asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet officials from the British Institute of Management to discuss employment matters.

I have no such plans, though I am always ready to listen to the views of the British Institute of Management, whether on employment or other matters.

Does the Secretary of State feel that he has any responsibility for the prosperity of the people represented by the BIM? If so, has he noted that, according to the BIM, the real standards of income of its members fell by 13 per cent. in 1975? In view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman press, in Cabinet, for a return of a policy of differentials as soon as possible, otherwise we shall have no managers?

I have noticed from the survey conducted by the institute that it considered that the fall in the real standards of some of its members was due to the rate of inflation. Therefore, the institute has a real interest, along with the Government and many other people, in seeing that we overcome inflation. The institute appreciates that in the present situation it is not possible to relieve its members of a substantial part of the sacrifice, which involves many parts of the community in the interests of beating inflation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British management is showing its pleasure in the Government by getting out of the country as fast as it can, and there is now a very serious drain of management? Is he also aware that we shall never have a successful economy and never again have full employment while management is treated as badly as the Labour Government have treated it? When will the right hon. Gentleman get his colleagues to take action on taxation, differentials, better pay and a better understanding of British management's position?

Too long.

I hope that the Front Benches and the Back Benches on both sides of the House will realise that the shorter the question the more people can be called.

I am conscious that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends contend that British managers are leaving the country in droves. I have read the report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, which examined the latest available figures and reached the conclusion that there was no evidence whatever that British managers were leaving this country any faster now than they have done in the past.

Will the Secretary of State note that the directors of the Halifax Building Society have withdrawn a recommendation put to the society's annual meeting on Monday for a payment of £10,000 to be made to a retiring part-time director of the society? Does the Secretary of State accept that golden handshakes, top-hat pensions and insurance policies, preferential mortgage schemes and cheap holidays are all perks enjoyed by many managers, which are widely resented by working people whose incomes are rigidly controlled under the incomes policy?

I note what my hon. Friend says, and agree with the spirit of his question. Anything that gives the impression that higher management and directors can make up by other means any loss caused by the incomes policy is bound adversely to affect our chance of operating an equitable incomes policy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how unemployment can be decreased if major British companies cannot compete with their overseas competitors for the best management available in the market?

The evidence is that the best British companies can compete and are competing. With the present low valuation of the pound our opportunities for increasing exports will be shown to be more than a mere potential over the next 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Training Services Agency.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that some of those responsible for the retraining programme believe that the alarmingly high drop-out rate reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General is in part due to the discouraging discovery that training staff earn less in wages than trainees do in benefits? Will he investigate the wages of training staff?

I have seen the reported remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I agree that there are grounds for disquiet, and a number of steps have been taken to reduce the drop-out rates. I shall write to my hon. Friend on the point of the alleged disparity between trainee allowances and staff wages. Trainee allowances amount to £32·42 a week, while the staff salary range for an instructional officer Grade III is £3,137 to £4,237 a year. Therefore, that particular allegation is made on very weak grounds indeed.

One of the problems about retraining is that people do not like going away from home for long periods. They would rather wait at home for an upturn in industry to get their original jobs back. Would it not be better if local education authorities, and local business men tried to set up localised retraining schemes wherever possible?

A large amount of the TOPS retraining is locally based, in colleges of education. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, the problem is one of travelling distances. We are seeking to improve training allowances, which should make a contribution towards overcoming this problem.

In deciding where skill-centres should be situated, will the Minister consider establishing one in Brixton, which has the highest unemployment figures in London?

I know my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, but there is a Question on this matter later on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further contraction he anticipates in the long-term prospects for employment in manufacturing industry.

It is the Government's policy to take steps to check and reverse the relative decline in manufacturing employment that has occurred over the past decade. This is a dominant theme in the new industrial strategy and it will continue to be a major consideration in the Government's overall economic strategy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that employment in the manufacturing industry has suffered from a significant and serious decline in recent years? The retrenchment from expansion to a situation that we now have, of very high contraction, is one that undermines our profit margins most seriously and therefore the ability of a whole portion of our economy to compete internationally.

There has been a decline in manufacturing employment in recent years, partly due to cyclical factors and increasing capital intensity of some of our manufacturing industry. But our present strategy, based on devoting more investment to manufacturing industry and exporting, should more than offset the factors that have led to the decline over the last few years.

