asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in the light of the views expressed by the National Insurance Commissioner in paragraph 10 of Decision No. R (I) 14/75, now published as a guideline that a medical appeal tribunal is not a forum for discussion of the employers' system of work or the conditions in the factory, chemicals used, &c., whether or not the process in the factory had been changed, he will take action to amend the powers of medical appeal tribunals.

I do not think there is any evi- dence to suggest that medical appeal tribunals lack the powers necessary to discharge their statutory responsibilities, but if any were to be forthcoming. I would certainly be prepared to look at it.

I am grateful for the sympathetic response of my right hon. Friend. I am sure he will he aware that I am raising this not because it concerns a constituent of mine but because it forms a guideline. Does he agree that if medical appeal tribunals were allowed to point to factory conditions that might be producing new diseases it might be helpful in terms of safety and in terms of the discovery of new diseases? Will he say whether he will keep his eye on the position to make sure that action is taken at the appropriate time?

Questions relating to industrial health and safety hazards are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission. I would always be willing to consider asking the Industrial Advisory Council for advice whether additions should be made to the list of prescribed diseases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point being made by my hon. Friend is that tribunals, in that sense, might form a link between industrial diseases and the very vague situation that may arise after the time of contact? Is he aware that in the docks industry, where every poison and dangerous material is handled, there is certainly a vagueness about health and safety measures? The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) is making is that tribunals could well play a positive rôle in this connection.

I have looked at the work of the tribunals in this regard and I do not believe that they are unsympathetic. They can point the way in certain cases but, of course, they cannot base a judgment on one case alone. They have to have several cases in order to have the matter looked at.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the official estimate of emigration of doctors born in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland for the latest available 12 months; and how many of these are of registrar, senior registrar and consultant status.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the net emigration figure of doctors born in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland to: (a) the EEC, (b) the developing Commonwealth, (c) other developing countries and (d) the United States of America and Canada, in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

I will circulate figures for 1968–69, 1969–70 and 1970–71 in the Official Report. Preliminary analysis suggests that in 1974–75 more than 1,000 United Kingdom and Irish-born doctors left this country, and the number returning may have been less than 550.

Is the Minister aware that all the signs are that the figures will soon be up again on this near-record figure for 1974–75 because of the low state of morale in the profession, due to its poor terms and conditions and because of poor salary prospects compared with prospects overseas? Is he also aware that many consultants, including some in the hospital serving the Minister's own constituents, are now taking up locum posts in European hospitals during their vacations, no doubt testing the water prior to freedom of movement of doctors at the end of the year? What is he going to do about that?

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the present outflow, which does concern me, started in 1972–73. There is nothing particular about the last two years. It is true that United Kingdom doctors are in considerable demand overseas and their merit here holds them in good respect. I would also say that the figures even now are below the figures of roughly a decade ago. We have to balance that with the fact that with the increasing number of United Kingdom-trained doctors coming back there is a larger number of doctors in the health service now than ever before.

Will my right hon. Friend give more publicity to the figure of 550 returns? Has he seen the article in the General Practitioner, which says that from Canada and America the number of returns are quite high? It is about time we had as much publicity in respect of those who come back as there is in respect of those who go.

This is important. Very often figures have been used to suggest that doctors who leave do not return. On average, a high proportion—well over half—do return to this country, having gained additional experience abroad. One has to accept that doctors are very mobile. It is good that they should travel and return to Britain.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having first denied for a long time that there was a serious emigration problem and having now admitted that it is increasing, what the House would like to know is what action he will take?

The new contracts that junior hospital doctors have signed have substantially improved their situation. There were 68 senior registrars and 48 registrars among all those who left in 1975, so it is a small proportion.

Is not my right hon. Friend correct in setting his answer against a background of an increasing number of doctors? Will he give some details of that increase over the last 10 years? Is it not also the case that a substantial proportion of the doctors who have emigrated, perhaps only temporarily, were in no way connected with private medicine?

My hon. Friend's latter point is absolutely right—the majority were not particularly involved in private medicine. It is important that we should give more recognition to the fact that people are returning to this country. Doctors want to come back to Britain. That is an important factor.

