asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of holding direct elections to a European Parliament should such elections be held at a time independent from any other elections.

The cost will depend on the nature of the arrangements decided by Parliament but is likely to be about £10 million if normal parliamentary election procedures are followed.

As this is probably the last time that the Home Secretary will be answering Questions at the Dispatch Box, although I have disagreed with him about the Common Market may I wish him well in his new job and thank him for the services he has given to Parlia- ment? Will he ensure that British money is used in the elections here and not money which has been imported from the Community?

I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I have a number of further Questions to answer, and I may ask a few questions in the future. I do not want to get too early into the Dame Nellie Melba position which this sometimes is.

She was Australian.

There is nothing wrong with that. I hope and believe that, as in the referendum campaign, which cost about the same amount and of which I think the hon. Gentleman was in favour, the money used will be British.

May I associate this side of the House with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten)? My right hon. Friend will certainly be missed at the Dispatch Box during what is a unique occasion in this Parliament. Will he draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Banbury the evidence given by the local authority associations to the Select Committee in which they said that to hold direct elections to the European Parliament on the same day as any other election would cost more than if direct elections were held at a different time? Does my right hon. Friend sympathise with the views expressed by the local authority associations?

Yes. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. If it is necessary I shall draw the attention of the hon. Member for Banbury to the report to which she has referred. At one stage, it was my own view that direct elections might be linked perhaps with local authority elections, but having considered the matter I am increasingly persuaded that that would not be desirable.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the issues involved in the direct elections would be so important that many people will be glad that he has been converted to the idea of letting them stand on their own feet and not allowing them to become mixed up with local elections? I genuinely join with other hon. Members in welcoming the Home Secretary to the European Parliament.

I am not sure that I shall be allowed to be a Member of the European Parliament. My own conversion is less important than what the Select Committee is likely to say on the matter. We all look forward to the report.

May I warn my right hon. Friend that he will not be rid of me, because I shall he asking him questions at Strasbourg? Will he reflect on the sheer cost of the nomadic nature of the European Parliament?

I had probably better reserve my comments on that, although I note what my hon. Friend, who speaks from considerable experience, has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring to an end the practice by which persons who enter the United Kingdom on a visitor's permit or on any other temporary basis are subsequently accepted for settlement.

I have examined this suggestion carefully, but I do not believe that a blanket prohibition would be appropriate.

I am grateful that the Home Secretary has examined the suggestion carefully. Will he reconsider the matter? Is it not the case that the only effective form of immigration control—and he is in favour of it—is control at the point of entry? Is it not further the case that the practice of coming here on a temporary basis, overstaying and then maybe later applying for acceptance for settlement is a major loophole in the existing system of immigration control? If the Home Secretary wants to make immigration control effective, will he end this back-door immigration?

I am against back-door immigration and very much in favour of effective immigration control. I said "blanket prohibitions", which would mean that anyone who came here and entered into a genuine marriage would have to remove himself or herself, and that no one who had been here a long time could ever be given the right of settlement. Trying to extend the period of stay to defeat controls no longer works as it did before. The length of period here alone does not give immunity from removal.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the door to immigration was opened to a greater extent than ever before when we entered the Common Market?

It may be that the door was opened, but the number of people who want to pass through it is very few indeed.

Are the Home Office records yet computerised? Many of us believe that that would be an important step forward in stopping the kind of abuse which has developed in this very difficult area of immigration control.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in this matter. We endeavour to keep track as far as we possibly can, but I am not sure whether computerisation would be a complete answer. There is certainly a problem in keeping track of people once they are in this country and of what they do.

Perhaps I may indulge in a personal remark. I am one of those who deeply regret on personal grounds the right hon. Gentleman's removal or change from this Parliament.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Indeed, I thank him for the way in which he has discharged many of the difficult tasks he has faced as Shadow Home Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from chief constables about the Police Bill.

Chief officers have recently reaffirmed their opposition to the new complaints scheme introduced by the Police Bill, and expressed anxiety—which I believe will prove to be mistaken—that some aspects of the scheme may undermine their authority.

Is there anything in the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has received which makes him feel that chief officers of police will not do all they can, once the Bill is law, to make the scheme work effectively? Is he as strong in his faith as we are that the scheme will redound considerably to the benefit of the police when the effectiveness of their own internal inquiries is demonstrated by it?

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that he has sufficient power under the Bill to control the decisions of chief constables? Is he aware that the Chief Constable of Derbyshire has completely ignored his advice and that of the police committee on the question of supplying police support for the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary accident flying squad?

I must remind my hon. Friend that the Police Bill has nothing to do with that proposition, about which he has spoken to me before. That would be a question not of police complaints but of my interfering in the operational discharge of a chief officer's duties. My hon. Friend has been to see me about this matter. I have taken account of his representations and have passed them on, but I am not prepared to interfere in these operational matters of chief officers of police.

On the day when we are expecting the announcement of painful public expenditure cuts, will the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, have second thoughts about the wisdom of spending at least £I million of taxpayers' money on a Bill which will only make it easier to make complaints against the police?