Does the Secretary of State agree that while it is important to restructure this industry and redirect investment, these efforts are wasted unless there is an early attempt to control the flow of imports into this country by selective import controls?

That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, but unless some of our major exporting industries can be competitive in international markets they will not be saved by short-term import limitation measures.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential for our economic future that we transfer resources in this country from wealth consumption to wealth creation? Under the present Administration, is not the trend of moving in the opposite direction contributing to our economic ills?

I see no evidence that this is the case in current Government plans. Part of the difficulty in the debate taking place on public expenditure priorities arises from the determination that more money should be put into the manufacturing sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in the current discussions on the new pay policy to be pursued after 1st August the Government are proposing that increments be excluded from the limits in the next phase in the same way as they have been this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to freeze incremental pay scales during the next phase of pay policy.

Under the TUC proposals for the period from 1st August the overall pay figure would in general be applied in the same way as in the current policy, which requires an offset to be made where allowable incremental payments involve a net cost.

Is it not grossly unfair that many people on incremental scales have been able for two years running to get more than the £6-a-week limit and the 4½ per cent. limit? This mainly applies to the public sector and is greatly resented by those in the private sector who are not on incremental scales, including those on merit award schemes, which are similar to increments but which are not exempted. In the interests of a fair policy, would it not be better to exclude increments altogether?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted on 5th May that there was a problem with incremental payments, and pointed out that in successive Government's incomes policies so far, one of the main problems had been the need to tackle and make allowances for incremental payments. The policy does not discriminate in favour of Government employees. By no means all of them receive such incremental payments.

Incremental payment schemes have been used in this country in order to pay considerably less than the rate for the job. This is particularly so in the case where the Post Office have a scale stretching over 14 years. This is a heaven-sent opportunity, with the Government-imposed pay policy to do something about the situation. It is particularly unfair where people earning over £10,000 a year are able to get increments of £5 plus the £6 a week, as opposed to other people, at the top of their incremental scales, who earn only £40 a week and cannot get further increments.

The Government do face difficulties dealing with incremental payments. It would be advisable for the House to wait for the detailed statement that the Chancellor has promised.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the construction industry; and what proposals be has for reducing it over the next few months.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, what action he is taking to reduce unemployment in the building and construction industries.

At 8th April 1976, 213,480 people who last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.

Is it not certain that these deplorable figures will get worse, since the latest industry survey shows a further sharp decline in new orders since January?

We are not certain as yet what the movement of these figures will be, but we are certainly taking steps that we would not take unless we believed that the intolerable level would continue for some time.

Is the Secretary of State aware that on Merseyside more than 13,000 construction workers are unemployed at the moment? This represents 50 per cent. of the total unemployed construction workers in the North West. At the same time 16,500 people are on housing waiting lists in Liverpool, awaiting accommodation. The steps that have been taken so far are inadequate to deal with this problem. I urge the Secretary of State to discuss with his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Industry the need for urgent action on this matter at this time.

I certainly appreciate that this is a very special problem on Merseyside. I do have regular discussions with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment and I give the undertaking that my hon. Friend seeks. If the solution that he suggests is one that can be achieved only in terms of considerable increases in public expenditure in that field, we have to realise that we are talking about a choice of priorities.

Will the Secretary of State particularly address himself to the problem of craftsmen workers in stone and wood and ensure that these crafts are kept alive?

This is one of the serious problems created by construction industry unemployment. It is a question not merely of maintaining the crafts, but of ensuring that training takes place. That is why we have introduced special training measures through the MSC and TSA to ensure that there will be no shortage when the upturn comes.

I accept the figures that my right hon. Friend has given about housing, but does he accept that there has been a fall off in public sector demand in the construction industry? Will he stress the importance of introducing some form of counter-cyclical construction programme so that we do not have to go through this same story yet again in the next business cycle?

There is certainly a cyclical aspect to high unemployment in the industry. This is one of the areas in which we are considering the most effective counter-cyclical measures that can be developed. But what we can do at present is limited by public expenditure considerations, and we should be looking very much to the future in determining how we can introduce a wider range of counter-cyclical measures to deal with future unemployment.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if these appalling figures are not reduced by June it will be too late to do anything about them in 1976? If he cannot find a solution in the relationship between unemployment in the industry and the serious shortfall in housing programme he should confess to his failure now.

