asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he plans with local education authorities on the subject of truancy and other behavioural problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his up-to-date estimate of the number of days lost through truancy; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is inviting the local authority, teacher and education welfare associations to meet him in June. One of the matters to be considered will be truancy. The only national figures at present available are those already given to the House following the survey of absence on a day in January 1974.

While I am grateful to the Minister for telling the House of these proposed meetings, may I ask her to confirm that the problem of truancy shows no sign of abating? In these circumstances, would it not be a good starting point if we were to be a little more aware of the size of the problem? To that end, would she and her right hon. Friend consider asking local education authorities to publish the truancy statistics for their areas, so that we may thereafter go forward to determine whether the penalties on parents, arising from truancy, are adequate today?

I do not entirely accept the Gentleman's initial statement, that this problem is increasing in size. We think that some of the aspects which contributed to truancy, such as the raising of the school leaving age, have been assimilated to some extent. We recognise that there is still a grave problem. The hon. Gentleman asks about the size of the problem and talks of local authorities collecting and publishing more statistics. This is precisely the kind of thing that my right hon. Friend wants to discuss with the local education authorities in June. As the House will accept, this is not only a time-consuming but a costly business, which will involve schools and local authorities in much work. This is the sort of problem we wish to raise with them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a considerable contribution could be made towards solving the problem if a more defined rôle was produced for education welfare officers? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is high time that a more definite career structure was introduced for these officers?

We are very much aware of the rôle of the education welfare officers and the valuable contribution that they make to the problem. This is precisely the sort of thing that we are hoping to discuss in June. I have said that the officers are to be included in the discussions.

When she meets them, will my hon. Friend impress upon local authorities the fact that the publication of the type of crude figures to which Conservative Members are referring can be misleading to the public? Will she remember that authorities like the Inner London Education Authority, which has explored these figures in depth, have found that often what is called truancy is something that can be wholly explained by the social circumstances of families?

I accept that point. This is a complex issue, and one that needs to be carefully considered. It is also important for hon. Members to consider whether what they say here will contribute to an understanding of the problem, or will make it worse.

Does the hon. Lady agree that a spot check done by inspectors or outsiders is more likely to give us the right figures than the figures that are prepared by the schools? Is she aware that for the January 1974 figures, schools were warned two months beforehand and that in certain cases pupils were told that if they were going to be away they should be away on Wednesday and Friday, and not Thursday, because the check was being made then?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has made that point before. I am sorry to have to reiterate that the way in which the statistics will be collected is precisely the kind of question that the meeting has been arranged to discuss.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average cost of providing a school meal, at the latest available date; and what is his latest estimate of the amount of subsidy payable in respect of school meals during the current financial year.

41½p and £328 million respectively.

Does the Minister recall that the Government's White Paper on Public Expenditure stated that it was intended to reduce by a half the total subsidy for school meals by 1980? Is it not the case that the Minister's estimate of the subsidy this year is only £3 million less than that for last year?

We said that we hoped to reduce the subsidy. This is, however, the first step. One of the reasons why there is so little difference in the estimate is that the remission of charges is bringing many more families into the provision of school meals, which is why the level of subsidy remains high in the present year.

Will the Minister impress upon the LEA's, who seem hell bent upon economies and synthetic food, that these should not deter them from the fact that school meals should be a pleasure rather than an ordeal?

Those of us who have eaten school meals have our own memories of them, but I take the hon. Member's point entirely.

In the Minister's efforts to increase the number of free school meals, will she consider that one of the spin-off advantages is that that will reduce truancy? I know of more than one case—

Order. It might be interesting knowledge, but this is the time for Questions.

I think I understand the point that my hon. Friend was making—that children who have to go home for meals are much less inclined to return to school. That may be a factor to help with the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members oppose a reduction of the subsidy on school meals? Will she or one of her colleagues tell the Secretary of State for Defence that a Labour Government have no business spending money on tactical nuclear weapons instead of free school meals?