Could I tell the Minister—

No.

Order. The hon. Lady is going to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is strong dissatisfaction among many doctors about their conditions of service, that this is leading them to consider emigration, and that it is something about which he should be not simply concerned but alarmed?

One has to recognise that doctors are not so much disturbed at con-

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been made to his Department over the postponement of the introduction of the child benefit scheme; and what replies he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received following his announcement not to proceed with the child benefit scheme.

Up to yesterday, 64 letters had been received in my Department following my statement about child benefit on 25th May, the great majority expressing concern over the Government's decision. In reply I have explained that we are in fact proceeding with the scheme but in a modified form, because of the serious implications of the full scheme for pay policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although those who have written to him are naturally angry about the Government's current policies, those same people also see the antics and the attitudes displayed by the official Opposition, particularly last night, as having more to do with peripheral parliamentary battles than with an attack on family poverty? When does he expect

Before the Minister replies, may I say that it will be very unfair to those hon. Members with Questions on the Order Paper if everyone asks a long supplementary question?

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the behaviour of the Opposition yesterday. I said in the debate that they were simply playing party politics with the problems of poor families. But I do not want to spend any more time on that; we had that yesterday.

Does the setting up of the proposed working party mean that the Government have received representations from the TUC protesting at the way in which they were tricked into believing that the blocking of the child benefit scheme was the view of a unanimous Cabinet?

No, there have been no representations from the TUC on those lines at all. As I said yesterday, the views of the Government and the TUC are in harmony. It was the Government and the TUC and the Parliamentary Labour Party who jointly decided—this followed discussions that I had myself had with officials of the TUC—that we should keep in close touch so as to work out together how we can eventually evolve and introduce into the House the full child benefit scheme. I warmly welcome the fact that this working party has been established.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, not withstanding the jolly little procedural tango that we had last night, there is a powerful school of thought on the Government side of the House which is determined to see that this child benefit scheme is brought in in 1977? Perhaps he and his Cabinet colleagues will bear that in mind.

I have noted what my hon. Friend said.

Since hon. Members on both sides of the House are very much in favour of the introduction of the child benefit scheme as early as possible, will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider, irrespective of party differences, the arguments produced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) to show that there may be a way of spending the £95 million that the Government have made available so as to give much more help to the most poverty stricken families than the scheme which the Government at present envisage?

I am afraid that whatever scheme we brought in, whether for £95 million or for marginally less or more, the take-home pay problem would be precisely the same. Although it has always been the case that there was going to be a transfer from the husband's purse to the wife's handbag— [Interruption.] I am trying to deal seriously with the question —given that we have a new pay policy, and in the second stage of the battle against inflation—when, uniquely, the pay policy is based on a modest increase in pay and significant tax concessions—this would have been the most difficult year of all in which to have introduced the full transfer. But we have made a start.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual cost of medicines provided on prescription.

The cost of medicines only is not available but the total cost in 1975 of drugs, dressings and appliances dispensed under the pharmaceutical services in England was £379 million.

As that figure of £379 million means that the cost to taxpayers is rising rapidly, will the Minister say what proportion of medicines and appliances is actually consumed or used and what proportion, especially of medicines, is wasted? Would not less medicine be wasted if people were taxed less and had to pay more for their medicines?

It is very hard to determine—I have no accurate figure—the amount of medicine wasted, but whenever unused medicines are returned, one finds that a considerable amount is turned out of people's medicine cupboards. What is needed is better prescribing overall and a recognition by patients that not every ailment is cured with pills.

When does my right hon. Friend propose to review the Regulations governing the dispensing of medicines, bearing in mind the numerous anomalies in the Regulations that he inherited and particularly the effect on migraine sufferers of the dual charge for drugs like Migraleve, in which two drugs are combined in one treatment?

It has always been the policy of the various specialist groups advising the Government not to encourage the prescribing of two separate ingredients simultaneously, on overall medical grounds, but the Regulations are open to certain problems, not least those that arise in the case of chronic sufferers having to pay prescription charges.