Some of the measures announced by the Chancellor were in anticipation of a worsening problem that would develop, but the choice between the amount that is devoted to building and the amount that is devoted to easing the social cost of unemployment is a question of priorities. That does not mean that we shall not reconsider this matter in the light of what we accept to be very high unemployment in the building industry.

Does my right hon. Friend not accept that it is totally irrational for there to be so many unemployed construction workers on Merseyside when there is also a great need for many construction projects such as housing, a new hospital in Skelmersdale and the replacement of many of the Victorian schools in my constituency? Would it not be sensible to reorganise resources to achieve these social objectives now and to reduce unemployment?

I will accept my hon. Friend's proposition if he will accept from me that it is irrational to have over 1 million people unemployed when we need to reorganise wealth to solve a number of social and economic problems. It is within that context that I see a longer-term solution, which does not deal separately with the building industry but builds up this country's potential to create wealth.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the public sector cannot resolve this matter, since public funds are not available to it? Does he accept that the private sector can? What encouragement and incentive will he provide the private sector to reduce unemployment? The funds are available in the building societies, and the demand for owner-occupation exists. What steps does he intend to take?

I do not accept the implication of the question. The public sector has made a considerable contribution to easing unemployment. The private sector should be making as big a contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many school-leavers are at present unemployed in the Chester area.

As at 8th April the last count there were 63 school leavers unemployed in the Chester area.

That is 63 too many. Does the Minister agree that many school leavers get their first jobs in small businesses, but that this incompetent Socialist Government are forcing small businesses to close down or to cut their work forces? Hence, it is not surprising that 63 school leavers are without a job in Chester.

The situation in Chester is far from satisfactory, but I do not accept the hon. Member's explanation. In Chester the TSA has provided two training courses for retailing and one for office procedures, and these provide 48 places for young people. More than 130 applications for the recruitment subsidy scheme for school leavers have been approved in Chester, along with two job creation schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people, having attained the age of 16 years and having left school prior to the end of the academic year, are currently drawing unemployment benefit.

I regret that this information is not available. However, it would be exceptional for any such school leavers to qualify for unemployment benefit in the limited time up to the end of the academic year.

I accept that in this regard the numbers may be very small, but will the Minister, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Security, examine the closely-related problems of those who leave school and, instead of taking up work, claim supplementary rather than unemployment benefit? Is he aware that in some areas young people are claiming this benefit and no questions are being asked about their efforts to find work? Does this not represent a serious abuse of the social security system?

The hon. Gentleman fairly recognises that supplementary benefit and its administration are matters for the Department of Health and Social Security. Quite honestly, I am sceptical about the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but none the less I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Bearing in mind the large number of young people who are or will be drawing unemployment benefit, would it not be much better to allow people to retire at 60, so that those who are older can be on pensions and those who are younger can be at work?

I know the interest that my hon. and learned Friend has sustained in this question, and he will recognise that, again, this is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Security and not for me.

Is the Minister of State aware that at the end of June many thousands of young people will be leaving school in Scotland? Will he take this opportunity to tell them of the prospects they will have of obtaining a job?

The hon. Gentleman and the House should recognise that the problem of unemployment among young people is common to all the EEC countries. I hope that he will recognise that the Government have introduced a number of contingency measures to try to help find employment for these young people.

Bearing in mind that about 500,000 school-leavers will be look- ing for jobs later this summer, will my hon. Friend consider making a special approach to the CBI, asking it to encourage its individual members to see what they can do to help with the creation of new jobs through the Job Creation Programme, by lending staff, making materials available, or making money available?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very constructive and helpful suggestion. I hope that private industry—there have been some helpful responses so far—will show greater interest in and provide greater support for the Job Creation Programme in the way suggested.

Does the Minister agree that the purpose of unemployment benefit is not to provide students with an additional vacation grant? What steps does he or his Department propose to take to reduce the eligibility of students for unemployment benefit during the vacations?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I assure him that this problem is under active consideration at the present time and will be the subject of a statement in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he now expects construction work to start on the new skillcentre at Deptford.

The Manpower Services Commission informs me that there have been difficulties in obtaining planning permission, and this is still awaited.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this centre was first promised to South-East London almost eight years ago, in the wake of the AEI closure? In view of the delays caused by the apparently endless wrangles over planning, what interim arrangements are there for training in the Woolwich area and when does my hon. Friend hope that they will come into operation?