I am happy to say that I have no responsibility for expenditure on nuclear weapons. Like my hon. Friend, I dislike any suggestion that the cost of school meals should be increased and the subsidy reduced. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that the cost has been rising greatly over recent years and that 64 per cent. of it is now subsidised. It was felt that this should be remedied.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority he gives to the allocation of funds to universities as compared to those allocated to primary education.

The Government's policies and priorities for education are set out in Chapter 10 of the White Paper, "Public Expenditure to 1979–80", Cmnd. 6393.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this priority is misguided when a disapproportionate share of scarce resources goes to the universities and what is already a privileged group of society? Does he not agree that we need to shift resources away from universities to primary education to end the plight of the outdated Victorian schools that exist, for example, in my constituency?

Of course I do not agree with my hon. Friend, or I should have made arrangements along the lines he suggests. It was right to give priority, as we do, to the statutory school age group of five to 16 years and then to the 16 to 19-year-olds. The university sector has suffered a greater loss of expecta- tions than the others, and I do not believe that university and further education is exclusively an area of privileged education. I want to see even more workers' children going to universities.

The Minister knows Derbyshire well. Is he aware of the mass of Victorian primary schools there which need urgent renovation? Is he aware that funds have been cut, so that it is almost impossible to make any progress in putting children aged between 5 and 12 in schools that come up to modern standards?

I am aware of the facts explained by the hon. Member. In Sheffield, however, which is close to Derbyshire, we are this year getting rid of the last outside lavatories, in spite of all the difficulties. It is a little hard that in our present economic circumstances I should be asked to put right this year all the shortcomings of the last 75 years.

Is it not right that the funding and democratic control of universities should be brought into line with that of other institutes of higher education, the polytechnics, and so on? Is it not time to overcome the distinctions in higher education and to introduce a proper universal system of higher education, as we are doing with the 11-plus examination?

If we were to introduce the comprehensive principle so that everyone who wanted higher education and who had the ability and aptitude for it was allowed to have it, I should get into even more trouble with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) because it would cost a great deal more money. The universities should remain independent institutions, and it would be difficult if, regardless of the party in power, they were subjected to political pressures.

Is it the Government's policy that there should be equality of treatment between universities and polytechnics?

It is right that where degree courses are given, either in universities or polytechnics, the standard of provision should be roughly equivalent. As for finance, the University Grants Committee decides this in respect of individual universities. The polytechnics come within the sphere of the local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many young people entered the recent essay competition announced by him on the role of the Youth Service.

All but one of the entries to the competition, which closed almost a year ago, were from groups, including Venture Scout Units and a local Council of Youth. I cannot say how many young people contributed their ideas, but it was clearly a considerable number.

Since there are 5 million people within the Youth Service, does the Minister agree that the numbers that he mentioned as applying for this competition were disappointing? Will he therefore promote to the nationalised industries the civil servants who abound in his Department, where they can do less harm, and fill the places created with spirited young people who can help to rebuild the ailing Youth Service?

I think that the hon. Member must have misheard my reply. I carefully did not mention any numbers. It would be more to the hon. Member's credit if, instead of criticising the competition he had done more to promote entries from among the young people's organisations in which he is interested.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends to have discussions with the Chairman of the Schools Council.

I last met the chairman on 24th March and have no immediate plans for a further meeting.

Millions of people are deprived of their legal rights, especially in respect of housing, employment and legal agreements, because they are unaware of them. Is my right hon Friend prepared to recommend the teaching in schools of an awareness of legal rights and obligations, so that young adults may be better equipped to face the increasing complexity of modern life?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters. I understand that the Schools Council is discussing with the Law Society material that it can make available to the schools for these purposes. It is, however, too much to ask that all the complex legal matters that he mentions can be profitably made a part of the school curriculum.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Chairman of the Schools Council again will he express to him the fears of many teachers and parents that the new examination proposals for O-levels will be a further threat to academic standards?

