asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now make a further statement on the review of student grants.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received from the National Union of Students about students' grants; and what reply she has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a statement on the review which she has carried out to determine the level of student grants for the period beginning 1st September, 1971.

The National Union of Students has submitted a claim for higher rates of grant and other changes in the student support system. As we are still dealing with Stage II of the procedure, I am not yet ready to make a statement but will do so when the review is complete.

I appreciate that, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever change may be made by the Government in the level of grants, she will do everything she can to remove or at least lessen the inequities in the system as between one system and another and one group of students and another?

Stage II is concerned with determining the total sum and stage III is concerned with discussions to agree on the distribution of that total sum. If my hon. Friend is concerned with the position as between mandatory and discretionary grants, any change in that respect would require legislation.

Does the Secretary of State recall that she indicated to the House that she would make a statement this month? Would she do that without delay and perhaps take into account the fact that students are not among the surtax payers who were helped in the Budget?

I said that I would not be ready to make a statement before April, and the procedure is taking a little longer than we thought it would. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. But some students' parents benefited in the Budget.

Will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to the way in which the parental means test is straining family relationships in cases in which parents cannot afford what their sons and daughters need? Will she give an assurance that she will raise the base of the parental means test and make consequent adjustments to the rest of the scale?

The parental contribution is one of the things that will be considered in conjunction with the vice-chancellors, local authorities and student bodies under Stage III of the negotiations.

The House will welcome the comment which the right hon. Lady has just made, but to help in the discussion of alternative methods, will she ask her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House an estimate of the administrative cost of replacing the present means testing system by a system of uniform grants coupled with a tax claw-back of parental contributions?

This is a difficult calculation to make. The National Union of Students gave us to understand that on its calculation the cost would be about £2 million. I have been doing some investigations and can find no basis for that figure from our statistics.

Will the right hon. Lady assure us that she has not closed her mind to the possibility of legislating a change of structure of student grants, apart from the immediate issue of reviewing the level?

I have not closed my mind, but even if the policy were agreed —and that is a matter for debate—there would be the question of finding legislative time. There is no decision on the policy matter, and I should not like to give the impression that there is.

Whereas all parents are grateful for the increase of £40 per annum in the income tax allowance for all children of all ages, does not my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a powerful case for a special increased allowance for income tax purposes for boys and girls at universities or on similar courses, and that that would be the proper way of tackling this question instead of tinkering about with the present system, which is hopeless anyway?

I am not responsible for the tax allowances, but my recollection is—and perhaps my hon. Friend will check this with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that child allowances are available so long as the child is in receipt of full-time education, and that applies to both college and university students.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy on the representation of teachers on local authority education committees; and what is her estimate of the effect of local government reform upon existing teacher representation on education committees.

Teachers have an important contribution to make to the work of education committees and I strongly support their appointment. The present arrangements for establishing education committees will be included in the review referred to in paragraph 46 of the White Paper.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some local education authorities deny representation altogether, while others deny representation on important sub-committees? Is she also aware that some local education authorities co-opt to their committees pliant and tame teachers rather than teachers elected by ballot in the locality? What determined action will her Department take to ensure that the principle of teacher representation is safeguarded both currently and in local government reorganisation?

Although the Act does not require teacher representation, in practice 135 out of a total of 163 local education authorities provide explicitly for this. Of the remaining 28, all but two provide specifically for the co-option of non-councillor members. It can reasonably be assumed that most of these take advantage of this to include teachers as members. That leaves only two out of the total.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures she proposes to make the teaching profession more attractive to would-be entrants.

There were 18,500 more teachers in maintained schools in October, 1970 than in October, 1969. This was the largest increase ever. The latest figures suggest that a higher proportion are remaining in the profession.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of suitable applicants for training in the teaching profession declined last year? Does she agree that salaries are the prinicipal factor in this decline and will she not consider coming out in defence of the profession and denouncing the ramshackle and derisive pay increase currently offered by the management?

The number of applicants to the colleges of education was down—that is to say, the non-graduate applicants for teaching were fewer—but there were more graduate applicants, so there is a net increase in the number of people coming into teaching.

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that her answer merely demonstrates the problem being encountered at the moment by graduates in finding employment and has no longterm significance?

