asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is prepared to make a review of the composition of the Burnham Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the composition of the Burnham Committee.

I have received applications from three teacher organisations for seats on the Burnham Committees and I have recently made some changes in the representation on the management panels. I have no plans for a general review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman show a sympathetic view to the Union of Women Teachers? It has a substantial membership and is well worth being represented on the Burnham Committee.

I have informed the Union of Women Teachers that I have no plans to add it to the members of the teachers' panel. It seems that the general advice that I received from the teachers' unions generally was correct in that the interests of career women teachers are adequately represented on the teachers' panel at present. I understand that the local authority associations and the teachers' associations represented on Burnham intend to have further discussions on their views on the future representation on Burnham. No doubt the hon. Lady will be made aware of those discussions in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of teachers have no direct representation on the Burnham Committee and that those who are seeking representation are not wishing to gain it at the expense of those already on the committee? If initiative is to be taken, where has it to come from. If we are to wait for those already on the committee to take such an initiative we shall never get any changes. Surely the initiative should come from my right hon. Friend. He must realise that many people have a legal claim to representation.

The situation is complicated, and has been for many years, by the fact that there are many teachers' organisations. My personal view is that I wish there were fewer. Given the present situation, I see the next stage as being discussions between the local authority associations and the teachers' associations. I do not close my mind for ever to some reform that I might initiate, but I have no immediate proposals for any reform.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be slightly more forthcoming. and educate the House, including myself, as to whether he has the power to alter the composition of the main Burnham Committee? He must be aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction throughout many teachers' organisations about the present representation, which seems to be dominated by the National Union of Teachers.

I have the power to bring before Parliament orders to alter membership. As I recall, the statute states that to take an organisation off the Burnham Committee I should need to lay such an order. I did that recently, in relation to the management side, with reference to the Association of Education Committees and the ILEA. I think that an alteration of numbers would not require that procedure.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Burnham Committee—I was a member of it—all teachers are very amply represented and that the word "dominated" is a complete misnomer? Is he aware that the interests of every branch of the teaching profession are at present quite reasonably catered for on the Burnham Committee?

My impression is that the interests of teachers generally are represented vigorously and with ability within the framework of the Burnham Committee.

May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the claims of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers to be represented on the further education panel of the Burnham Committee? In view of the widespread concern that is expressed among teachers and also in the House about the composition of the Burnham Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative himself and appoint an inquiry of an impartial nature into the structure of this body with a view to reforming it and making it more representative?

I understand that the Association of Polytechnic Teachers has a membership of only just over 3,000 out of a total teaching force of over 60,000 in further education and of 13,600 in the polytechnics. That seems to be a strong reason for not giving the association representation. On the more general point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I think it would be wiser to await the outcome of discussions, to which I have referred, between local authority associations and teachers' associations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to require local authorities to institute management committees with representatives of staff and students in secondary schools.

No, Sir. The Education Act 1944 already requires that every secondary school shall have a governing body, but the constitution of such a body in the case of a county school is a matter for the local education authority. There is nothing in law or present practice to prevent local education authorities from revising their county school instruments to permit the appointment of representatives of staff and senior pupils.

Does my hon. Friend accept that my Question was about the internal organisation of schools and not about external management through boards of governers? Does he accept that management committees would harness the wealth of ideas and talents possessed by teachers and students, that they would help to erode the rigidly hierarchical systems which now exist in schools and that they would be of practical benefit since they would give experience of democratic decision-making within schools?

My Department is anxious to have the further involvement of parents, teachers and pupils in the running of schools. We are reviewing every aspect of the matter. Even an enlightened Department of Education and Science cannot impose democracy. This is a matter for discussion at local level.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now increase the global sum available to the Burnham Committee in the negotiations for the London allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responses he has received from teachers' organisations concerning the proposed London weighting allowances; and if he will make a statement.

It is for the management panel of the Burnham Committee to negotiate with the teachers' panel. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has indicated, public service employers will be responding to claims in the light of their particular circumstances. I met representatives of the teachers' panel of the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee on 9th July, noted that the offer made by the management panel was in accordance with the Pay Board report and reminded them that there were two sides to negotiations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Burnham negotiations are dominated by the global sum which he and the Government impose on the management panel? Has he seen some of the recent settlements by the banks and other organisations in the private sector in London going well above the Pay Board norm? In view of his responsibilities to maintain the fabric of a full-time and efficient teaching force in London, does he feel that he has responsibility to create some movement of the global sum so that we can get a settlement in London before the inevitable disruption which will otherwise take place as term beings in September?