The delay is much regretted. The TSA has decided as an interim measure to bring forward plans for a skillcentre annexe, which was originally to have followed completion of the Deptford skillcentre. The TSA hopes to provide an appreciable number of skillcentre jobs as early as possible in 1977 in South-East London.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he will have no difficulty about planning or anything else if he wants to establish a skillcentre in Brixton, where unemployment is higher than anywhere else in London? Is he aware that the Lambeth Borough Council and everybody else want it established in Brixton?

I am sure that the TSA will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the rate of over 11 per cent. unemployment in Clacton-on-Sea compares with other seaside towns in England and Wales.

At April 1976, 15 employment areas with coastlines had rates above that in Clacton-on-Sea, two had the same rate, others had lower rates.

Is the Minister aware that a great number of the people concerned are late in their working lives and have been unemployed for some time? Would it not be better and cheaper to allow them to retire early? What study has been made of that?

It is true that one third of those unemployed are aged between 60 and 65. The hon. Member's suggestion, however, raises wide implications for employment policy which go beyond this particular Question.

The obvious answer in these coastal towns is to encourage tourism. Why cannot the Minister arrange for special priority to be given to tourist areas, so that people will spend their holidays in this country and provide work for these unemployed?

One of the problems of Clacton is that the seasonal unemployment there is very much higher than in some other resort towns, and it would be worth examining why that situation exists.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will direct Government training centres to give priority to the retraining of unemployed persons, especially in areas of high unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that about two-thirds of applicants for TOPS courses are unemployed. Of the balance, a number are likely to be in relatively insecure employment, while the few who leave secure employment to be trained do of course create employment opportunities for others. I doubt whether there is a sufficient case at present for altering these arrangements, but they are kept under continual review.

Will my hon. Friend say why persons who are employed in skills that are not disappearing should get preference over large numbers of unemployed persons who have lost their skills because of the changing techniques in production and distribution? Is that policy not completely contrary to the spirit of the retraining Act?

In times of high unemployment it is not easy to draw a distinction between the applicant who is unemployed and the person who applies for training because his future is insecure. I think that the best solution is to increase overall the number of training places, and this is being done.

Is the Minister aware of the great need for a Government training centre in the Caernarvon and Bangor area, where there is unemployment ranging between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent.? Is he further aware that persistent efforts have been made to press on his Department the need to establish such a centre? Will he now give some indication of progress in that direction?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that these are matters primarily for the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency, and that it is for the commission to determine its priority programme for the future building of skillcentres. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, but the future programme has been drawn up on the basis of a very careful assessment of the needs of different areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the take-up of the temporary employment subsidy in the Northern Region.

My officials take every opportunity of informing employers about the temporary employment subsidy, which, of course, is a voluntary scheme. In Northern Region all employers have been suitably advised whenever the threat of redundancies has come to notice, and since 8th March 1976 a letter about the scheme and an explanatory leaflet have been sent to every employer notifying an impending redundancy under the Employment Protection Act 1975.

Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is that, despite the very high level of unemployment in the Northern Region and disturbing signs of further weakness, the take-up of the temporary employment subsidy in that region is lower than in any other region? Is my right hon. Friend certain that his Department is doing all it can to make firms aware of the benefits of the subsidy?

As at Friday 7th May, applications covering 3,293 workers have been received in the Northern Region, and 21 applications, covering 2,240 workers, have been approved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now introduce pay parity for work carried out by school leavers under the Job Creation Programme and the Community Industry Scheme.

The schemes have different objectives and are designed for different groups of people, and I have no plans to introduce pay parity.

Is the Minister aware that school leavers with the Job Creation Programme despise the Government for paying them double the amount that they were earning previously when working with other employers, and one-third more than their friends working with the Community Industry Scheme? Does the Minister now think that the Government need to have their heads examined for paying unnecessarily inflated wages?

The hon. Gentleman has from time to time made the suggestion that those who are working under the Job Creation Programme should receive less than the appropriate rate for the job. I can only say that we disagree and think it quite right that the rate for the job should be a proper one.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many kinds of useful work have been done by youths working in the Community Industry Scheme? Has there been a shortage of jobs at any time that can be provided by local authorities? If that is not so, can we not increase further the amount of money allocated to the Community Industry Scheme to ensure that more jobs are provided for our young people?