No, I would not agree. A large number of graduates are interested in coming into teaching as teaching.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ensure a new salary structure for the teaching profession which gives added incentives to those with added responsibilities and those who intend to make it a lifelong career.

The reformed pay structure proposed by the management panel of the Burnham Committee, on which I have two representatives, is designed to achieve these objectives.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a most important factor is to provide a career structure which will make it worth while for men and women to stay in teaching as long as possible? Does she also agree that one of the difficulties in the past has been the vast number of girl teachers who have qualified and then left the profession, thus leaving a great gap at the bottom of the scale?

I agree that pay structure is most important, and we hope that those young women who leave teaching will come back into the profession later.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not a crime for a lady to train as a teacher or to accept university training, to do a little time in school, then to get married and have children and afterwards to come back into the teaching profession? Will not the new structure proposed by the authorities penalise women and also divide the profession, in view of the distinction between primary and secondary schools which we on this side of the House have for so long been trying to end? Since the right hon. Lady has a direct responsibility on the negotiating body, will she try to do something about this situation?

No one is suggesting that what the hon. Gentleman said was alleged to be a crime is in fact a crime. Certainly my hon. Friend did not suggest it. It is something that usually happens in the normal course of events. We hope that these young women will come back into teaching. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it seems that the teaching profession is divided on the matter of structure, but I do not necessarily accept that the structure itself is divisive. Indeed, it gives far more opportunities to those teaching in primary schools to become heads and deputy heads than applies to those teaching in secondary schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much financial assistance the National Youth Orchestra has received from the Arts Council during the past five years; and what was the figure for the National Youth Brass Band.

Grants to individual organisations are a matter for the Arts Council.

Will the Minister tell me why the National Youth Orchestra, quite rightly, receives a large sum of money each year whereas the National Youth Brass Band has consistently been refused assistance? Is he aware of the feel- ing in the musical world that if one is a middle-class harpist all is well but a working-class bugler does not get a look in?

If it be the fact, which I do not accept, that a workingclass bugler is not given assistance, the fault lies at the door of the Arts Council presided over by a member of the Labour Party.

Is not the Arts Council ready to receive an application from any source and would not an application supported, for example, by the local authority in Rugby be well received by the Arts Council?

Not by the Tories.

I must leave this internal battle to be settled between the two hon. Gentlemen opposite. When there is an Arts Council structure, it does not make sense for Ministers of any party personally to allocate funds. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).

I do not wish to do the brass band down, but has not the National Youth Orchestra's grant remained unchanged for at least five years and will my hon. Friend take every opportunity of encouraging this orchestra as a nursery for the great musicians of the future?

I certainly pay a warm tribute to the work of the orchestra, but the money allocated to it must be an Arts Council matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the progress of consultations with the Arts Council with a view to the withholding of subsidies from public funds for theatrical productions which are blasphemous or obscene.

Consultations between my noble Friend and the Arts Council are still proceeding.

Is the Minister aware that the mild suggestions made by one of his colleagues were described by Mr. Kenneth Tynan as "cheeky" and were disapproved of by Mr. Jonathan Miller? Do noises of this sort from so august a quarter still strike terror in the Ministerial heart, or is the literary and dramatic climate changing?

It would take considerably more than that to strike terror in any Ministerial heart. I am happy to say that my answer is accurate and that the matter is still in discussion with the Arts Council.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be entirely unacceptable to interfere with the artistic and creative processes sponsored by the Arts Council simply because certain elderly hon. Members suffer either from religious bigotry or sexual guilt?

I do not propose to attempt identification. There has never been the smallest disposition on the part of my noble Friend to be the person who makes these decisions, but there is widespread support for his view that it is not appropriate for public money to be made available for purposes which are gravely offensive to a wide range of people.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will institute an inquiry into the nutritional and dietary circumstances of schoolchildren.

The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, through its Panel on the Nutrition of School Children, keeps this matter under review.

Is the right hon. Lady not aware that there is great concern on this side of the House and among many of her hon. Friends, as well as among doctors outside the House, at the complete rejection by her hon. Friend of the Queen Elizabeth College survey on nutrition among schoolchildren? Is it not time the Government themselves undertook a survey to examine the effects of the increases in school meal charges and the withdrawal of school milk?