I have noted what my hon. Friend said about the banks and other employers. I believe that the whole country is directly or by implication involved in the social contract and I do not believe that employers such as banks should now be making movements of that kind. My hon. Friend, with all his experience, will not expect me to make a unilateral statement on the position of Burnham on behalf of the management panel. Any move made in negotiations would have to be discussed within the management panel, on which the local authorities as well as my Department are represented.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that teachers living in outer London constituencies such as mine believe that their living expenses are just as high as those living in inner London and that they deplore any distinction being made between inner and outer London? Will he take this into account?

I am aware of that point of view. It has been put to me rather forcibly by representations from the teachers' organisations. On the other hand, I think that there was a great deal of merit in the argument for a two-tier solution. Without anticipating the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck), I believe that the problem to which he may draw attention may lend force to that pant of the argument.

I have a vested interest in this matter because my son and daughter-in-law, both teachers, are in the outer London area. The Pay Board's recommendation will do nothing for their housing problem and nothing, I suspect, to solve the housing problems of thousands of other teachers in both the outer and inner London areas. It is this which seems to many of us to be the main point. Will my right hon. Friend undertake not only to look at the global sum but also to consult local housing authorities to see what they can do to help teachers to be housed?

The Pay Board recognised that very severe difficulty is imposed on people in London who are buying their first home. It suggested that measures should be taken to try to deal with the problem. It went on to say, rightly, that the pay of all public employees in London could not be raised to such an extent as to compensate fully the first-home buyer.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now give further consideration to granting a local allowance to teachers in areas such as Watford.

This is a matter for the Burnham Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that unless something is done about this the result will be an educational green belt—or perhaps I should call it an educational black belt—around London, with schools closing for lack of teachers, children getting half-time education, increasing illiteracy and classroom chaos? What factors govern the pay boundaries set for different groups of public sector employees? For example, the workers at the town hall in Watford get a local weighting allowance while teachers in Watford do not.

My hon. Friend's supplementary question underlines the point wherever boundaries are drawn for this purpose there are bound to be anomalies, grievances and problems among those who live on the wrong side of the line. Those who are urging that there should be a bigger award of the London allowance for teachers should be aware that in the last two weeks I have had representations from teachers in Kent and Berkshire against an over-generous settlement of the London allowance because of the kind of problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman look far more sympathetically at the housing problem than his earlier reply indicated? It is not only a matter of private sector housing. Council flats for spinster and young bachelor teachers are desperately needed. All local authorities, whether they be county and education or borough and housing, have a common purpose in this, and for the right hon. Gentleman to shovel it off saying that it is a matter for the Burnham Committee is unrealistic.

I did not say that the housing problem was a matter for the Burnham Committee. I said that the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) was for Burnham. The Pay Board has recommended that there should be a further look at the housing problem, and this is a matter for central and local government. Some local authorities are making special housing provision for their teachers, and I would like to see that extended. But those of us representing London constituencies recognise that there are already long waiting lists in London, and therefore the problem of the teachers is part of a larger housing problem which is not capable of easy solution.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had from teachers about the problems which have arisen in certain schools following the raising of the school leaving age.

I have had a number of letters from teachers and teachers' associations on various aspects of the raising of the school leaving age, and others have been passed on to me by hon. Members.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I too have had a very large number of letters on the subject from responsible teachers throughout the country following my recent motion on this subject? They all drew attention to this problem and asked that something be done to modify the existing law. Will the right hon. Gentleman not merely undertake to have a full inquiry into this matter in the light of experience but also consult the teachers themselves directly and not through the National Union of Teachers, which is not altogether representative of teachers' views on this subject.

I think that we have to distinguish between the narrower point of whether there should be an optional early leaving date in the summer—which is a matter we have under discussion and on which we have sought the views of all the teachers' organisations, not only the NUT, and of local authorities and others concerned—and the wider question raised by the hon. Gentleman in the debate of 8th July, when I thought that he was effectively answered by hon. Members on both sides of the House who preferred to keep to the policy of all parties that the school leaving age should remain at 16 and that all young people are entitled to five years of secondary education.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that every educational advance ever made has produced its range of critics, that every Education Act has brought forth all sorts of condemnation and that every time the school leaving age has been raised there have been critics? Is he further aware that great good is bound to flow to children and young adults in school from the raising of the school leaving age, not merely to 16 but, I hope, one day even to 17 and over?