In view of his recent statement, will the Minister reassure the medical profession that he has no intention of introducing legislation that would restrict their right to prescribe that which they think best for their patients?

The medical profession must recognise that it has to make economic decisions. At present the prescription bill has no cash limit and is open-ended, but if the medical profession were not able to show some form of economic restraint in its budget any Government would be forced to look at other measures. At the moment we prefer to rely on education and we hope to keep the drugs bill within reasonable bounds by that method.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that £7 a year per head of population is a relatively modest sum of money for all the benefits that come from the drugs section of the National Health service?

One can compare our costs with those of other countries, and we come out favourably. We must recognise that the continued existence of the voluntary price restraint has meant that the excess profits in the industry that appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s, have been largely eradicated. We have a thriving and effective drugs industry, with a good export record.

Will the Minister look into over-prescribing by quantity of medicines within the health service, particularly in hospitals? Does he agree that there is now evidence that over-prescribing is rife in hospitals?

I shall look at any evidence that the hon. Lady may have. On this subject one comes up against the problem of clinical freedom. In this case also one should try education. Hospital doctors are in much the same situation as independent contractors in that respect. It is interesting that many hospitals require the signature of a consultant on prescriptions for the more expensive drugs, and junior doctors are allowed to prescribe only the less expensive drugs. They have not felt that to be an infringement of their clinical freedom. But it is a matter that we can examine.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next proposes to meet representatives of the TUC in connection with social benefits payable in respect of children.

Provision of social benefits for children is one of the items included within the continuing discussions between the Government and the TUC on the social contract and on pay policy.

After yesterday's retreat by the Government over social benefits for children, will the Secretary of State make it clear to the TUC that support for families with children was better under the Conservatives?

In the House last night I dealt not so much with the failure of the Government, but with the failure of the Opposition to put forward any constructive policy or to table a motion yesterday. I also said in the debate that we deeply regretted the fact that the promises on family allowances made by the previous Government in 1970 were absolutely ignored during their four years in office.

When discussing the child benefit scheme with the TUC in the future, will the Government, instead of looking at only the negative aspect of transfer, discuss the positive value of the scheme? Will they explain the value of the scheme to members of the TUC and other people whom the Government appear to think will be put off by the transfer?

I agree with my hon. Friend's every word. One of the principal purposes of the working party consisting of the Government, the Labour Party and the TUC, will be to ensure that all who believe in child benefits and the social benefit that follows from it will become involved in seeking to see that people throughout the country understand the implications of it. That is a vital educational task, which must be fulfilled.

Will the Secretary of State even now, after he has published all the six Regulations for his own miserable scheme, look at the figures contained in the precise proposals that I put to him last night to see whether he can achieve the advantages for the really poor to which his hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) just referred?

As I said yesterday, apart from the errors of calculation made by the right hon. Gentleman in the ideas that he floated, he did not deal with the problem of take-home pay. When he refers to my "miserable scheme" he should know that, unlike his party when in government, this Government are fulfilling their commitment to bring benefits to the first child.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the progress of the South Derbyshire Area Health Authority in following up his Department's and the regional health authority's guidelines on the provision of interim regional secure units attached to Derbyshire hospitals.

No, Sir. I understand that at its meeting on 10th May the Derbyshire AHA noted the Trent RHA's formal direction to area health authorities to arrange such provision and that senior officers of the area health authority are urgently holding discussions with consultant medical staff about the extent of the need for such provision within the area, and how best to meet it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that the constituent whose case I have had to raise in the House is now in Rampton Hospital and could be there indefinitely because of the lack of facilities for treating cases of personality disorder? Is he aware that the problem extends wider than Derbyshire?

It is a difficult problem. It involves difficulties of staff attitudes and professional views. Special hospitals are overcrowded and cannot accept all such cases. The only way in which the problem can be solved is by each region taking responsibility for its own area.

Will the Minister confirm, despite the recommendations of the Butler Committee, that many regional health authorities have no plans for special units?

Progress in that direction is disappointingly slow and patchy. Some regions are making progress. The Government are doing everything they can. They are meeting the revenue and capital costs of secure units and have done all that they can to deal with staff problems and other difficulties. I am hopeful that we are now making more rapid progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to reduce the disparity in the average length of stay of hospital patients between different regions.

