's review, I have made it clear in the letter I have sent to the consultants' representatives, on the basis of which they recommended a withdrawal of sanctions, that those discussions must include consideration of our proposals for replacing the old merit award system by a new and fairer system of career supplements.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that there has been a severe loss of confidence in her sincerity by the medical profession and that only genuine and far-ranging discussions by her will restore any form of confidence? Does she also agree that there is a grave shortage of money in the National Health Service? Is it not up to her to explain to the unions how the actions of their members are leading to cuts in the social services?

The only loss has been loss of confidence in the courage of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who throughout this long dispute have done nothing to condemn the action of the consultants or to encourage them to get back to the negotiating table. It is the Opposition who stand discredited and it is the Government who have reached a fair and honourable settlement with the consultants.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the highest level of retirement pension for a married couple provided by a member State of the EEC; and how many member States provide a higher retirement pension for married couples than the United Kingdom.

Information about pensions in the various European Economic Community countries is in the Library of the House. But detailed comparisons between levels of pensions would not in fact be meaningful since it would be impossible to make due allowance for all relevant factors, such as fluctuating exchange rates, different costs of living, levels of wages, taxation and social security contributions, and social provision generally.

Is the Minister aware that that is a wriggle, designed to conceal the fact that in nearly every member country of the Community retirement pensions, however financed, are substantially higher than in this country? Is he also aware that as long as Britain remains within the European Community there will be continuing pressure on British Governments, of whatever party, to bring retirement benefits up to the highest level of benefit available within the Community?

I wish that occasionally the Conservative Opposition would speak up for Britain instead of trying to knock it in every discussion on the European Economic Community, and that they would recognise that there are many aspects of our total social arrangements which are superior to anything in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the EEC sources, he will find that, judged on the basis of a percentage of available net income, the position of Great Britain in treating its retirement pensioners and widows is high in the league table. If the hon. Gentleman would do that, instead of coming out with pro-Common Market propaganda uncritically, which none of my hon. Friends does, he would better serve the purposes of the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chief Whip at the time put us on a three-line Whip to force us through the Lobby in favour of British entry to the Common Market a few years ago and that he, along with my right hon. Friend, is now an anti Marketeer? Can my right hon. Friend say, in answer to the original Question. what proportion of average earnings the pension constitutes in Europe, on average, as compared with this country?

The figures from the EEC report on the development of the social situation in the Community in 1974 demonstrated that Britain was high in the league table, at 8·8 per cent.—higher than France, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and Belgium, but lower than Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. We must take a balanced view. In the principal EEC countries there is earnings-related pension provision, which for far too long under successive Governments we have failed to achieve. I hope, and I believe that the whole House would wish, that we shall achieve that in legislation before the end of the Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations she has received from the Association of Parents of Vaccine-damaged Children; and if she will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of reports and letters from the association. My right hon. Friend has met it and has expressed our interest in and sympathy with the case it has made. As we have explained to it, however, matters of this kind are being studied by the Royal Commission on Compensation and Civil Liability.

Is the Minister aware that the parents of the approximately 250 brain-damaged children are sick and fed up with being shuttled between him and the Attorney-General? Is he aware of their resentment at being accused of trying to attack the immunisation scheme, when all that they are seeking, like the thalidomide parents, is fair compensation for the damage caused to their children as a result of Government schemes?

I am aware of the very deep feelings of the parents. However, I shall be in great difficulty if I seek to pre-empt the Royal Commission on decisions of principle. I can give no stronger assurance of our concern than to say that the Department has submitted evidence to the Royal Commission. I hope that there will be no threat to the immunisation programme, which has saved many lives and deserves the support of the whole House.

Pending the Royal Commission's report, will my hon. Friend consider giving an interim payment to these children to allow them to receive training now? As happened to the thalidomide children, compensation often conies late in their lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the necessary training and the income needed should be provided now, not later, on an interim basis, without causing embarrassment to the Royal Commission?

I know my hon. Friend appreciates that families with vaccine-damaged members are entitled to the full range of assistance open to severely disabled people. This includes attendance allowance, supplementary benefit and other forms of help. I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall bear in mind the point he has made.

When does the Minister expect the Royal Commission to report? Does he accept that in this case there is a special Government responsibility since it is the Government who have campaigned for the acceptance of vaccination?