I agree with my hon. Friend's point of view. From my contacts in many secondary schools in recent months the impression I have been given, both by pupils and by teachers, is that the vast majority of those spending the extra year at school, and who would have left voluntarily had it not been for the change, are behaving well, are not indulging in large-scale truancy, are not disrupting school life and are reaping genuine benefit by the extra year.

While keeping the principle of the school leaving age at 16, will the right hon. Gentleman take early steps to make it more flexible in practice, first by enabling children at 15 to take up apprenticeships and courses of technical training, and secondly by enabling children to leave school directly after they have taken their CSE or other appropriate examination, because no good is done to anyone by keeping children hanging on at school in these circumstances?

The second point raised by the hon. Gentleman is a matter on which, as I have said, we have been obtaining opinions from the local authorities and the teachers' associations and others concerned, and we will be studying them with a view to deciding whether some adjustment of the summer leaving date would be justified. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the more general point he raised. Whether they go into apprenticeships or otherwise when they leave school, it must be generally recognised that these young people are entitled to five years of secondary education. We should not be defeatist about this at the end of only one year of the raising of the school leaving age.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account that it is not just a question of boys and girls staying at school until the age of 16 but probably also a question of what we are teaching them during that extra period? When my right hon. Friend is looking forward, will he take into account the advances which science has made over the last 30 years and those which may come into being over the next 30 years in considering what kind of education we are to give our young people to help them to live in that kind of society?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that we have to look forward to the kind of world these young people will have to live in and the situations which they will face well into the next century. We must recognise against that background that they are entitled, all of them, to five years of secondary education. A great deal of excellent work is being done in the curricula in many schools, and bodies such as the Schools Council are stimulating new thought and new methods for the curricula. A great deal has been and is being learnt, and I would welcome comment about the content of curricula in order that we may take the greatest possible advantage of new thought and new methods, to the greatest possible benefit of the children.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a radical change of mind on this matter among many teachers in secondary schools? Many of those who were most fanatically in favour of raising the school leaving age now find themselves most deeply handicapped by it. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many older pupils have told me that they would have been happy to stay on as volunteers but did not wish to be press-ganged into doing so, and that this had altered their whole attitude?

I have visited a number of schools in socially-deprived areas which have many difficulties. Teachers have told me their problems. The majority have said that they still believe in the raising of the school leaving age and believe that they are achieving something worth while among the children staying on. I ask the hon. Lady not to generalise always from the worst examples and loudest complaints from a small minority but to consider the whole picture. If she did, she would come to a different conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provisions and estimates his Department has made for the demands that United Kingdom oil and gas development will make upon higher education establishments for which he is responsible over the next 10 years.

Existing and proposed provision for courses in higher education relevant to oil and gas development is listed in a working party report on "Education and Training for Offshore Development". I am sending the hon. Member a copy. In consequence of one of the report's recommendations, the University Grants Committee has made special additional grants to three universities for the development of postgraduate courses in petroleum engineering and geology.

I thank the Minister for that reply and for the document which he intends to send me. Is he aware that the availability of places in further education for the study of oil and gas technology falls far short of the forecasts for qualified technologists who will be needed if the North Sea oil and gas industry develops? Is he now satisfied that his new proposal and the proposals of the University Grants Committee will fill the gap?

No, Sir. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that the education system should respond quickly to the needs of the oil and gas industry and I encourage it to do so. The Petroleum Industry Training Board is making a projection of manpower requirements for the future and my Department is closely associated with these developments.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will state the average cost of educating a child in a rural area compared with educating a similar child in a city.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is a good thing for him to try to arrive at this information? Does he realise that many parents in rural areas who protest loudly and at length about the rates do not seem to realise what it costs to take a child to school beyond the three-mile limit? Does he agree that the position ought to be explained to more ratepayers in rural areas so that they can ascertain the difference in the cost of educating their children and children in cities?