The Schools Council has made certain proposals, not to me but to the bodies concerned, asking for comments. I understand that these comments are before the council, and it will be months before it is likely to make a recommendation to me. I am not in the habit of prejudging submissions. I shall wait to see what they are.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) had in mind not the teaching of detailed legal knowledge, but the teaching of broad general principles? Does he agree that this is not done nearly widely enough in the schools, and that it should be implemented on a far wider basis.

I am very glad to agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I am sure that he will understand that I am in some difficulty on curricula matters, because the 1944 Act expressly gives responsibility for these matters to local authorities.

Following the —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am most grateful for the welcome that lion. Members on the Government Benches are giving me. Following the excellent supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), is the Secretary of State aware that many employers have already lost confidence in the ability of the examination authorities to maintain proper standards—[Interruption.]—and are likely to have their confidence further reduced if the Schools Council's recommendation for examination changes are carried out? Is he further aware that employers are likely to set their own examinations?—[Interruption.]Will he bear in mind—

Order. Even for a maiden question from the Front Bench, this is getting a little long.

I conclude by thanking the Government for their welcome and asking the Secretary of State to pay attention to the needs of employers in this country.

I am sure that I speak for hon. Members in all parts of the House in welcoming the hon. Member's maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. Of course I shall pay regard to all representations, but I do not prejudge a decision. I have to wait until the proposition is before me, and I understand that the Schools Council has not yet reached a final decision on these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish interim observations on the Expenditure Committee's Report on post-graduate education.

No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his answer to a Question by the hon. Member on 5th February, we hope that a full reply will be published soon.

Does the Minister of State realise that it is two and a half years since this excellent report was published and that the Government have not yet made any observations on it? Can he say, first, whether that is a record, secondly, when the report will be published and, thirdly, which of the recommendations has caused the Government such great difficulty that they have had to delay their reply?

The Government have established many records, and we are proud of most of them. I share the hon. Member's view about the nature of this excellent report, which raises all the right questions even if it does not provide all the right answers. The difficulty is that, such is the system of control and financing of post-graduate studies, it was necessary to seek the observations of a large number of bodies, including the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the Science Research Council. We shall be ready to give a detailed reply very soon.

Is it not a fact that one of the main problems has been the constant change of Ministers in the Department? Is it not a fact that we have never had so many ministerial changes at the Department of Education as we have had under this Government? Since we had the unprecedented situation of a debate without the Government having produced a White Paper on the report, will there be another debate when the White Paper is produced?

That is essentially a matter for discussion through the usual channels. As for the number of Ministers at the Department, I am normally there—with a number of intermissions.

asked the Seccretary of State for Education and Science if he plans to visit the current year's conferences of teachers in further and higher education.

My right hon. Friend and I are to visit the conference of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in May.

Will my hon. Friend, during his visits, pay attention to the resolutions pointing out that further and higher education has been particularly hard hit by education cutbacks? Does he agree that higher and further education is essential in terms of social provision and also to provide an appropriate back-up to any type of economic recovery?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that a well-developed system of further and higher education is essential on both counts. My hon. Friend will have noted that his attitude and that of our hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) are not exactly the same. There are many sectors of education that would claim that their difficulties are special.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received or made about the recent pay award to senior educational advisers, school inspectors and other education officials.

I have received nearly 40 letters about different aspects of this award made by the Board of Arbitration. I have not made representations myself.

Is the Minister aware that these very high increases, which came after the pay policy had begun, have tended to reinforce the public's impression that those in the public sector have benefited under the pay policy in this way, as with increments, while those in the private sector have not benefited? He will recall that hon. Members accepted a cut in their pay award in similar circumstances. Might he not have suggested that similiar action in this case would ensure equality of treatment?