The recent consultative document on priorities for health and social services draws attention to the wide variation in average length of stay and the possible financial saving if it were reduced.

Has my right hon. Friend or his Department examined the effects on waiting lists of that disparity, and are they considering that side of the question?

The two things are to some extent linked. If one frees more beds, the turnover probably increases but that may lead to bottlenecks in operating theatres or diagnostic facilities. The special grants to the regional health authorities were designed to try to eliminate the problems. Much has and can be done in more areas for out-patient surgery, which has a dramatic impact on waiting lists.

Is there adequate machinery for the various health authorities in England and Wales to review both the bed occupancy ratio and the waiting lists?

I can speak only for the English machinery. The situation in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am not satisfied. The whole area needs to be examined more stringently, but I would prefer that to be done by the medical profession looking at the data, seeing the economic consequences of the actions of various individuals, and mutually persuading each other to try to reduce length of stay.

Will the Minister look carefully at the question of length of stay, as it is related to the community care services in any area where the patient is discharged? Will he take steps to ensure that no patient is discharged to live in conditions that are unfit for a sick person?

That is another problem. If one increases the turnover, pressure is put on all the community health services. That is one of the reasons why we say that a higher percentage of the overall budget must go to community care and primary health care facilities. If length of stay is reduced, one must have more support facilities.

Does the Minister of State agree that some areas have scandalously long waiting lists for non-acute cases? Will he show a much greater sense of urgency about those areas in clearing the lists?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is very difficult to try to persuade people, which is the method we have used. I have no doubt that if, throughout the country, some of the existing best practices were universalised, we would go a long way towards solving the problem of waiting lists. But there are some areas in which lack of a hospital or lack of facilities is causing problems. We are doing what we can to alleviate them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he proposes to take to provide for patients transferred from outdated fire-risk premises in Essex and other parts of the country following the decision of his Department that a completed £1·5 million unit at Enfield for mentally handicapped patients intended to correct some of the South Ockenden problems is to remain empty.

My Department has made no such decision. Services to the mentally handicapped are amongst the Government's highest priorities. It is for the health authorities to organise those services in the knowledge of their priority and within the constraints of the resources available to them.

This is a very distressing affair. Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the lessons that are to be learned In this particular case, in view of the great pressures on space for the mentally handicapped? Can he give some intelligent reassurance about the matter?

As I understand it, the question is still being reviewed. One of the anxieties that arise concerns the feeling of the regional and area health authorities that the revenue consequences of capital schemes will not be met in future years. This is not a new condition: this is always the problem when practically every new capital facility in the health service carries with it higher revenue consequences. We are not making revenue savings as a result of the capital injection, which is causing problems. However, the subject is being reviewed sympathetically in view of the high priority being given to the mentally handicapped.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the Director-General of the proposed British National Institute for Hearing Research will commence his duties; what is the estimate of expenditure to be allocated to this institute in each of the next four years; what proportion of such expenditure will be borne directly by his Department and by the research councils; and if he will make a statement.

I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that Professor Mark Haggard will take up his duties as Director of the Institute of Hearing Research on 1st January 1977.

Does my hon. Friend recall that it has taken six years between the passing of his Act and the appointment of the Director for this development to take place? I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that, on his initiative and that of his right hon. Friend, at last this has now started to move. Will he ensure that there are regular progress reports, to make sure that this project continues to make rapid progress? Will he also ensure that there will be a name with "British National" attached to it and not just "The Institute"?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall keep his point in mind. It will be my desire to report progress to the House. Our aim will be to get the institute off to the quickest possible start after the Director has taken up his appointment.

How many of the new cosmetic hearing aids have been issued through the service?

At the latest available date, 113,000 of the new behind-the-ear hearing aids had been issued. Our programme is for the issue of 1 million of these new cosmetic hearing aids. We are proceeding at the fastest possible rate.

May we have six-monthly or annual reports from this institute—certainly regular reports?