It would help to adjudge that survey if it were published. It has never been published.

That is not the point. The point is that there was an interim report which was published and available. It was that which was rejected by her hon. Friend on the Prayer on school meals and milk.

I fail to see why a survey which has been completed should not be published if I am asked to adjudge upon it.

Is it not a fact that during the last six years, in spite of increases in school meal charges, an appreciably higher proportion of children are receiving school meals than was the case in 1964?

Certainly more are receiving school meals free. I am glad to announce that all children in families which are in receipt of family incomes supplement will be entitled to free school meals without separate assessment. Amending legislation will be laid before Parliament in due course.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that many children are going to school without having had anything to eat since five o'clock the previous evening? If the number of children receiving school dinners were to go down by, let us say, half a million, would she reconsider the question of charges and also the withdrawal of free school milk?

I am satisfied that the arrangements in respect of free school meals are operating as well as we can possibly get them to operate, and there will be another campaign to this end. All those who receive supplementary benefits are automatically entitled to free school meals and those in receipt of family incomes supplement will be automatically entitled to them. The hon. Gentleman's opening remark is a matter for the welfare services rather than for the school meals service.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of children takes school meals in the Inner London Education Authority area; what percentage is provided free; and what advice she has tended to local education authorities so as to avoid children knowing who pays and who does not.

On a day in the autumn, 1970, 65·6 per cent. of the pupils present at maintained schools in the Inner London Education authority area took the school meal and 14·9 per cent. of those present received it free of charge. Paragraph 5 of Circular 3/71 reminded authorities again that the collection of the charge for school meals and the dining arrangements should be so organised that those who receive free meals cannot be identified by other pupils.

Does the right hon. Lady know how this matter is working out in practice? Will she institute inquiries to discover whether in fact this is being done without embarrassment to children and their parents? If she looks into the matter, she may find that the circular is not universally operated in a manner that is free from objection.

We make inquiries into every case that is reported to us. Our information is that there will be very few such cases, but those which come to us are followed up because we are anxious that the children should not be identified.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a young boy of 11 in my constituency who is illegitimate and who now refuses to go to school because he has to put up his hand to get a free dinner? He knows why and so do the other children. Has the right hon. Lady any comprehension of how much we on this side of the House despise and loathe a Government whose policies and priorities lead to that sort of human suffering?

I am sure that both the previous Government and myself would condemn any such arrangement. I assume that the hon. Gentleman, the moment he heard of this matter, approached the headmaster, the chief education officer and the chairman of the education committee to deal with it.

I shall be doing so. I received the letter only yesterday.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students at teacher training colleges have failed to qualify in 1970; and how many, having qualified, have taken employment outside the teaching profession.

Information relating to 1970 is not yet available. In 1969, 1,119 students completing their training failed the final examination. Of the 28,213 non-graduate students successfully completing training in that year, about 24,000 had entered maintained primary and secondary schools by February, 1970. More than half of the remainder were continuing their studies.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that this figure of dropout shows exactly the same kind of proportion as has happened in regard to students in universities? Does not some investigation need to be made to see that State money is not wasted in giving training to people who at the end of the day do not follow it up?

These are not comparable figures. I am being asked about those who have completed their training, and I am pointing to the fact that a very small percentage is unaccounted for. It is reasonable on previous figures to suppose that a considerable number of those people, after a break, go into the profession for which they are trained.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of individuals who have protested against, or criticised, the proposals to establish admission charges at art galleries and museums; whether this be by letter or by signature only; and what replies she has sent.

Up to Monday. 22nd March, 358 letters protesting against, or criticising, the introduction of admission charges for museums and galleries had been received in the Department of Education and Science. These included 63 letters on behalf of various organisations and 22 petitions bearing 1,842 signatures. Individual replies have been, or are being, sent to all letters.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but would he not agree that, in view of the opposition which has arisen to these charges and the difficulties which such a scheme inevitably will cause, this matter should be reconsidered? Does he not agree that some of the arguments advanced in support of the imposition of admission charges could also be used to justify charges for such events as the Trooping of the Colour, the Changing of the Guard and the State Opening of Parliament?