Half the representations I received were from school meals organisers, who thought they had not received a large enough award. There has been wide misunderstanding of the situation. I can only put the facts before the public; I cannot accept responsibility if they misread them. This award was the outcome of a long and protracted arbitration affecting an award due on 1st April 1975, when pay settlements of around 20 per cent. were current. It is a back-dated award. There has been a delay in the machinery, for which I have no responsibility and in which my Department is not involved.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of the recent local government reorganisation has been the growth of bureaucracy? Does he further agree that as Socialists we should be looking at our priorities and ensuring that there is a relative growth of teaching staffs rather than non-teaching staffs in the education service?

I agree that many of the problems of extra expenditure were caused by the local government reorganisation that we inherited. As to the way in which education is conducted within local authorities, this is properly a matter for the elected bodies concerned. However, I share my hon. Friend's concern that the emphasis should be on the employment of teachers rather than on other expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions his Department has had with the recently founded National Council for Drama Training.

None, Sir. I understand that the National Council for Drama Training is in process of being established, but that it has not yet met.

Is that not a more than disappointing reply? Is the Secretary of State aware that the importance of this council, which is in full effect, is that it brings together the employers and the trade unions principally concerned in a profession in which the real problem is gross over-production of persons? Does this not fit exactly into Government strategy? Will the Secretary of State encourage his noble Friend to open discussions with the council, as this would be helpful for all concerned?

Ido not think that the hon. Member can fully have heard my reply. I understand the council has not yet met, and it is very difficult to begin negotiations and discussions with a body that has not begun to operate. My Department has been invited to send an observer to meetings and we shall be happy to do so. We shall have to find out from the council, which is an independent body, how best to conduct discussions with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had recently with the teaching profession about the more intensive utilisation of school facilities.

None recently, Sir. The education interests are well aware of my Department's longstanding policy to encourage the fuller use of school facilities. We are always ready to discuss particular aspects where my right hon. Friend's responsibilities make this appropriate.

In view of the high capital costs of school building and the fact that it is widely acknowledged that many school buildings are under-utilised, will the hon. Lady and her fellow Ministers take more urgent steps to consider this matter, to ascertain whether it is possible to have something like common community centres in primary schools—schools that have to close at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the afternoon?

Apart from a shortage of resources, which affects everything these days, that is the policy of the Department. We have made every effort over the years to encourage the wider use of school facilities. We have sent out two circulars—namely, 11/64 and 2/70—which indicate the Government's view on the use of facilities, especially for sport and physical recreation. We fully accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The local authority associations have recently completed a report on precisely this matter, which we are hoping to publish shortly. It may be possible to return to the subject later.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in her discussions the local education authorities in whose areas there are growing numbers of unused classrooms in primary schools which could well be filled if there were a more generous attitude towards the rising-fives?

If that is widely the case, that is a matter which it may well be profitable to examine. However, it is not my understanding that it is widely the case at present, although it may be expected to become more so as numbers decrease in primary schools. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's point about making increased provision for younger children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about his proposals for State finance for authors.

My hon. Friend the former Minister for the Arts sent copies of the Public Lending Right Bill, which was introduced in another place on 18th March, to bodies interested in the proposals and received comments from a number of them. Some comments were also received from other bodies and from individuals. My noble Friend the Minister of State has had discussions with representatives of the Writers' Action Group and the Society of Authors.

When the right hon. Gentleman is proposing cuts in spending on school meals and on primary school building programmes, how does he justify giving priority to this State handout to authors, especially when the scheme is such a wretchedly bad one, and is based on such dubious principles?

I think that the hon. Gentleman tends to exaggerate his criticism of the scheme. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) for his work for the arts generally, and especially for his having turned what was no more than an idea into a practical possibility and a Bill that is now before another place. When the Bill arrives in this place the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will understand that we shall not be able to decide the beginning of the scheme in financial terms, because of the considerations that he has in mind.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the £1 million that the Conservative Government found in February 1974 has since been reduced in value by about one-third by inflation? In view of that, will he give the scheme a reasonably good send-off by excluding administrative costs of £400,000 from the global sum that has been granted for the scheme?