It would be difficult for me to give a pledge about six-monthly or annual reports. I shall seek to let the House have information about progress at convenient dates, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have said.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received on retirement age for men since 1st January.

No figures are maintained of the total number of letters that my Department gets on a particular issue, but so far this year there have been about 250 letters about men's pension age. which have received or will receive a ministerial reply.

Has the Minister given any further consideration to the scheme whereby the retirement age of men would be advanced in six-monthly stages and the retirement age of women retarded in six-monthly stages, over five years until all ultimately retire at the age of 62½? Does the Minister agree that such a scheme would at least for the first two years, be almost self-financing? On a subject about which he will hear a great deal more over the coming years, is not this the most reasonable and defensible approach?

I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because for any age below about 64¼ years the cost of lowering men's pension age would exceed the savings from raising the age for women.

In the longer term, is not the right objective to move towards a flexible retirement age for both men and women, at any age of their choice between 60 and 70 years, but of course with their getting a lower pension at 60 than they would at 70?

If, as my hon. Friend has suggested, having a flexible retirement age means the payment of a lower pension to someone retiring before normal pension age, the Government are opposed to that idea. Our aim is to provide higher and not lower pensions.

What work, if any, is being done in the Department on the feasibility of a flexible retirement age? Will the Minister assure us that his last reply does not dismiss the idea of a flexible age as a more promising reform than simply reducing the retirement age for men to a lower inflexible level?

Our policy in the longer term would certainly be to see the retirement age for men lowered rather than to have a flexible retirement age, but we rule out a lowering of men's retirement age in present circumstances, because of the tremendous cost involved.

Is not the real need to provide a target date for the retirement of men at 60? If this were spread out over a number of years, it would destroy the cost argument. Will my hon. Friend accept from me that almost every hon. Member finds it deplorable that the Government will not even give a target date for this basic measure of sex equality?

Sex equality could also be achieved by raising women's retirement age. However, as regards phasing in a lower retirement age for men, the total cost at the end of the period would still be substantial. It would mean a significant increase in the number of pensioners, which would make it much more difficult for us in the interim to raise the real living standards of the existing pensioner population.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures to show the incidence of gonorrhoea in the United Kingdom; and how they compare with those of 10 years ago.

My Department collects figures of the numbers of new cases of gonorrhoea treated at clinics in England, and in 1974 this was 58,071. This compares with 36,775 in 1964.

Is not the incidence of this disease serious? Is the Minister satisfied that enough publicity is given to it and, indeed that enough education on this subject is given in schools? Will he make representations about this to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

I am concerned about the growth which represents a rise of 60 per cent. over a 10-year period. However, the bulk of this rise occurred in the period up to 1969. In the last four years the increase has been less than 4 per cent. The Health Education Council spent £25,845 in 1974 on publicity and training schemes concerning the control of sexually-transmitted diseases. I shall consider whether it would be helpful to discuss the situation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Will the Minister take a careful look at the activities of the so-called Family Planning Association which many people believe is responsible for the increase in both promiscuity and venereal disease?

I believe—I think that this is a view thtat is shared on both sides of the House—that the Family Planning Association has a remarkable record of championing social progress. On a largely all-party basis, it has allowed the introduction of a comprehensive family planning service within the National Health Service. It has collaborated in the transfer of many of its responsibilities to the National Health Service and still has an important role in both sex education and family planning education. I strongly support its independence and its integrity.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give detailed advice to area health authorities on how they may cut back their revenue expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to advise area health authorities on the cost-effective use of limited resources.

Over the years my Department has provided health authorities with a wide range of detailed guidance on the most effective use of the resources available to them. This guidance is continually being revised and added to and covers management techniques such as cost control and purchasing procedures, organisation and management studies, and advice on the organisation and development of patient care services, including ways in which the health care professions should be involved in the planning and management of these services. The recently published consultative document on priorities for health and personal social services suggests a number of areas for particular scrutiny by health authorities.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Does he agree that in present circumstances, guidance on what would happen if regional authorities were to overspend their budgets is important? Do the Government expect regional health authorities which overspend to have to cut down on their medical and nursing staff, and so on?