The Government have recently made a significant extra amount available. I am not quite sure whether the number of projects is matching up to the needs of the scheme. I hope that local authorities will continue to seek to provide appropriate projects to enable the full take-up of the amount of money in the places available.

Does the Minister not agree that many of those participating in the Job Creation Programme at the moment would be prepared to take the jobs concerned at a lower rate, and that if this were done it would be possible to make the benefit of the scheme available to many more people than are having it at the moment?

I have no evidence of what the hon. Gentleman suggests—that people in the Job Creation Programme would be prepared to work for less. If the hon. Gentleman assures me that this is so, I will take his word for it, but he must also have regard to the industrial relations difficulties that might arise as between those who are permanently and regularly employed in the occupations that the Job Creation Programme might cover.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage unemployment in Scotland has increased or decreased since October 1974.

Between October 1974 and April 1976, the numbers unemployed in Scotland, seasonally adjusted and excluding school-leavers, increased by 64·6 per cent.

Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the situation, in which, in Scotland today, the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment is rising at the rate of 100 every working day? In view of this situation, will he speak to his Cabinet colleagues with a view to making progress on the transfer of the 7,000 Civil Service jobs to Glasgow, the progress of which has been much delayed, I understand, because of fears that the Government's ludicrous devolution plans may lead to the breakup of Great Britain.

The unemployment situation in Scotland, relative to that of the United Kingdom as a whole, has shown a slight deterioration recently from a ratio of 117 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure to 119 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure. This compares with a ratio as high as 170 per cent. in 1973. Therefore, I think that the deterioration needs to be kept in proportion.

Will my right hon. Friend consider specially the Cowdenbeath-Lochgelly area where the percentage unemployment figure is far higher than for the rest of Scotland? Will he undertake to examine the proposals of the Scottish National Party to run down North Sea oil development, which would have the result of still further increasing the serious unemployment problem in Scotland?

I realise that the overall figure that I gave hides the fact that in certain areas of Scotland there is very serious unemployment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we in Scotland are anxious for permanent, not temporary jobs, which is what the rapid grab for oil will lead to? As the Labour Party manifesto asked us to vote Labour to safeguard employment, do the broken promises that are strewn around mean that the Labour Party conference will be the shambles that the Scottish Tory Party conference was the other day?

I find it hard to reconcile concern about levels of unemployment in Scotland with disparaging remarks about the temporary nature of North Sea oil jobs. I should have thought that many of those jobs were most welcome and that any plans to limit them in the near future would be resisted by those who are primarily concerned about levels of unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how current unemployment levels compared with 1973.

The numbers unemployed in Great Britain at April 1973 and April 1976 were 647,770 and 1,231,218 respectively.

Do not those figures and the reply to the previous Question illustrate the simple truth that centralised regional policies do not work and can best be described as failures? Does the Secretary of State agree that the best and most effective regional policy for Scotland, Wales, and the other regions of England would be economic self-management? Will he, the Prime Minister, and the rest of the Cabinet, bear that in mind when they reconsider the Government's devolution policy in terms of the powers to go to a Scottish Assembly?

I believe that the figures that I quoted in answer to the previous Question, which showed that unemployment in Scotland had risen less in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom than in previous slumps, indicate that the regional policies determined by this House have had a favourable effect in Scotland, as in a number of other development areas.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in seaside resorts —I have Weymouth particularly in mind —for many years unemployment has been excessively high, wages have been excessively low, and no Labour Government have taken the slightest interest? Will he, for his own sake, try to reverse that policy and do something for us?

I certainly accept that in many seaside resorts unemployment has been high, particularly in winter, and wages have been low. However, I do not accept that the Government are not concerned about that matter. We have been concerned about it in the siting of jobs and in determining the relationship between support for tourism and support for industry, particularly in development areas.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this should be a matter not only of concern but of general economic strategy? Does he agree that about this time last year the strategy was to cut back the consumer's purchasing power by developing the £6 pay limit in line with the union leadership, which resulted in unemployment becoming almost double what it was? What chance is there of a change in this strategy, as a result of the further reduction in the purchasing power of ordinary working people arising from the 4½ per cent. policy?