We have on other occasions debated the merits of this suggestion. When I saw the answer to this Question, I thought how remarkable it was that only 1,800 signatures had been obtained on this subject, when one considers that some 12 million people each year visit the institutions concerned.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the mere fact that several thousand people have paid admission charges to see the costumes used in the B.B.C. television series on Henry VIII proves that his right hon. Friend is on the right lines with this proposal?

Yes, there are widespread inconsistencies, and indeed on some occasions charges are levied within some of the institutions affected.

Will the hon. Gentleman not be honest and admit that he realises as well as the rest of us that the whole of the artistic and cultural establishment of this country is opposed to these charges? Will he not, even now, reconsider the possibility of revoking this ridiculous proposal?

I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman as the spokesman for all the cultural interests he mentions.

More so than you.

It certainly can be said that there is widespread support for the proposals which have been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority was accorded to Saddleworth Secondary School at Uppermill by the West Riding County Council in the submission of their secondary school major building programme for 1971–72; and if she will include this in her programme.

The projects submitted by the West Riding Local Education Authority for the 1971–72 Preliminary List, from which the 1973–74 Starts Programme will be drawn, were not arranged in order of priority. No decisions have yet been taken on this programme.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. When she has taken a final decision, will she bear in mind that there is considerable—in fact, overwhelming—support in the Saddleworth area for a comprehensive school?

I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's representations in mind. Indeed, we had an Adjournment debate on the subject earlier in the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations she has with local education authorities before approving her major secondary school building programme.

I invite each local education authority to submit proposals in order of priority. My officers generally discuss these with the authority concerned before the programme is drawn up.

Will the Minister clarify this point? She invites local education authorities to submit a list of priorities, and obviously she has respect to those priorities. Has the West Riding not issued its list in order of priority?

That emerged from the answer to the last Question. The West Riding has not submitted its list in order of priority. Usually the order emerges in the course of discussions between our officials and the local education authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements she is making to restore the cuts she has proposed in the Inner London Education Authority school building programme for 1971–72.

rose—

On a point of order. Before the Minister replies, may I point out that it is almost certain that the year 1971–72 in my Question ought to read "1972–73".

This, of course, is of some importance because in respect of the year 1971–72 my right hon. Friend has made no such proposals. I must ask the hon. Member to get his figures right.

However it has come to read "1971–72" on the Order Paper, I do not wish to put the blame other than upon myself. However, I think it was obvious to the Minister that the Question must relate to 1972–73, because he well knows that he has just rejected and cut the I.L.E.A.'s request in this respect by three schools—two primary schools and the enlargement of a third—in South London. He further knows that these schools are essential and that his right hon. Friend has had interviews with the I.L.E.A. in which it pleaded with her to put these schools back. Therefore, the Minister should be in a position to answer the Question.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong again. He is referring not to the school building programme for 1972–73, but to the minor works allocation, which is a very different matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will state the different forms of comprehensive education now approved by her department; and whether she will list the number of each form in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The four main patterns in operation are: all-through schools, 1116 schools feeding sixth form colleges, various types of two-tier arrangements and middle school arrangements. With permission, I will circulate further information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many schools designated as comprehensive do not in fact fulfil the basic criterion of comprehensive education; that is, they do not admit the full ability range? Does the right hon. Lady agree that this makes nonsense of many of the plans for reorganisation which have been submitted to her? In view of the Government's lack of enthusiasm for comprehensive education, is she happy to have it that way?

It is well known by all those who survived the last Parliament that comprehensive and non-selective education are two different things. Often to get comprehensive education one needs to select in order to get an all-ability range in each school. That is known as banding, and that was rejected by the last Government. Selection is not necessarily rejected by this Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the middle school form of comprehensive education is an excellent way of doing it? Will she take steps to explain to areas such as Derbyshire, where there has been a great controversy in the Matlock area, the great advantages which can accrue to parents and children of adopting the middle school form?

In some areas the middle school system works very well. Conditions vary from area to area in the buildings and staff which are available. It is difficult to make any overall judgment unless one knows the background of each area.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the whole principle of comprehensive education is eroded when streaming within comprehensive schools takes place? Will she therefore issue a circular to this effect and advise people in comprehensive schools that they are destroying the whole principle when that exists?