It is certainly necessary for both regional health authorities and area health authorities to live within their budgets, just as it is important that the National Health Service should live within its budget. We are faced with a situation, partly due to reorganisation carried out by the previous Government, in which the administration has become too heavy. Health authorities have already agreed to reduce the cost of managerial staffs, or to try to hold the cost at current figures. I shall be sending out a letter this week to area health authorities giving further advice on how to slim their administration.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be undesirable for any area health authority to cut down on staff, particularly at this time of very high unemployment? Does he further agree that the crocodile tears from the opposition about public expenditure always disappear when they talk about defence? Is it not the job of the Labour Government to make sure that we get our priorities right, and transfer some of the massive amount of defence expenditure to the monument to Socialism which the National Health Service represents?

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, in a general period of planning standstill, we have got our priorities right in regard to public expenditure. We have planned for the National Health Service to continue its growth. This is admittedly low—at 1·8 per cent. annually, and 2 per cent. in regard to personal social services. We are leaving room for an element of growth, and I think we must do so because of the priority we give to the National Health Service.

Is not one of the major anxieties of area health authorities, on the revenue account, how to meet the additional bill for junior hospital doctors? Will the Secretary of State undertake to make a statement to the House quite shortly about the junior hospital doctors' pay negotiations, including an explanation of the way in which the area health authorities are to find the money necessary to meet the undertakings given by his Department?

It is, of course, for area health authorities to determine how much of doctors' time they contract to pay. The responsibility lies with area health authorities. I shall certainly deal with the matter in answer to a Question or, if I feel it necessary, be prepared to inform the House of the outcome of the current negotiations to complete the new contract for junior hospital doctors.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of the interdepartmental working party on enfranchising individuals whose home address is a State-maintained mental hospital.

Following the Government's acceptance in principle of the Speaker's Conference recommendation that for electoral registration purposes. patients in mental hospitals should be placed on the same footing as those in general hospitals, the working party has been asked to seek the views of political parties and other interested bodies on the practical issues the working party has identified in implementing this. I hope that this will not take too long and that the working party will be able to complete its report later in the year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he confirm that there are about 50,000 people in this country in this category? Will he take every step to ensure that these unfortunate people, who until now have been, in my view, wrongly disfranchised, are included on this year's register, so that they will be able to vote in next year's elections?

I cannot confirm the exact number, but it is something of the order referred to by my hon. Friend. I am afraid that I cannot give the guarantee for which he asked, because there are a number of problems. We must work these out in detail and then bring the matter before the House, so that the House may understand it. It is very unlikely that we shall be able to complete it so that it can be applicable to the next register.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any hon. Member who visits mental hospitals must be struck by the fact that patients feel remarkably strongly about political rights? Could the working party take into account the arbitrariness of decisions taken at the present time?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that many of those in psychiatric hospitals, who have no other home but the psychiatric hospital, feel very strongly indeed about this matter. We know of a recent court case which related to those who were living in the grounds of a psychiatric hospital but nevertheless were denied their political freedom. I feel as strongly about it as they do. As soon as the House is able to give to these people their proper electoral rights, it should do so.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the CBI and the TUC.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th May.

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best ways to bolster international confidence in the pound, which is of concern to both the TUC and the CBI, would be for the Government to announce their revised expenditure programmes for next year as soon as possible? Would this not also help to remove the damaging uncertainty that now exists because of all the rumours surrounding these programmes? Will the Prime Minister assure us that an announcement will be made before the House rises?

I agree that rumours are damaging in this matter, especially if they are without foundation. Undoubtedly, it is part of the Government's task to strengthen sterling, for a number of reasons that are connected with our domestic situation.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI and the TUC, will he discuss the problem of investment? Has he noticed reports in City papers and financial journals to the effect that there is a growing tendency for companies to send money abroad rather than retain it in this country? Does he agree that this haemorrhage cannot continue if we are to bring about the investment boom that we so desperately require?