I cannot say when the Royal Commission will report. I repeat that we have submitted evidence to it. It is profoundly important that all of us should emphasise as often as we can that the immunisation programme is vital to the nation's health.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many men and how many women she estimates suffer from chronic alcoholism in England and Wales.

Surveys suggest that some 400,000 persons in England and Wales have a serious drinking problem. [Laughter.] Most are male but the proportion of women and younger persons is increasing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is no matter for laughter but is a serious problem for at least 400,000 families and that the facilities for the care, treatment and housing of chronic alcoholics are pathetically short? What are the Government proposing to do to help these people and their families now?

We have just established the new Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, whose chairman is Professor Kessel, and a few days ago I attended its inaugural meeting. I hope that the committee will be able to help in supplying a new stimulus towards curing the problem of alcoholism, which, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, is a most serious problem and is increasing. We shall also try to channel more funds either to voluntary or statutory bodies to help with the problem.

Does not the Minister feel that the time has come for the problem to be brought out into the open rather than left to the almost under-cover activities of Alcoholics Anonymous? Would not the public be better served if the problem were brought out into the open and dealt with by the National Health Service and the local authorities?

We have channelled funds to voluntary bodies for the provision of hostels for alcoholics, and 17 have been provided since May 1973. Both administrations have been worried by the problem. The problem of increasing alcoholism will be covered in the consultative paper on preventive medicine generally which we hope to publish towards the end of this year.

Does the Minister accept that this problem is probably proportionately worse north of the border? Will he and his right hon. Friend bring pressure to bear on the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce legislation to civilise Scottish licensing laws in the hope of improving the situation?

The specific aspects referred to by the hon. Gentleman are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who shares the hon. Gentleman's concern about the problem of alcoholism north of the border.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average delay in obtaining non-urgent surgical, radiotherapy and orthopaedic treatment in Eastbourne; and what steps she is taking to reduce that delay.

The average delay in obtaining an appointment for non-urgent surgical treatment is 28 weeks and that for orthopaedic treatment is 26 weeks. There is no delay in obtaining radiotherapy treatment. Health authorities are aware of the need to reduce waiting lists and are constantly looking for ways of doing so.

Is the Minister aware that the last part of his answer is inaccurate and that there is substantial delay in obtaining X-ray treatment in Eastbourne, evidence of which I will supply to him afterwards? Will he please tell the House what steps he is taking to reduce these delays?

There may be a misunderstanding between us about X-rays and radiotherapy. There may be a delay on X-rays but there is not on radiotherapy. If I am wrong and there are delays in radiotherapy treatment I shall look into it, because radiotherapy is often used in the treatment of cancer patients and delays would be most serious.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at a large hospital just inside my constituency out-patients are being given appointments for 1977? Does not that make total nonsense of the National Health Service? Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of consultants that people require a service from their hospitals?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. During the recent industrial disruption by consultants a number of people were given appointments for such ludicrous dates as that. I hope, now that the dispute is largely over, that consultants and all the other people who work in the National Health Service will do everything they can to reduce waiting lists.

This year the Government have, exceptionally, made available£5 million which is specially earmarked for reducing waiting lists and tackling bottlenecks in the provision of facilities which require capital.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans she has for providing fluoride tablets for children in schools.

There are a number of difficulties inherent in this suggestion. I intend to issue later this year a consultative document on preventive health measures generally, including preventive dentistry.

Is the Minister aware that the cost per child of this service would be less than 50p per annum? Is he further aware that the overwhelming majority of expert opinion advises this form of treatment for children? Would not an excellent opportunity to gain firsthand evidence on the subject be provided by carrying out this exercise free for schoolchildren?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about dental hygiene amongst children, but the advice he mentioned is not the overwhelming advice that I am getting. The overwhelming advice of people who are involved with this subject is that the general fluoridation of water supplies would be far preferable to any other interim measure.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure healthy teeth in children, and healthy children, is to restore free milk to children aged between 7 and 11? Will he confirm that many Labour councillors faced imprisonment in supporting that principle, and will he prevail upon the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reintroduce as soon as possible free milk for children aged between 7 and 11?

That is a subject for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. There is no doubt that the earlier in childhood that preventive measures are taken, the better. That is why fluoridation at an early age is an important matter, although the benefits of fluoridation occur at all ages.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a ministerial broadcast.