No, I will not. Arrangements within schools are matters for the heads of those schools.

What policy does the Secretary of State intend to adopt towards the direct-grant school in these various forms of comprehensive education which she has just listed?

Direct-grant schools will continue as they are for the time being.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress there has been in the teachers' salary negotiations; and whether she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the teachers' pay claim.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made on the teachers' pay negotiations; and if she will make a statement.

The negotiations in the Burnham Committee reached deadlock on 5th March. The independent chairman ruled that there had been full opportunity for discussion and negotiation and that the matter should be referred to arbitration. He then asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to convene an arbitral body. My right hon. Friend has written to each panel inviting nominations of suitable persons to serve.

Is there not wide public support for reasonable, but not excessive, salary increases coupled with improvements in structure? Will my right hon. Friend take any opportunity which may be open to her to persuade the teachers to accept arbitration as the best and quickest way of reaching a settlement?

The arrangements for arbitration are in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The independent chairman has written to him asking him to convene an arbitral body to arbitrate on the differences between the teachers' panel and the management panel on pay structure and salary scales from 1st April, 1971.

First, was not the settlement last year made on the understanding that there would be a restructuring settlement in subsequent agreements? Secondly, was it not the Remuneration of Teachers' Act, 1965, passed by the Labour Government, which set up arbitration under this scheme? Have the Opposition supported the present Government in their appeal for arbitration?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary is "Yes, Sir" and to the second part also, "Yes, Sir" The arbitration arrangements were set up by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) when he was Secretary of State for Education.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the great suspicion of the teachers towards arbitration is because they fear that there will not be an impartial chairman? Will she therefore ensure that if there is arbitration, the chairman is completely impartial?

Under the arrangements made by the right hon. Member for Grimsby, my right hon. Friend has to consult both panels before an independent chairman is appointed.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that it is not just the global figure which is upsetting the teaching profession but the restructuring which has been mentioned? Will she say what consultation has taken place with the Burnham Committee and the N.U.T. and will she make a statement on the views expressed by the N.U.T., which have been entirely ignored by the Burnham Committee?

Since the deadlock the N.U.T. has expressed no views to me, but I understand that it has seen officials at the Department of Employment.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, in restructuring the pay of teachers, what benefit could accrue to those who teach in primary schools, whose need is most urgent at the present time?

The one outstanding point which occurs immediately is a new increment. After the rest of the increments have reached their maximum, an extra one is given after three years of service which takes the bottom scale at its top level to a figure in excess of £2,000 a year.

In view of yesterday's offer by the Ford management, following that of Vauxhall, why should the teachers be satisfied with their present offer? Having regard to the Budget and the situation in which management is now offering workers outside so much in advance of what the Secretary of State is offering to the teachers, will she reconsider the offer that has been made?

If one is considering a pay award, one has to consider everything associated with it, including the regular annual increments, the holiday arrangements and the pension arrangements, which are protected from inflation in the case of teachers not by teachers' contributions but by money made up from taxpayers' contributions to the Treasury.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she proposes to introduce legislation to annul the provisions in wills making gifts to the nation of works of art now exhibited in galleries and museums conditional on their being made available to the public gratuitously.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Turner left his magnificent collection of pictures to the nation on the understanding that they should be freely accessible to the public, that many other gifts of work in our national collections were made on the same conditions, and that, whatever the legal position may be, it is surely a moral breach of trust to override the request contained in these generous bequests?

I have said in the course of previous exchanges that, in so far as enabling legislation was necessary, it would be introduced. But there is no intention of introducing legislation of the kind mentioned in the Question.

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that he is breaking faith with the past in that the donors of many magnificent gifts to our national collections expected stipulations in their wills to be observed and that he should now admit that he is pursuing a dishonourable course in this matter?

For reasons that we all regret, the hon. Gentleman has not been able to be with us for some time. If he had been able to listen to some of our exchanges, he would realise that the construction, for example, of the expression "freely available" is not necessarily that which is sometimes placed upon it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of children in maintained schools is subject to selection procedure for secondary education at 11-plus; and what proposals she has for abolishing such procedure.