I want to be helpful to my hon. Friend, but there is no easy method of distinguishing between urban and rural parts of counties. Statistics from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for 1972–73 show that county boroughs spent an average of £131 per primary pupil while counties spent £134. But counties often include sizeable urban areas, so that comparisons are unreliable and meaningless.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make an additional grant to the Arts Council this year to meet the impact of inflation.

The grant to the council already includes an element for inflation. In addition the £750,000 supplementary grant announced on 25th June in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) which relates to 1973–74 and to VAT will enable the council to help a number of its clients.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave financial difficulties facing the art world, especially music, the theatre and the film industry? When will he carry out his promise, given during the last General Election campaign in his eight-point programme for the arts, that he would give the Arts Council £20 million a year?

I expressed the view at that time that £20 million was a reasonable figure for the Arts Council grant and I still have that view. In my discussions with Treasury colleagues it is necessary for me to walk a middle path between being properly persistent on the one hand and not becoming a persistent pest on the other.

Will my hon. Friend, far from giving more money to the Arts Council, take good care, particularly in relation to the film industry, to see that he gets value for the money already given? He has increased the grant considerably. Does he not agree that while the work of the Arts Council is admirable there is an indication in some cases that the grant is almost too lavish?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Arts Council does not receive aid in relation to the film industry. A grant is made to the British Film Institute rather than to the Arts Council. There is no indication that the grant is too lavish. If my hon. Friend has specific information of cases in which she feels that the grant has been lavishly expended, I shall be interested to receive particulars.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in a Written Answer on 6th May he specifically said that he would provide for this special subject by means of consultations with his colleagues? What consultations has he had with his colleagues and what practical differences have those discussions made to the arts?

I have had considerable consultations with my colleagues and I fear that they get a little tired of seeing me. As a consequence of the consultations, the current grant to the Arts Council for 1974–75 includes an inflation factor of 11 per cent. and a real growth factor of about 3 per cent. I would have thought that, although in an imperfect world perfection has not been reached, we have not done badly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that despite the mood behind some previous questions many people in the arts world and many hon. Members on this side of the House think that he is doing a first-class job? Will he ensure with regard to allocation of resources that whatever happens the regions will not suffer in any way?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We are taking special care for the regions and in a number of cases, of which I hope to give details shortly, we should be able to show that we are particularly endeavouring to push out from London towards the regions to give them every possible help.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his current policy about addressing meetings at universities in view of the ban on freedom of speech by the National Union of Students.

I will consider invitations to speak from student organisations which have clearly dissociated themselves from the National Union of Students' ban.

I welcome the continued robust attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, but can he say what advice he has given to his colleagues in the Cabinet on this point?

A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have come to similar decisions and have told me so, while others may have done so privately without telling me. It is not for me to advise my right hon. or hon. Friends, or any other citizens, which speaking invitations they should accept.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a great difference between tolerance for extreme Right-wing opinion, which should be allowed, and tolerance for racialism, which is a quite different matter?

I took the opportunity to make clear in a letter—which I published—which I sent to the President of the NUS that I was diametrically opposed to the extreme Right-wing organisations and that I abhorred racialism. I also stated to him—I believe that on this I carry most hon. Members with me, including my hon. Friend—that we should respect the right of people to state views, regardless of whether we share those views or strongly disagree with them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ignore the ridiculous contribution from his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and recognise that in many circumstances the fact of senior Members of Parliament on the Government side refusing to address organisations which close their minds to the other side of the argument operates an effective sanction which can only be for the well-being of the universities concerned?

I hope that the decision announced by a number of people—not only politicians but others—that they will not speak to some students' unions and that they dissociate themselves from the NUS ban will have some effect in helping other students' unions to change their policy. A number of individual students' unions have done so and have dissociated themselves from the NUS ban. I hope that others will take the same decision.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time we stopped this sanctimonious criticism of the NUS? Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Ministers and leading members of the Opposition Front Bench speak from time to time to a whole range of organisations of people with whom they differ greatly in attitude? Is it not clear that the way to tackle what many of us on this side of the House regard as the erroneous position of the NUS on this issue is to refute the matter in open debate in the universities?

I do not think anyone will accuse me of sanctimonious attacks on the NUS. I regard myself as a friend of the NUS. It has on occasions been good enough to reciprocate that sentiment. However, on this particular issue the NUS has, I believe, gone down the wrong road and I thought it right to make a personal decision on the matter as many others have done.