I am not sure about the £1 million that the hon. Gentleman found. If he found a sum of public money of that sort I think he should hand it over. Certainly it has not come my way. No doubt in its deliberations the House will have a number of discussions on these matters. The Government will consider them. I am bound to say that at present I think it will be difficult to give to the public lending right scheme the amount of money that the hon. Gentleman and I, privately, would like to see provided.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am immensely grateful to him for what he has been kind enough to say? Is he further aware that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is almost alone in his opposition to the public lending right, and that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has always paid lip service to the scheme?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Will the Secretary of State admit that an author with very little money will not be pleased to hear of the possibilities contained in the Public Lending Right Bill that is coming to this place? Will the Secretary of State say when an author is likely to receive his first instalment?

I think it will be some considerable time before it is possible for the scheme to come into operation, but when it operates it will be on the basis that those with large incomes will have a maximum, so that writers with smaller incomes receive a greater proportion. At present these are all speculative matters, because the House has to make up its mind about the Bill when it comes before us, as I expect, shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his conference on the education of those aged between 16 years and 19 years.

The conference, which took place on 23rd and 24th March, was concerned with the vocational preparation of young people in this age group. There was wide support for action in this field, and the Government's proposals will be published shortly.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the horror of the education world at the sloppiness of the organisation, the embarrassing legacy from Lord Crowther-Hunt, and the feebleness of the proposals that the Government provided at the conference? Does he agree that provision for the 16–19 age group is fragmented and inefficient? Does he further agree that we must have a more adequate response from the Government and from all Departments, not merely his own, so as to get to grips with the 300,000 who leave at 16?

I accept that it is a matter for others besides education departments, especially the Department of Employment and the Training Services Agency. We are in consultation with them. The hon. Gentleman exaggerates when he says that we are going about it at too slow a pace. One of the problems is that no one in the education world is terribly sure how to motivate and fully utilise the education service for those who do not use it now. It is not a case of having more of the same; there are vacant places that could be used now. It is a case of trying to get some pilot schemes going, and by their very nature such schemes must be small and experimental.

When considering this matter will my right hon. Friend consider a narrower issue that comes within it, namely, the problems of the vocational training of the 16–19-year-olds when there is a strong immigrant population which, as in my constituency, has a different coloured skin? There is a special need for placing after the vocational training.

The placing of people in employment after vocational training is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I should be opposed to any discrimination on the basis of colour, or for any other reason.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many newly qualified teachers who left college in 1975 failed to obtain employment as teachers; and what estimate he has made of the shortfall of teaching opportunities for those qualifying in 1976 and 1977.

Of some 41,000 teachers who qualified in 1975, 30,000—about three-quarters—had by January 1976 obtained full-time posts in maintained schools in England and Wales. This leaves a balance of about 11,000, compared with between 7.000 and 8,000 in recent years. These balances include those who obtain part-time posts in the maintained sector, and posts as teachers in independent schools or outside England and Wales. Uncertainty about trends in wastage from, and re-entry to, the profession makes it impossible to give reliable estimates for 1976 and 1977.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means that about a quarter of those mentioned in the Question have not yet obtained employment? Does he agree that that amply confirms the widespread concern among many young people about this situation? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about it, not least to avoid the waste that will arise if we throw away this generation of young teachers and then find that the birth rate increases?

I made clear that there were about 11,000 who have not obtained jobs in teaching. At the height of the teacher shortage about 8,000 teachers did not take up jobs in teaching, but they may well have taken up jobs in other sectors. I can assure the House that if we had accepted the Opposition's advice about slashing public expenditure generally, the position would be drastically worse than at present. I am opposed to unemployment, whether it involves teachers or anyone else, but we cannot insulate the teaching profession from the economic problems with which the whole economy is faced.

Allowing for the hypocrisy of Opposition Members, does my right hon. Friend accept that at the recent conference of the National Union of Teachers educational lecturers revealed that there was a sharp drop in morale in colleges of education because of unemployment among teachers? Does he further accept that, although across-the-board cuts in education expenditure are in his mind, after teachers have been expensively trained they have a right to a job, and that the appointment of more teachers would reduce the size of classes? My son has been unemployed since his teacher training finished last year.