The Department collects statistics about the number of children in different types of school, but it has never collected statistics about children subject to selection procedure. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "None, Sir".

Is the right hon. Lady aware that in many local authorities selection at the age of 11 is still being made, which is in direct contradiction to the statement in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last election that the age of 11 was much too early to make decisions about children's future? As it is true that a great number of children are still being selected or rejected at the age of 11 and are having to write themselves off far below their potential, will the right hon. Lady accept some responsibility as the Minister in getting ahead with abolishing this iniquitous procedure, instead of putting everything on to the local authorities?

The age of 11 is too early to make a final decision about any child's future, and so is any school age. Whatever the age at which a child's potential appears, full provision must be made for drawing it out and giving the child the very best education possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will encourage the provision of nursery education accommodation as near as possible to the homes of families with young children, and, as a start, propose the conversion into a nursery classroom of one ground-floor flat with access to outdoor play space on estates of council multi-storey flats.

This kind of provision is eligible for consideration under the Urban Programme if it satisfies the requirements of the relevant regulations about health and safety.

:.I very much appreciate that Answer. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many blocks of flats have no playgrounds at all and that, even if there is one, often it is impossible for a mother to keep an eye on her young child perhaps 15 storeys down? As a result, many thousands of children are hemmed in almost permanently in their flats with serious effects on themselves and their mothers.

:I am aware of problems of this kind, and I am aware of them especially in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. However, the hon. Gentleman will probably agree that alterations of this kind are not always satisfactory to existing blocks and present great problems, but that they make a good deal of sense if they are incorporated at the design stage of new blocks.

When do the Government intend to uphold the commitment given to the National Commission for Nursery Education by the Conservative National Advisory Committee on Education that the Government would be withdrawing Circular 8/60 and increasing the money available under the urban aid programme for nursery schools?

Certainly it will not be made as a result of an announcement on a technical point dealing with high blocks of flats.

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

:I visited Manchester last Novem- ber, and have at present no plans for a further visit to Lancashire.

:Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in Lancashire is uncomfortably high and in some areas is the highest since before the war? Does not he think that it is time to introduce some positive regional incentives and to put an end to the depressing stories from Lancashire of cut-backs, closures and industrial decline that we have heard over the past few months?

:As part of Lancashire is a development area, and other parts are intermediate areas, firms have the inducements to invest there. As a result of the Budget, there will be opportunities for firms to expand and to take advantage of the inducements in the two areas.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware how delighted the citizens of the county town of Lancaster were to welcome him on 12th February, how impressed they were with his interest in the matters brought to his notice both by the City and by the university, and how much they will welcome him whenever he chooses to come again?

:I thoroughly enjoyed my useful visit.

In regard not only to Lancashire but to the development areas generally, can the Prime Minister say what are his expectations as to the potential reduction of unemployment by the end of this year as a result of his right hon. Friend's Budget?

I do not think that one can set out the impact of Budget measures purely in terms of development or intermediate areas. The information is not available.

asked the Prime Minister what problems have been referred by himself or by Ministers to the Cabinet Inter-Disciplinary Unit; and if he will make a statement.

:The advice given by the Central Policy Review Staff, like all advice given by officials to Ministers, is confidential.

While thanking the Prime Minister for that non-answer, may I point out that the whole House will be interested to hear what this body is doing. May I suggest two subjects which he might usefully refer to it? First, will he ask it to investigate methods of stabilising prices now that S.E.T. has been cut? Second, will he ask it to investigate the method of income tax reduction introduced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which gives a man earning £5,000 a year a 6 per cent. increase in his effective income, a man earning £50,000 a year a 67 per cent. increase, and a man earning £100,000 a year more than 100 per cent., virtually doubling his effective income, while a man earning £1,000 a year gets only a 1½ per cent. increase?

I do not think that it is necessary for the hon. Lady to make at Question Time her speech in the Budget debate. These are not matters of the kind dealt with by the Central Policy Review Staff.

While we all welcome the more optimistic news of the negotiations, can the Prime Minister say whether the Rolls-Royce affair was referred to the Central Policy Review Staff?