I fully support the Secretary of State in his personal stand on this matter, but is it not also essential that moderate students should get the opportunity of hearing moderate speakers? Will he take steps to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those unions which have responded to the deprivation of his oratory—bearing in mind that on all matters save, unfortunately, education, he has reasonable views—so that hon. Members can know whether it is right to follow his example in particular cases?

I am glad the hon. Member thinks that I have reasonable views. I am sorry that I cannot reciprocate the compliment. As for publishing a list of certain student unions, I do not have that information available and I do not think it would be right for anyone to seek such information. It is for the student unions to run their own affairs. It is not for us to compile lists. If I receive an invitation to speak to a students' union, I inquire from those issuing the invitation what is the attitude of the union to the ban.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the Ministers of Education of the other member States of the European Community.

My right hon. Friend attended a Council and Conference of Ministers of Education in Luxembourg on 6th June last. The main subjects discussed by the Ministers were the mutual recognition of diplomas and cooperation in education within the nine member States.

Is it not a fact that progress in this body has been so disappointing as to amount to practically nothing? Since the only saving grace of the Labour Party is a commitment to the brotherhood of man and international good will may I ask whether the Government will seek to instil some kind of activity into this comatose body so that children in our schools are no longer taught the kind of pernicious jingoistic nonsense about "British oil" or worse still, "Scottish oil"?

I share the basic attitude expressed by my hon. brother on the benches opposite. There are many important matters before the Council of Ministers. The mutual recognition of degrees and diplomas is perhaps the most pressing. I regard it as unfortunate from an internationalist point of view that further progress has not been made to this date, not only within the Community but within the wider international community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that exchange visits within Europe involving many more school-children than at present would be welcomed by many progressively minded people in this country? May I ask him to seek to establish, in collaboration with his European colleagues, permanent machinery to encourage and facilitate this development?

I too would welcome such a development but I would go further than my hon. Friend and say that it should not be simply on a European basis.

May I ask whether the Secretary of State's colleagues took the opportunity of pointing out to him that certainly in West Germany and France, instead of moving towards abolition of selection those countries are moving much more towards continuous selection throughout a child's time at school? Did the Secretary of State take the opportunity of discussing with his colleagues practical means whereby more parental choice and parental rights could be introduced into our schools?

We must recognise that pernicious and irrational views about education are not peculiar to Tory Members. They may rear their ugly heads in other countries too.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will appoint the Central Advisory Council for Education to advise him on the education of boys and girls between the ages of 11 and 16 years.

I have no present intention to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am discouraged to find that he has joined his immediate predecessors in flouting the spirit and letter of the Education Act? Apart from that, does he not feel that, now the school leaving age has been raised, this is an opportune time to supplement the Crowther and Newsom Reports with an embracing review of secondary education between the ages of 11 and 16?

There are enough problems in secondary education which we have studied in a number of different ways. There is for example the question of the curriculum for those staying on further at school. I think that the best central focus for this is the Schools Council, which is doing an excellent job. This is a better way of doing it than asking the Advisory Council to make a report on it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the problems of this age group in schools is that they do not get a fair share of the teachers available and that there is far too high a concentration of teachers in the sixth form? Is he aware that 10 per cent. of the teach- ing groups in sixth forms consist of only one pupil? Is not this unfair to the remainder of the school? Will my right hon. Friend examine this problem?

I should like to consider this and discuss it with my hon. Friend. Inevitably there is a different ratio in the sixth form. The main answer to this must lie in an improvement of teacher supply generally. I am glad to say that as at present advised we are expecting from the next school year an additional 20,000 teachers as against 100,000 extra pupils. That should lead to an improvement in the ratio. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be taken into account by local authorities.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Norway.

I have at present no plans to visit Norway but I was able to have useful talks with the Norwegian Prime Minister at the anniversary meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels on 26th June and when he came to the meeting of the Socialist International at Chequers on 29th and 30th June.

Will my right hon. Friend have further talks with the Norwegian Prime Minister about Statoil? Is he aware that the Norwegians are getting very much tougher with private enterprise than anything proposed in our White Paper? Is he further aware that some of us feel that any incoming Tory Government in years to come could reverse the Labour Government's proposal with only one Budget? Why does not my right hon. Friend insist on taking over the whole of the industry instead of only 51 per cent.? Would it not have been disastrous if we had taken up only 51 per cent. of the coal and electricity industries?