The concern and the strategy go hand in hand. In so far as employment has been dependent upon the purchasing power of the British people, the rate of inflation has cut back on that purchasing power. If our present overall strategy reduces the rate of inflation by another half in the coming year, ilt will increase the purchacing power of the British people and provide a basis on which to found firmer pay claims in future.

Is it not clear from every answer that we have had from the Secretary of State this afternoon that his Department and the Government have no answer to the unemployment problem? Is this not a positive indication of the dismal failure of Socialism and of Socialist policies in Britain?

The Government have not only introduced a wide range of measures to deal with the cyclical effects of unemployment; they are pursuing a strategy that holds better prospects for employment in future than was ever the case with the previous Government.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Australia.

I have at present no plans to visit Australia.

That is a pity. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a shame not to have the chance to talk to Sir John Kerr and learn about the great efficacy and democratic use of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to dismiss a discredited Government? Will he give an undertaking that the report of the Labour Party home policy committee, which suggests abolishing the Royal Prerogative in this country—taking the Queen out of politics—will be quashed and not allowed to become law by this Government?

The Crown normally remains outside the realm of party politics, although I understand that royalties are sometimes associated with other publications. In the course of Her Majesty's reign I have seen Dissolution on seven occasions. I thought that they were all eminently satisfactory, and on four occasions at least they were positively right.

Without necessarily tearing himself away to go to Australia, will the Prime Minister consider instituting a further examination of federal systems, such as the Australian system, with a view to any possible lessons they might have to teach us about devolution in this country?

I should be ready to look at the lessons from other countries, but the stormy relationships between the State Governments in Australia and the Central Government there are hardly encouraging for us to draw any lessons from.

If my right hon. Friend has occasion to go to Australia, will he discuss with the Australian Government the question of demand and supply for world commodities, especially metals, with a view to arriving at a more helpful and constructive attitude towards UNCTAD by the British Government than has so far been shown?

I think that Australia illustrates the difficulty of this problem. In no circumstances can Australia be described as a poverty-stricken country, but clearly it is the country that would benefit most from some of the proposals put forward at UNCTAD, precisely because it has control of many metals and commodities. For that reason, the British Government have not gone overboard for a common fund, but have preferred to deal with the matter commodity by commodity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating this matter so well.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Civil Service College in Edinburgh.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the enforced closure of the Civil Service College in Edinburgh, which is very highly regarded throughout Great Britain, would cause great resentment in Scotland and would be completely inconsistent with the Government's devolution proposals?

I am aware of the work done by this college in Edinburgh. The proposals are part of a study being made by the Government with a view to saving a great deal of money—£140 million—on Civil Service manpower and expenditure. Every cut that we make will be painful, and each will have supporters. I want to end the uncertainty of the staff, but I cannot do so yet because this is one of a number of propositions under examination. I fully realise the value of this college, but if we are to save this money a number of valuable elements will have to go. It is something I regret, but it will be necessary.

If the Prime Minister cannot pay a visit to the Civil Service College, will he go to Moray House and other teacher training colleges in Scotland, where students are beginning to sit in against the cuts in education expenditure and the loss of job opportunities? Will he also explain to those students and the Scottish public how it is that after the autumn we shall reach the absurd position in which inadequately-educated schoolchildren are standing in the same dole queues as trained but unemployed teachers?

If the hon. Gentleman wants a detailed answer to that question, he should put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will give him such a reply. I am replying to a Question on the Civil Service College. In regard to educational expenditure in Scotland, have been looking at this matter and at the possible cuts that might be made. The statistics being bandied about do not bear the weight being placed on them by some hon. Members.

As this Government. like their Conservative predecessors, are committed to the transfer of thousands of Civil Service jobs from London to Scotland, will the Prime Minister tell us why there should be any doubt about this college, which employs 130 people?

The proposals to transfer large numbers of civil servants from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development go on. There is no interference with them. They will take place. But I say to the hon. Gentleman—many a mickle makes a muckle. It is by adding up all these 130s that one arrives at a vast total. In order that there is no misunderstanding, I should explain that this is one of many proposals on which no decision has yet been taken. All the considerations being advanced by hon. Members will be taken into account.

Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that there is an increasing reluctance of civil servants, faced with the possibility of devolution legislation, to move north of the border?