There is a falling away of investment again this year. According to the estimates, it is likely to be lower than last year. But the forecasts show that the major companies involved expect to begin a new programme of investment which will substantially increase in 1977. Indeed, the last forecasts, for what they are worth—I do not wish to imply anything more than that, because they are all estimates—indicate that companies expect to have an increase of 15 per cent. in their investment in new plant and machinery next year.

Before the Prime Minister sees the TUC again, and as the TUC represents about 3 million women members, will he tell the House whether it was the TUC that told the Government to delay the child benefit scheme or the Government who asked the TUC to agree to postponing it for three years?

The right hon. Lady might have taken part in the debate yesterday if she felt so strongly about it. She could have put her questions then. The matter was fully discussed in the House yesterday, and the Conservative Opposition did not have the guts to vote.

The question was not resolved yesterday. That is why I asked it specifically. May I say to the Prime Minister that avuncular flannel will not do?

I have often thought of the right hon. Lady in many ways, but never as my niece. As to our relations with the TUC, I do not propose to disclose these in this House. The relations between us depend partly upon confidentiality being preserved, and the fact that it has been broken does not help relations between us.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to make his next ministerial broadcast.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on 27th April.

Now that the Prime Minister has been firmly told by the creditors' meeting in Puerto Rico that the price of Socialism has become unacceptable, will he, in a personal broadcast to the nation, spell out what public expenditure cuts are needed now, in addition to the scrapping of the nationalisation programme—or will he wait for the details to be delivered in a shopping basket?

The conversations at Puerto Rico did not take anything like the form that the hon. Gentleman alleges. As he was not there, I do not know how he knows. He certainly should not rely upon newspaper reports of what took place at Puerto Rico. I think that there is general anxiety about next year's level of public expenditure—1977–1978—and it is to that that we are directing our attention now.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement which appeared in some evening newspapers yesterday, and which was alleged to come from Puerto Rico, that there were to be cuts of £1,000 million in public expenditure is totally untrue? Will he tell the House that no such measures are intended by the Government?

For obvious reasons, I did not see last night's newspapers. If the reference is to this year, it is totally untrue. I have no ministerial responsibility for what appears in newspapers, whether or not it purports to come from Puerto Rico. I am giving no guarantees on next year's level of public expenditure. I have said that time after time, and I repeat it.

In his next broadcast will the Prime Minister tell us whether he will be daunted in the keeping of his election manifesto promise for a Scottish Assembly by the unacceptable face of the English backlash and the alliance of certain rather unintelligent Scottish Members of Parliament?

I refer the hon. Lady to the broadcast which I made in Scotland a few weeks ago when I made the Government's position on this matter quite clear.

Whether or not the American President and his colleagues made the impertinent comments reported in the Press to my right hon. Friend, did he inform them that the level of unemployment that appears acceptable in the United States of America is not acceptable here?

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Puerto Rico at the end of Questions, and I may perhaps reserve my comments until then.

asked the Prime Minister what factors he takes into account when advising Her Majesty on State visits.

All relevant factors are taken into account, including an appreciation of the objectives of British foreign policy and of the manner in which a State visit can promote these objectives.

As we are so often told that the Queen is one of Britain's major national assets, does my right hon. Friend accept that in a period of economic stringency it is important to make full use of this asset to support the sale of British goods and services overseas and maintain Britain's national standing overseas?

I think that Her Majesty has shown this on one or two occasions, for example, when she visited one foreign country and British business men, with her permission, were able to give a reception in the yacht "Britannia". In other ways Her Majesty has always shown her full support for our export efforts.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the President of the European Commission.

I expect to meet President Ortoli at the meeting of the European Council on 12th and 13th July.

When my right hon. Friend meets President Ortoli will he discuss with him direct elections to the European Parliament? If he does, will he take the opportunity of assuring the President that in Britain the election will be conducted according to traditional methods and not in accordance with the new fancy franchise peddled by some well-meaning people, which would seriously interfere with relations between the individual Member and the individual constituent?

I fully support the view that the list system, however applicable it may be in other countries, would be an unwelcome innovation here. That has been part of the attitude that we have had to take in our discussions on direct elections, when other countries have been willing to accept a relatively small number of Members because they would all be voted for on a list. I have had to explain on many occasions that if the number is too small the personal relationship between the Member and his constituency will be broken.