I am not concerned, and I do not think anyone else is, with the very remote hypothetical possibility mentioned by my hon. Friend. As for the question about Statoil, we are well aware of the practices developed with great success by the Norwegian Government. We have largely followed them. My hon. Friend will have seen the suggested provision in the White Paper of a hydrocarbons organisation which can develop its activities.

If the Prime Minister goes to Norway, will he consider travelling on to Sweden where he would soon discover that the pharmaceutical industry has been partially nationalised and that costs and prices have risen? Will he consider the effect in Britain if he were to nationalise our pharmaceutical industry, when we would have fewer new medicines and fewer innovations?

The Question is about Norway and not Sweden. Since, however, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that I extend the visit I was not proposing to make I will say that the extent of the rapacious behaviour of the pharmaceutical industry was demonstrated by a report of the Monopolies Commission made to the previous Government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when eventually he visits Norway, to find out why the rate of unemployment there is 0·4 per cent., one-tenth of the rate in Scotland? Is he aware that he may find out that the answer lies in the fact that Norway is not controlled from London whereas Scotland is?

I am prepared to look at that interesting reasoning. There is another reason of course: Norway has had a Labour Government for several years. The thing on which we can perhaps all agree is that Norway has got further and faster ahead with the exploitation of North Sea oil resources than we have. When we catch up—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate what we are doing—particularly in the affected areas of Scotland the unemployment rate, which is already falling will be comparable with that of Norway.

Would not the suggested visit enable the Prime Minister to meet some of those great Socialist leaders who have been members of coalition Governments—distinguished Socialist leaders who not only preach power-sharing to other people but actually practise it themselves?

Yes, Sir. They practise it with unfortunate results, as those Socialist leaders will inform me and have informed me. I should also be able, with the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman, to inquire of the Democratic Socialist leader of Norway what happened to his referendum.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech on the coal mining industry made by the Secretary of State for Energy, at the National Union of Mineworkers' conference in Llandudno on the 4th July 1974 represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

During that speech my right hon. Friend mentioned an inquiry into the coal mining industry. Will the Prime Minister take into account that the wages and conditions in the industry are not attracting young people into it? My right hon. Friend also spoke of compensation for pneumoconiosis sufferers. Will the Prime Minister do something about that quickly and not be indifferent as were the Conservative Government? Unless we do something about it, shall we not be placing hundreds of thousands of pounds into the hands of the legal profession? Furthermore, will the Prime Minister take into account that many pneumoconiosis sufferers have died and left their widows in penury? Will he promise to do something for them as well?

We announced in our manifesto an examination of the future of the industry, and my right hon. Friend has proceeded with this examination with the two sides of industry with remarkable speed and great thoroughness. The Government were able to announce in the House the results of that examination.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there must be a relationship between the large public funds being invested in the coal industry and productivity and output, which have gone into decline during the last year? Does he appreciate that without this there will be a decline in the industry's capacity to satisfy demand for generating power and sharp increases in the price of coal during the years to come?

Productivity in the coal industry has been affected by the great falling-off in development in the last year or two because of the shortage of miners for reasons which were debated before and during the General Election. It will take some time to catch up with the development work lost during that period. The hon. Gentleman will have noted, I am sure with satisfaction, the announcement within the industry that it is trying to work out an effective form of productivity agreement.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on national unity by the Secretary of State for Trade on 6th July at Plymouth represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

In that speech the Secretary of State spoke of the deep sense of fore- boding in Britain today—and many of us would agree with that. How does the Prime Minister hope to dispel that foreboding when group after group, such as the radiologists, are damaging our schools, hospitals and community services because they have been taught by the Labour Party that bludgeoning the community is the only way in which they can press their case?

The hon. Gentleman has no warrant for the statement with which he ended his supplementary question. It is a fact that the transition from stage 1 to stage 2 and stage 3 ossified the economy and created great grievances and anomalies. I understood that the hon. Gentleman supported that policy. As a result there are great difficulties which particularly affect a large number of white collar unions, particularly white collar unions in the public services. They feel, rightly or wrongly, most aggrieved by what has happened in the past. I have never seen a sense of foreboding more dramatically illustrated than in the faces of Opposition Members yesterday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of radiologists, nurses and others have arisen largely because their wages and conditions of service were neglected during the four years when the Conservative Party was in power? Does he further agree that the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) seems to have a bad memory of Conservative policy?