Just as the work of the Cabinet Secretariat is never revealed, so in respect of the Central Policy Review Staff—which is part of the Cabinet Secretariat—it would not be wise to embark on a discussion item by item of matters which it may or may not have considered.

asked the Prime Minister if he intends to have further meetings with Mr. Henry Ford to discuss the effects of industrial investment decisions on employment and economic growth in the United Kingdom and if he will make a statement on the discussions already held.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Mr. Henry Ford to discuss the Government's economic measures.

:I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to a Question from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 18th March. There are no plans for further meetings with Mr. Ford..—[Vol. 813, c. 396-7.]

:While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that Mr. Ford's intervention in this dispute merely had the effect of delaying today's announcement of the basis for settlement? Does he agree, further, that external interference of this kind in Britain's domestic affairs is not called for?

The question of the specific Ford dispute was not discussed at my meetings with Mr. Ford and Mr. Leonard Woodcock. But, in general, I think that any head of a company with a factory in this country is entitled to speak his mind.

:Is not it a pity that the Ford dispute was not discussed, in view of the bearing that the recent nay award has had on the Government's policy? Is not the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech on Tuesday that the Government's policy of de-escalation was succeeding? Will the Prime Minister let us know what level of de-escalation he regards as successful, and what level of pay settlement he would regard as showing that his policy is succeeding?

:The actual dispute is handled by the Ministers responsible. The basis on which I had a discussion with both Mr. Ford and Mr. Woodcock was that this particular dispute would not be discussed or dealt with. That has been the case in all my discussions, either with industrialists or with trade unionists. The same is true of my discussions with the T.U.C. and the Scottish T.U.C. There was no difference at all. We have not yet had time to study the present proposals in detail, but I must make this general point—that if a company can accommodate a settlement of this kind without increasing its prices and thereby increasing unemployment, it may well be able to justify it, but that is an outlook which must concern the firm itself.

:Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the threat by the Labour Party to nationalise Rolls-Royce —[Laughter.]—is hardly likely to be helpful to investment in Rolls-Royce?

We may be getting a little far from the original Question. We did not discuss the question of Rolls-Royce with Mr. Ford.

:In connection with the Prime Minister's discussions with Mr. Henry Ford, did he by any chance hear Lord Stokes on "The World at One".today, when he protested bitterly about the exaggerated stories being spread about this country being always on strike, and pointed out that, during recent visits abroad, he had found that these exaggerated stories were doing great harm to Britain's export prospects? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore himself refrain from making these exaggerated statements and instruct his Ministerial colleagues to refrain likewise?

I did not hear that programme, because I was giving lunch to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in order to have an official discussion—

Read the text of the broadcast— The Prime Minister: As for Lord Stokes, I recollect occasions in the past on which he caused acute embarrassment to the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister, and the Labour Party by his remarks about the consequences of industrial unrest in British Leyland.

When the right hon. Gentleman studies the transcript of what Lord Stokes said today, will he also study the transcript of what he said after the Downing Street agreement in June, 1969, when he welcomed it as the best way of handling industrial relations?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will study very carefully the consequences which followed from that announcement.

On a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the Prime Minister while he was answering, but why is he deliberately discriminating against members of the A.U.E.W.?

That is not a matter for the Chair.

:Further to that point of order. My Question, No. Q17, which is identical with No. Q12, was removed from the Order Paper by whoever takes instructions from the Prime Minister and then put back again, but it was put back as No. Q17. I should have thought it reasonable to expect that my Question would be answered with Questions Nos. Q4 and Q12.

I do not think that that is a matter of order for the Chair.

May I follow that point of order? I followed the normal procedure, which was established by my predecessor, that, when Questions appear late in the list, one does not couple them with earlier Questions, since that could lead to hon. Gentlemen putting down Questions at the last moment and still having them called.

asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer from the Department of Employment to the Department of Health and Social Security the work of paying unemployment benefit and collecting unemployment statistics.

The Department of Health and Social Security computer at Reading has, since July, 1969, been making payments of unemployment benefit by Giro order to claimants in the Reading area, and now does this work for 19 employment exchanges in London. The case for extending these arrangements on a national basis is under consideration. There are no plans to transfer responsibility for collecting unemployment statistics from the Department of Employment.