I accept that everyone has a right to a job. I regard it as equally unfortunate if an architect, a chemist, an engineer, or anyone else, after expensive training is not immediately able to obtain the employment he wants. The number of unemployed teachers is less than 1 per cent. Although the figure may well go beyond that next September, in view of the general pressures on public expenditure I do not see how a special exemption can be made for teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in view of the difficulties in finding jobs likely to be experienced by student teachers completing their education courses in summer 1976, if he will take steps both to maximise the job opportunities for such people and to ensure that all vacancies are matched with applicants.

The Government's public expenditure plans for 1976–77 are intended to preserve staffing ratios at the levels current in the schools during 1975–76. Within that constraint I have urged local authorities to give priority in their recruitment plans to newly qualified teachers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major problem is that, although we have unemployed teachers, there are vacancies for certain specialist teachers? Will he consider taking on to the Government's pay roll some unemployed teachers for retraining in specialist subjects?

We are anxious to have schemes that cater for shortages in particular categories. One problem that arises from the unemployment of newly-qualified teachers is that, because circumstances are better, many ex-teachers are seeking to come back into education, and when there are vacancies local authorities and schools often prefer to employ them rather than newly-qualified teachers. That adds to the problem.

As the Minister is against unemployment, does he support the enlightened view that young people who cannot find paid work after leaving school should be given the opportunity to create their own work, provided that it is for the benefit of the community and of social value, and earn their unemployment benefit?

As a general proposition, what the hon. Gentleman say justifies examination, but I am too old a bird to be willing to accept general propositions as worked-out schemes. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall see that his proposals are studied.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he cannot impose zero growth rate on the number of children? In areas like mine there are problems in education, and if the staffing rates are frozen when the number of children increases, great difficulties are caused for a great many people.

I hope that no one thinks that Ministers propose reductions in public expenditure for the fun of it. We do so only because of the dire need, in the present economic climate, for reductions. The proposed reductions are difficult for the whole community.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the University Grants Committee.

I keep in touch with him regularly.

Does the Secretary of State accept that morale among people working in the universities is very low because of the widespread belief that the Government are prejudiced against universities'? Will he take every opportunity to put right this unfortunate situation?

I made a small contribution in my answers to earlier Questions.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the unanimous report on devolution, produced by Professor Dreyer, the Chairman of the Scottish Vice-Chancellors, and his seven colleagues, the principals of Scottish universities, which stated that the hiving-off of Scottish universities would be detrimental to the United Kingdom research pattern?

I have noted that report. I have also had discussions with the Chairman of the University Grants Committee on that matter.

When the Secretary of State next gets in touch with the Chairman of the University Grants Committee, will he confirm that the Government have finally abandoned the foolish and Utopian manpower planning policies of the never-to-be-remembered Lord Crowther-Hunt, which were so effectively demolished by the Minister of State on Friday?

The Chairman of the University Grants Committee, who is a good Yorkshireman from Sheffield, would not agree with that fancy language.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive an invitation from the Chairman of the Scottish University Grants Committee, in view of the submission that his Department has today received from Tayside and the University of Dundee?

I find it difficult to hear exactly what the hon. Lady says, but if she is asking me whether I will receive representations from Dundee or the Scottish vice-chancellors, I shall be delighted to do so.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to visit Commonwealth countries in the current year.

I hope to visit Canada later this year in response to an invitation from Mr. Trudeau. Firm dates have not yet been arranged. I have at present no plans for visits to other Commonwealth countries.

In addition to his visit to Canada, will the Prime Minister—if he is still in office—take the opportunity of the Queen's Silver Jubilee next year to stress the importance of the Commonwealth, and will he consider designating one of the many Ministers in the Foreign Office to oversee Commonwealth affairs next year?