There is a great deal in the diagnosis presented to the House by my hon. Friend in his supplementary question. As the House is aware, I hope shortly to meet representatives of the principal organisations in the National Health Service, which are concerned about the future of the service, quite apart from wages. This is a problem which has lasted for a number of years and it was reinforced by the decisions of the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer last December with which we are still contending, but much less was said about those decisions in public comment last December than has been said during the past month.

asked the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the holding of referenda on matters of national importance.

This is a wholly exceptional procedure, justified in the special case of the previous Government's Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972 and our Northern Ireland Act 1974, and as one of two alternative means of fulfilling the Government's pledge to give the British people through the ballot box the final decision about Britain's position in relation to the European Economic Community.

If the Prime Minister decides to hold his consultative referendum on the EEC, will he tell the House clearly whether he would or would not regard the result of that referendum as being binding on the members of his Government?

I have said all along that there are two means. However, if the decision of the British people was recorded through the ballot box, yes, Sir, I would regard that as the final decision of the British people.

Once the voice and the vote of the British people have ensconced Britain firmly in Europe, what devious and anti-parliamentary device does my right hon. Friend think the anti-Europeanists will then think up to get us out again?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for presenting the issue so starkly. Depending on the progress of renegotiations, the vote of the British people might go the other way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which way?"] I am sure that my hon. Friend, equally in accordance with the spirit of what he said, will accept the decision of the British people and not seek any devious means of changing it.

I have a point of order to raise on this Question, Mr. Speaker. Should I raise it at the end of Questions?

Yes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the last fortnight I have tabled no fewer than 14 or 15 Questions to the Prime Minister on the subject of referenda. Those Questions have been transferred, but I make no complaint about that. The serious point I wish to raise is that the Questions I tabled to the Prime Minister last week were exactly the same as Question No. Q4 today, except for the use of the phrase

"…what are the criteria adopted by Her Majesty's Government in the holding of referenda".

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question of transfers is a difficult one. Some of the Questions tabled on referenda were Questions on subjects which are better dealt with by the responsible departmental Minister, particularly as the supplementary questions obviously would be of a departmental character. The general issue of legislation on referenda is a matter for the Home Secretary. I answered the Question today because of the deep interest shown in this matter by the House in an exchange last week.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must press this matter. The Prime Minister referred to questions of a departmental character. I have already said that I have no objection to the Prime Minister taking the action he did in that respect. I am making the point that, because of the deep interest in the House on this subject expressed in the House both yesterday and last week, it is somewhat unusual that the Prime Minister declined to answer a Question yesterday but answered a Question in identical terms today.

The hon. Gentleman's point will be noted.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now consider the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the extent and nature of the problems of battered wives and children.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council recently agreed to set up a Select Committee in the autumn, and in my view this will provide the best means of inquiring into this very human problem. In these circumstances, therefore, I do not propose to recommend a Royal Commission for the purpose.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are very disturbed that the Secretary of State for Social Services has indicated that she does not see the link between battered wives and battered babies, although there is an intimate link between the two? Will my right hon. Friend give a firm undertaking that the terms of reference of the Select Committee will link the two and will enable the Committee to have access to all the papers in the Department indicating the extent of the problem and the proposals that are recommended for its solution?

Yes, Sir. The House knows how deep an interest my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have taken in this question. That is one reason why I think that it should be dealt with urgently and not by a Royal Commission. We all know and have read of cases in which the ill treatment of wives and the ill treatment of children have been linked. They are not always linked. That is a matter on which more research is needed. The terms of reference of the Select Committee will enable it to look into all questions, linked and unlinked, of family tragedies of that kind.

I am sure my right hon. Friend will be aware that what has been said will give great satisfaction to many people and will clear the air in view of the confusion that arose last week. Is he aware that of the 25,000 cases involving battered wives something like 60 per cent. show the linkage to which he has referred?

Yes, Sir. I do not want to prejudge the inquiry which the Select Committee will undertake. A great deal of work has been done by a number of dedicated organisations and individuals; their work will be available. The figures mentioned by my hon. Friend will be available for examination. There is probably no single cause, as one knows from one's constituency and other problems, but it is important that where there is a linkage it should be established, and also that the problem of the battering of wives and the battering of children separately, for whatever psychological reason, must be examined.