Before the Prime Minister next meets the President of the Commission, will he take the opportunity to give some confidence to the inshore fishing industry that his Gov- ernment intend to protect its interests within the Common Market? Does the Prime Minister realise that it is time for his Government to take a definite initiative on this important matter?

Yes, Sir. We regard the common fisheries policy—which was negotiated just before we entered the Common Market—as naturally requiring amendment in the light of the changed international situation. The 200-mile limit has altered the whole scene. We made that clear during President Giscard d'Estaing's recent visit. I assured him at the time that we would certainly have regard to the traditional fishing rights of, for example, French fishermen, but we would expect, in the changed circumstances, a revision of the policy. When we meet at the European Council we shall again make this clear.

As the European Parliament in the last three months has had meetings in six different cities, will the Prime Minister say a word about costs in terms of officials' and Members' time, and the sheer money cost of the nomadic nature of the European Parliament?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend but, alas, I do not think that anything I might say in anyone's ear would be likely to have much effect. [Interruption.] I do not know what hon. Gentlemen think they get out of that. I believe that it is a cause of great inconvenience to the Members attending the Assembly, but the countries concerned seem to be unable to agree on any one fixed place.

In discussing the circumstances and the economies of individual member States with the President of the Commission, will the Prime Minister ask his opinion of the daunting fact that the total of Britain's international indebtedness exceeds the level of Germany's net reserves?

No, Sir, I shall not ask him that. Our indebtedness is well covered by our assets.

Reverting to the question of direct elections, which will no doubt be discussed under the President's chairmanship, will the Prime Minister confirm that the next stage will be a convention, and that that convention will be debatable in the House prior to any Bill—which is the emphasis placed on the matter by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs?

I venture in those waters with some trepidation, but I believe that my hon. Friend has stated the matter correctly. If he wishes to know the exact position, perhaps he will table a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to ensure that, in future, appointments to the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are not restricted to former permanent secretaries and other senior civil servants.

There never has been a requirement for this post to be held by a former civil servant. In future appointments, as previously, consideration will be given to all suitable candidates.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I recently pursued a complaint with the Parliamentary Commissioner because I considered that a Government circular was misleading, the Parliamentary Commissioner was unable to handle the case because he had signed the circular in question, and he passed it on to a deputy? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that is an incestuous situation? Is there any reason why a trade unionist should not be appointed to that office?

I see no reason why a trade unionist or even an employer should not be appointed to that post in due course. My hon. Friend has raised a difficulty, but one which I imagine does not often occur. The appointment of a civil servant at least has the advantage that whoever is appointed knows his way round Whitehall, and that is important in these matters.

Does the Prime Minister accept that Parliamentary Com- missioners, locally as well as nationally, have done an extraordinarily good job, and that many hon. Members and their constituents have reason to be grateful to them? Will he consider extending their powers?

From my own personal experience, I would agree with the hon. Member. I have had constituency cases that have been investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner. He has done so with great thoroughness, though not always to the satisfaction of myself or my constituents—but that is only to be expected. I do not know about the case for giving further powers to the Parliamentary Commissioner. If the hon. Member has anything particular in mind perhaps he will let me know.

No doubt my right hon. Friend will be looking for people with a great deal of experience in Whitehall. Will he bear in mind the fact that I am only half-employed these days, and I am very willing to consider the job? In fact, I reckon I am just the boy to knock some of them about.

I can think of no one better. In this case, I assure my right hon. Friend that canvassing will not exclude him from consideration for the post.

Does the Prime Minister realise that in most countries this position is held by a former politician? Will he undertake to read the report of the Select Committee on this subject, because it has a very pungent paragraph dealing with this point? The report will be published shortly.

I shall undertake to do this, as I know the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in these matters. Although Parliamentary Commissioners have done a good job in the past, I have no particular view about the post continuing to be held by a civil servant. This was settled when the Parliamentary Commissioner was appointed last January. I do not know about the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made about politicians, but I think it is true that there is certainly a number of countries in which former civil servants are given this post.