It was in my predecessor's mind that it would be appropriate to hold the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference here during the year in which the Queen celebrates her Silver Jubilee. There is not a link between the two in respect of all the Commonwealth countries. As to the sentiment of the Commonwealth and the way in which matters are organised in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that is for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but I believe that he intends to play an important part himself.

Will my right hon. Friend consider becoming the first Labour Prime Minister to visit India since independence? Does he agree that whatever view is taken of recent developments in India, the link between the United Kingdom and India is still great and deserves to be strengthened by the Government?

Yes, Sir. I would welcome the opportunity of visiting India and many other countries if I could get a pair, but I shall have to ration myself during the next 12 months or so.

When the Prime Minister goes to Commonwealth countries, particularly those whose citizens come here as immigrants, will he take the opportunity to clear up the question whether he is racially prejudiced or whether the attack made on him by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was just a piece of spiteful vindictiveness after he had been sacked?

I do not look to the hon. Gentleman for help in any of these matters, and I am not getting it. The Government's attitude and policy on race relations are well known. They have been well established in the Home Office and will not be changed under this Administration.

Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting Singapore? If he does, will he convey to the Prime Minister of Singapore—as his predecessor mentioned in the House about a year ago—that it would enormously raise the status of that country if the detainees whom we put in prison 13 years ago and who are still there were released? Will he also convey to the Prime Minister of Singapore that if he does not do this his party is in danger of being expelled from the Socialist International?

Almost any question is in order arising out of the question whether I have plans to visit Commonwealth countries, but it would not be helpful for me to comment in detail upon the internal policies of those Commonwealth countries with which we are in temporary disagreement. Lee Kuan Yew is well aware of our views on these matters. At the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference he indicated to us his approach to the question how to deal with these prisoners, who have been imprisoned without trial for some years. We must have some tolerance for another Commonwealth Government.

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

I did so yesterday. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

When the Prime Minister does meet the TUC again will he remind its members that it was he who supported them against his own Cabinet colleagues in their fight against "In Place of Strife". How does he reconcile that with his public rebuke, last week, of the Secretary of State for Energy?

That did not arise when I met the TUC and I have nothing to add to it now.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the degree of co-operation that he is receiving from the TUC in the Government's light against inflation? Will he say whether he has any intentions to have further discussions and to cement that co-operation which has been achieved in taking a very rigid control of prices?

The co-operation between the Government and the TUC is good at the present time. There are different approaches to the problems that are being discussed, but that is inevitable because, to some extent, the interests are different. But there is a common objective in mind, which is to ensure that inflation will be reduced substantially during the year beginning next August and finishing in August 1977. From the way in which the discussions have gone so far, I have no doubt that whatever settlement is reached it will have the impact of substantially reducing the level of inflation.

May I take the Prime Minister up on what he has just said, in view of the uncertain position of the pound yesterday and today? Can he give any more information about the form of the proposed wages agreement? He has already indicated that it will include some arrangement about prices. Has he made any further promise about the level of public expenditure, or has he fettered the Government's freedom of action to introduce further budgetary measures later in the year, after an agreement?

The right hon. Lady is right to ask these questions because they are an essential part of the Government's economic strategy. Because details are not yet worked out, we have not indicated to the TUC, except in the most general terms—as I am now indicating in general terms to the House —the nature of the price control that will follow on from the existing price controls when they run out on 31st July this year and will need to be renewed. There can be no doubt that the level of public expenditure is such that it would be very difficult to take on further items at the present time.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he take the opportunity of explaining when the Government proposes to move on from its present industrial priority of helping firms in trouble to a policy of taking a public stake in profitable companies and industries that are not serving the public interest, particularly in terms of investment?

The first thing to concentrate on is to ensure that there is sufficient incentive to provide a proper level of investment for those firms, so that productive jobs can be created. That is what I would like to see us focus on. As for taking a stake in firms, the National Enterprise Board is available, with its powers and with such resources as may be given to it, as my hon. Friend knows.

asked the Prime Minister if the ministerial broadcast on the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th April represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's television broadcast on the Budget on 6th April represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the television broadcast made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th April, which concerned economic policy, represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's television broadcast on the Budget on 6th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes.