I have not yet found any such reluctance. Many of the students at the Civil Service College come from south of the border and are not Scottish.

Does the Prime Minister realise that if the Government's proposals for devolution are implemented in their present form, there will be at least 1,000 extra civil servants to service the Assembly? Can the Prime Minister explain how this will be feasible if the college closes?

The two things do not necessarily go together. I recognise that devolution of real powers to Scotland will mean an increase in the number of civil servants. This is one of the issues that the House must face. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties. I read his letter in The Times today. He is trying to paper over the cracks in the Opposition. I suggest that he goes on trying, but I do not think that he will have much success.

asked the Prime Minister if he will visit Coventry.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he does visit Coventry he should congratulate the workers of British Leyland on turning a loss last year into a half-yearly profit? Does he agree that the Opposition feel considerable chagrin over this fact, because they would have let this important export-winning firm go to the wall? Will my right hon. Friend also convey to the workers of British Leyland the fact that the board should not agree to appointments such as that of the chairman, Sir Richard Dobson, who, as he earns £22,500 a year for a part-time job, is hardly likely to inspire them—

Order. That is enough for the Prime Minister to be getting on with.

I agree with my hon. Friend that British Leyland's modest profit over the half year is encouraging, especially when it is contrasted with last year's results, even though there were some adventitious factors contributing to it. It is also encouraging that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has fallen, and will, I hope, continue to fall substantially. It is in the national interest that this venture should succeed, whatever prejudices hon. Members may have held before it began. I understand the other part of my hon. Friend's question. I have read it in different guises on at least three occasions. I suggest that he should now give over and encourage the chairman, whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting, to do even better in the next half year than in the last.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in places like Coventry there is bound to be anxiety about the threat to United Kingdom passport holders in Africa? Some of us who had to visit such places on the last occasion that we had an influx of Asians are only too well aware of this fact. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will take all possible political, diplomatic and economic action to dissuade the Malawian Government from upsetting the orderly phased movement—

Order. We are getting back to the old dispute about whether hon. Members need to put Questions on the Order Paper at all, or whether they should throw questions out of the blue to the Prime Minister. The hon. Member is stretching things in trying to link Malawi with Coventry.

If and when the Prime Minister visits the West Midlands, will he take the opportunity to make a major utterance on the acceptance of a multiracial society in Britain, both to comfort the new Britons of our immigrant communities and to offset the damaging activities of a small number of local politicians who wish to stir up racialist antipathies in Britain's present economic climate?

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I came to the conclusion some time ago that Questions to the Prime Minister were a guessing game. I guessed the question of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), but I thought it would arise on the question of a visit to Australia rather than on a visit to Coventry.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th May.

There was a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and I shall be holding further meetings with my ministerial colleagues and others during the course of the day, including a meeting with Mr. Joshua Nkomo. This evening I shall be speaking at the annual dinner of the CBI.

When the Prime Minister can find a moment between his arduous list of activities, will he telephone Dr. Hastings Banda and remind him of the hospitality that he enjoyed in Britain at a time when we were better able to offer it? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Dr. Banda to reconsider the position of the Asians in Malawi and allow them to continue to enjoy the same facilities and to offer the same valuable services to his community as Dr. Banda was able to enjoy when he was in this country?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

I appreciate that the Prime Minister's other important engagements may prevent his attendance in the Chamber during the debate this afternoon, but will he clarify his own attitude about the sale of council houses? Is it true that he intends to change the Government's policy and bring it into line with what we believe on the Opposition side of the House?

If the acting Leader of the Opposition will look at the Order Paper he will find in it an interesting amendment in my name. When he has heard the debate this afternoon I hope that he will join me in the Lobby at 7 o'clock, so that we can both vote on the same side.

In the course of his current official engagement of answering Questions in the House, will my right hon. Friend say what the issues were regarding the price of fuel, especially electricity and gas, that were raised with him and his colleagues by the trade union movement in the course of the latest negotiations about pay policy?

That does not arise out of my engagements for today. We had, of course, a very important series of discussions with the TUC, which involved the question of prices. The future level of prices will be discussed with the CBI and the Retail Price Consortium during the next few days. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection intends to do that. It is our view that these commodities should, as far as possible, be priced at a proper level that will give an adequate return, especially in the case of the nationalised industries, although there is still some room for subsidies in particular cases.