As the House will know, my right hon. Friend is attending the Commonwealth Heads Of Government meeting in Jamaica until 7th May and in his absence I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) on 20th March.

As the Prime Minister is consistently misleading people by saying that the people will decide by the referendum, will the Leader of the House encourage his right hon. Friend when he returns from Jamaica to make a broadcast explaining to the nation that if the majority vote "No" the issue will come back to Parliament and that Parliament will make the ultimate decision? In that broadcast, will the Prime Minister also advise the nation whether in his opinion the prospects of the neo-Marxists in his Government would be promoted or diminished by a "No" vote?

In debates recently the Prime Minister and I have made clear that the issue is one for Parliament in the end. We have said that the Government will he bound by the result. If the result is "No" the Government will lay before Parliament, after negotiation with the Community, the necessary legislation to withdraw, but the decision will be for Parliament.

Will my right hon. Friend tell his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he returns from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in Jamaica that it is Opposition Members who are seeking to deny the voice of the British people and are seeking to ignore it once it has been heard? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the view of hon. Members on this side is that whatever the result of the referendum it should be honoured by the House?

The referendum is an arrangement to allow every elector in Britain the right to have his say on this decision, which is the most important constitutional decision which the country will take for a long time to come. I have had prepared a list of the adjectives used by Conservative Members in the debate on the Referendum Bill. Perhaps the Shadow Leader of the House would be interested to read some of the adjectives which he used about giving the people of Britain the right to vote on this issue.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister when he makes a ministerial broadcast to make clear his views on the Scottish Development Agency? Does he agree with the Scottish Council of the Labour Party that the SDA should have no economic and industrial powers, or does he agree with the Scottish TUC that it should have industrial and economic powers?

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the Bill which has been published and he will see what economic and industrial powers are contained in it. The great regret about the Bill is that the Conservative Party has prevented it from going to the Scottish Grand Committee. so that there will be a delay in putting this necessary legislation on the statute book.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Industry in Glasgow on 13th April on regional policy and the EEC represents governmental policy.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) on 17th April.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the Prime Minister asks those Ministers who disagree with official Government policy to make it clear that when they are making speeches in the country they are making personal statements and not governmental statements? Is he aware that these speeches run counter to everything that is coming officially from the Scottish Office on regional policies in that the Scottish Office has specifically stated, and Ministers have stated officially in the House, that none of our regional policies will in any way be inhibited by our continued membership of the EEC?

I confirm my hon. Friend's last point. That, indeed, is the case. On his first point on the right to put the contrary point of view in the country, that is exactly what the right to dissent means. It means that and nothing more than that. It is simply the right to put the contrary point of view in speeches in the country.

Will the Government make it clear to the country before the referendum that the much-vaunted benefits of regional aid will amount to only£20 million a year net for three years, no more and no less?

That is not the point that was being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). My hon. Friend was making the point that our own regional policies will not be inhibited in any way. That, indeed, is the case.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Cowley.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Does the Lord President accept that the worst service the Government could perform for people who work for British Leyland would be to impose on them the same system of political interference and delays in taking necessary decisions and has reduced the British Steel Corporation to the dismal and uncompetitive state which its chairman revealed last week?

That should be the very last thing that should come from the Conservative Party. If the Conservatives want to talk about political interference with the British Steel Corporation, per- haps the hon. Member will consider the years 1970 to 1974.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the Prime Minister that if he chooses to visit my constituency he will be most welcome? If the Prime Minister decides to make such a visit, will my right hon. Friend ask him to take account of the very substantial improvement in industrial relations that has taken place in Cowley over the past year, to note that the motor workers in Cowley have accepted a wage increase for this year which is well within the social contract and to express the hope that this may bring about an alteration in the kind of comments that are widely made about Cowley workers?

We recognise at once the improvement to which my hon. Friend has referred, but we should be perfectly straightforward and say that greatly improved industrial relations are one of the prerequisites for the viability of British Leyland. We would look for that improvement and expect it after the action that the Government are taking. On my hon. Friend's first point, my right hon. Friend loves to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that if invited he would be very pleased to come.

Will the Lord President advise the Prime Minister that if he visits British Leyland and speaks to the managing director, or the man who is ceasing to be managing director, he should make it clear that some of us would view with grave concern any suggestion that as much as £200,000 should be paid in compensation to that man for loss of office? Many of us would at least prefer one nought to be crossed off the end of that sum.