The Chancellor, in that broadcast, stressed the importance of investment and the Prime Minister has just reiterated it. Will he therefore help encourage investment further by repudiating firmly and categorically the National Executive Committee's industrial proposals and by repeating his own wise words at the Adam Smith festivities in Kirkcaldy three years ago, when he said that the Labour Party's big mistake was to think it knew how to run a company's business better than the company itself.

I had better look at what I said before I take it exactly in that form. Whatever I said on the Adam Smith Memorial occasion, I must confess I do not exactly recall at this moment. On the general question, it is, of course, clear that this country still has a very large private sector, which must be enabled to make adequate returns on the capital invested. That has always been the policy of this Government and it will continue to be the policy of this Government. As for any proposals that may emanate from the National Executive Committee, I have no ministerial responsibility for them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, currently, he has no instruments to force investors to put their investment into those areas of the economy—mainly the manufacturing base—where it is needed? Does he recall that when we had the argument on the £6 pay policy last year it was suggested that the reduction that would occur would allow more investment to take place? This has not taken place. What discussions have been entered into this time to ensure that wage restraint will lead to a situation that has not occurred for many years past?

There is a difference between my hon. Friend and myself on this point. I do not believe that one can force a large private sector to invest. Therefore, one has a choice between a wholly controlled economy and a mixed economy. As for that part of the sector in the mixed economy which is private, one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. Therefore, one has to apply the necessary incentives to compel it to drink. As this party has always stood for a mixed economy and not for a totally controlled economy, that must be the basis upon which our economic policy proceeds.

Will the Prime Minister give a firm assurance that the pay deal with the TUC will not contain hidden concessions, to be revealed at a later date, which will add substantially to public expenditure? Does he agree that industry is currently being discouraged from investing in job creation by the Price Code?

From the analysis that I have been able to make so far, I think the answer to the second part of the question is "No". But there will be discussions with the CBI as well as the TUC on this matter. Indeed, many firms' profits are at the moment well below the reference level to which they are entitled, and that is not a factor that should cheer any one of us. It is a very serious factor in this matter. Regarding hidden commitments, of course I give the assurance that if an agreement is reached this week, or within a few days, it will. perhaps, be for the Chancellor to indicate to the House the full nature of the agreement that is reached, so that the House will know what it is.

Is the Prime Minister aware that people who pronounce Kirkcaldy as "Kirkcauldy" instead of "Kirkcuddy" do far more for the Scottish National Party than many who talk about devolution?

I have simply no answer to that.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if any company in the drugs industry looked at the nature of the compensation that is being offered to companies in the aerospace industry under the Government's nationalisation proposals it would have no cause whatsoever to make any further investment until the threat of nationalisation of the drugs industry is lifted? Would the Prime Minister care to do that here and now. before he prejudices more jobs?

At a quick glance I cannot see that in his Budget Broadcast on 6th April the Chancellor referred to that industry at all

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the corollary of what he has said about the mixed economy is that we should then not be giving massive grants to those companies that proclaim private enterprise freedom, on which they say the future of their industries depends? In other words, if we have a mixed economy, should we not let the State industries receive grants and let the others make their own way by competition?

There is, of course, a substantial case for selective aid in these fields, and it is along the lines of that policy that the Government have been moving. However, basically, of course, any industry, whether privately- or publicly-owned, must be able to make an adequate return on the capital employed if the workers in that industry are to get decent wages and if the investment in it is to be replaced. There is no dodging that fact, under whatever system one lives.

In view of uncertainties that have arisen since the Chancellor's broadcast, about the precise pay targets that the Government are aiming at, will the Prime Minister confirm that the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Trade that anything above the 3 per cent. norm will mean that the Government will not achieve their inflation targets represents Government policy? If the limit is above 3 per cent., will the Government compensate by reductions in tax concessions or reductions in public spending?

I suggest that the hon. Member waits and sees.