:Would the Prime Minister agree that, particularly with the staggering rise in unemployment under this Government, it could avoid a lot of wasteful duplication if the whole function were transferred throughout the country as quickly as possible, so that this Department can once again become a Department of Employment rather than of unemployment?

:As I have made plain in the answer, this very large area is being used at the moment in order to carry out these procedures, and we are examining whether they can properly be extended to the whole country. That relates to the question of the payments. There is no question of taking the statistical side from the Department of Employment.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is less criticism of the method of payment of unemployment benefit and the gathering of statistics on unemployment than of the general level of unemployment? Can he not say whether he envisages that, in this year, the number of unemployed will go down, go up or remain static? What do the Government think will happen about unemployment?

:This Question is concerned with the collection of statistics, and the statistics will show.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the increasingly heavy incidence of unemployment among employable disabled people is a matter for very serious concern? Will he agree to have a further look at this deeply personal human problem?

Yes, indeed I will. There was a Question about this a few weeks ago, in answer to which I said that it was unfortunate that the percentage of disabled unemployed is higher than that of the general population, and that a review is being made of this problem to see whether anything further can be done to help.

asked the Prime Minister, what plans he now has to seek to pay an official visit to Italy.

:.I have at present no plans to do so, but I look forward to welcoming the Italian Prime Minister here from 27th to 29th June.

In view of the somewhat decomposing nature of our negotiations to join the Common Market, would my right hon. Friend consider, when he meets the Prime Ministers of the Six, discussing with them at this stage alternative trading arrangements with our friends in Europe?

No, Sir. I see no point in doing that.

Has the Prime Minister noted the successful initiative of the Italian Government last week at the E.E.C. Commission in accelerating the restructuring of agriculture in the Community? Has he noted the effect which this will have on diminishing that part of the contribution which this country might have to pay for sustaining the extremely high prices?

Yes, Sir. I had noticed this further step in the general restructuring of agriculture throughout all the Community countries.

Will my right hon. Friend consider inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to visit Italy and to ask the Italians whether they think that membership of the Community has or has not benefited their prosperity?

I hesitate about making such suggestions to my hon. Friend, because he may begin to doubt my motives.

Will the right hon. Gentleman note what Mr. Mansholt said the other day about the common agricultural policy—that, probably, one day they will have to accept the British deficiency payments system?

I have heard suggestions of this kind before—over the last 10 years, in fact—but at present it is the common agricultural policy which is pursued throughout the Community, and we have undertaken to carry out that policy if we became a member.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Employment in the operation of the Industrial Selection Scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. There is already close co-ordination between the two Departments and the local authorities concerned.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the scheme, since the decline in employment of women, and in unskilled occupations and the general range of employment, because of general unemployment, has led to people in the worst kind of housing conditions in places like London finding great difficulty in getting into the new towns? Would he set up an inquiry to look thoroughly at this scheme and at the range of employment and job opportunity which it provides?

I know that there are difficulties in operating this scheme so that it can be used to provide housing and jobs for people who are in need of both. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific examples of these difficulties, I should be glad to receive them and then to have them inquired into, in the light of which I would consider asking my right hon. Friend to carry out a complete review.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek powers to extend the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner to include complaints against the impartiality of radio and television broadcasting companies, on the reference of such complaints to the Commissioner by a Member of Parliament.

No, Sir. It would be inappropriate for the Commissioner to be asked to investigate complaints in a field for which Ministers are not responsible.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that something should be done about a situation in which the most powerful of the media enjoys what appears to be an exemption from the constraints which must be accepted by its rivals? Is he aware, for example, that had Captain Brown been libelled in a television programme, he would have had the greatest difficulty even to get a transcript of what had been said?

Official machinery for dealing with these matters has been set up. There is the Advisory Council to the B.B.C., and the Television Act, which puts certain constraints on the Independent Television Authority. I should not like to comment off the cuff on the legal position in respect of slander or on the law generally.

While many of us suport the view that the broadcasting authorities should provide transcripts upon reasonable request, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that if, in any general examination of the media, including the Press, the question of bias were to arise, the bias would be shown to be against this side of the House and heavily in favour of the Tory Party?

Varying opinions are held on that point.