I cannot answer on that matter. I do not know the contractual position. Certainly the Prime Minister and everyone else will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the CBI.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans for an early meeting with the TUC to discuss the working of the social contract.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet representatives of the CBI and TUC.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on 24th April.

When the Prime Minister next visits the TUC, no doubt he will go armed with the latest unemployment statistics. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it costs the country over £1,000 million a year in benefits to maintain an unemployment level of 1 million people? Will he draw to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the desirability of bringing into operation at the earliest possible date a temporary employment scheme such as has been operated successfully in West Germany? Will he ensure that this scheme is applied across the whole country and not only in the development areas?

On the first point there is, of course, a correlation between the rate of inflation and unemployment. That should be clearly understood. The best hope is to be prepared for the upturn in world trade which will come next year. That is why the Chancellor is making cuts in public expenditure next year. I think that that is our best hope.

Will the Lord President ask the Prime Minister to explain to the leaders of the TUC when he next sees them how the Government believe that the recent increase awarded to 500,000 civil servants comes within the social contract? Will he tell the House and the country what public opinion pressures were exerted upon the Government to give way to that demand?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it was not a normal settlement but a 15-months settlement.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC will the Lord Presi- dent be kind enough to ask him to inquire of the TUC whether it thinks that the Chancellor's measures to restrict demand in order to create 1 million unemployed by the end of this year are within or without the terms of the social contract?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would look a bit further than the end of his nose on these matters. The purpose of the Chancellor's increases in taxation is to restrict private consumption in order to divert resources into both investment and exports. I notice that a number of Conservative Members giggled just now when I referred to the upturn in world trade next year. Certainly we want to be prepared for that upturn, but we can only be prepared for it if we make resources available. That is the purpose of the Chancellor's increases in taxation and his cuts in public expenditure next year and not this year. That is the strategy behind the Budget.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his statement that there will be an inevitable upturn in world trade next year? Will he give the House some evidence for saying that? Does he not think there are suspicions that in many of the policies now being pursued by the Government they are making a reckless gamble in ignoring the current situation and hoping that the upturn will occur irrespective of what happens in the United Kingdom?

I think that there is a good deal of evidence for what I have said. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that evidence. Perhaps he will consider what I have said— [Interruplion.] I should not have thought that this was a laughing matter, although Conservative Members seem to view it in that way. Let me explain again that the increases in taxation and the cuts in public expenditure, which are to apply next year and not this year, are to clear the decks and to make resources available for exports and investment next year when there will be an upturn in world trade.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will address the invitation to look beyond the end of one's nose to his right hon. Friend. Does he recall the Prime Minister saying on the day before the election last year that unemployment was beginning to fall and that inflation was moderating?

Certainly in the second half of this year, if wage demands do not try to take account of the Budget increases, price increases will moderate.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech made at Cambridge on 11th April on the Common Market.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend did so, Sir, on 14th April.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the speech at Cambridge and in many others he made recently the Prime Minister referred to the hope that the campaign would be conducted in a fair and, I assume, a legal manner? In view of that, will he perhaps approach the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to investigating the latest appalling violations of Sections 99 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which deal with treating and bribery, in respect of expensive expense-paid visits to Brussels for journalists and diplomatic writers so as to influence them in their views and also, presumably, to influence the papers for which they write?

The Representation of the People Act will not apply until we have made an order under the Referendum Bill when it becomes an Act. We parted with that measure last week and it has gone to another place. The order will be laid before the House and we hope that the House will agree to it. It will receive approval in Council on 14th May, so that the Representation of the People Act will not apply until then.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister's speech gave a great boost to the Cambridge in Europe campaign and that we shall be even more grateful if the Prime Minister and other consenting members of the Cabinet now issue a further clear call to all Labour supporters to support the recommendation of their Government?

I am glad to hear about the Cambridge in Europe campaign, but certainly the Prime Minister did this on Saturday.

So that the Prime Minister should not feel that he is being attacked in his absence, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is. aware that many of us are delighted that somebody in the Labour movement supports the Government's recommendation on Europe, and nobody more appropriately than the Prime Minister. We hope that he and other Ministers will keep up the good work.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be glad to hear that, and I shall so inform my right hon. Friend when I telephone him in Jamaica.