I do not agree with that figure. The sum will be very small indeed—much nearer £100,000 in the next financial year and then rising a little above that. I have no intention of allowing the Bill, which has gone through with a certain amount of travail, to be set aside by the opposition of the hon. Gentleman or even by that of any chief officer of police, however distinguished.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's action in resisting the amendment in the House of Lords is greatly to be commended? That proposal, put forward at the instance of chief officers, would have struck at the heart of the Bill. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if chief officers go ahead with their threat to resign, though regretted those resignations must be accepted?

I am not aware of any threat to resign. The amendment debated in the House of Lords would have meant that the two independent members would merely have been assessors. It was defeated in the other place by a quite substantial majority. I think that the amendment would not have been in accordance with the views of the House of Commons generally or, I suspect, of many people in the House. The Bill will therefore return from the House of Lords with no amendments which I think we need resist.

The right hon. Gentleman earlier mentioned Dame Nellie Melba. Will he consider humming quietly to himself, between now and leaving for Brussels, that a policeman's lot is not a happy one, and leaving it happier by taking his Bill to Brussels with him?

I hardly ever hum, mainly because I cannot do so tunefully. But I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be the right way in which to proceed. In every country in the world there has been a general desire to have an independent element for complaints against the police. It has been very difficult to achieve in practice, and the police, with all their many virtues, have always in the last resort resisted it very hard. There has been resistance by the police to such practices in other countries, although from the Police Federation here there was perhaps less than from some other bodies.

How soon does my right hon. Friend expect the Bill to be in operation?

Some time in the first part of 1977.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the confidence which everyone has in Derbyshire in the impartiality of the actions of the Chief Constable and other members of the police force at all times? The people of Derbyshire realise that, if the police cannot fulfil all the duties we would like them to fulfil, it is because the money is simply not available.

I am aware that there has been a considerable dispute about this in Derbyshire and that strong views are held on both sides. However, the way in which the police operate is not a matter for the Home Secretary or his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied with the operation of the parole system.

In general, yes, but we continue to consider, with the board, how the system might be improved.

Is it not clear that from the point of view of prisoners one of the defects of the scheme is the failure to tell a prisoner why his application for parole has been refused? On the other hand, one of the defects from the public point of view is that the Home Office refuses to publish statistics of crimes committed by people who are on parole. If the Minister would direct his attention to both these aspects of the parole system, it would be materially improved from the point of view of both prisoners and the public.

If the hon. Member had read the speech which my right hon. Friend made to the New Bridge Society, he would have found that my right hon. Friend said we should try to move to a position in which prisoners who are refused parole are given some reasons for the refusal. The 1974 report of the Parole Board made clear the objections and difficulties involved, but it is carrying out a limited experiment to see whether a method can be found to achieve this end. My right hon. Friend feels that this is a matter of priority for action.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be something wrong with the system when we have a man, Des Warrent still remaining in gaol for fighting to improve the wages and conditions of his fellow workers and at the same time those involved in lining their own pockets—I refer to members of the Poulson gang—are allowed out on parole in order to carry on in the same old fashion as before?

My hon. Friend will know that the Parole Board takes account of these matters when it considers applications for parole. He should cast his mind back to the considerable debate which we had at the last Question Time for the Home Department when the question of behaviour in prison was said to be central to this issue.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he remains satisfied with the present measures to combat the increase in the crime of vandalism by those under the age of 17 years.

We fully share the widespread concern about offences of this kind. We are satisfied that the police and the courts have adequate powers to enable them to deal with juveniles who commit offences of criminal damage. However, these offences present the police with special problems of prevention and detection. Responsible parental concern and control, and the watchfulness of the local community, have a vital part to play.

Does the Minister of State agree that one way of reducing vandalism is to make parents pay in every case for the repair of the damage done by their children?

No. I think that blanket solutions are highly dangerous [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members would only listen, instead of talking from a sedentary position, they might find out why. We are concerned with giving magistrates adequate power to carry out their duties, and the way in which they discharge their duties must be for them. Conservatives would be very concerned if there was dictation or political interference with the freedom of the courts.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a relatively inexpensive, efficient and reformative response to the problem of vandalism would be the extension of community service orders to those under 16, so that they could make some retribution to society for the damage they cause?

We are considering a possible extension, but we are more concerned with the fulfilment of the original ideas of the scheme.

Why should we not bring back the birch for the young vandals?

Fascist!

Because we have moved out of the antediluvian state which the right hon. Member still seems to be in.

May I press my hon. Friend concerning community service orders? In this matter of vandalism, surely the emphasis should be placed on enabling those who have engaged in such activities and who have been convicted to be shown that they have a useful rôle to play in the community. Does my hon. Friend agree with the impression I have gained that he is being neutral about the positive aspects of community service orders?

The impression which my hon. Friend has gained must be his own. I assure him that I am neither neutral nor negative. Community service orders have a useful purpose, but there are financial constraints and no alternative measure is without public expenditure.

Does not the Minister agree that one of the substantial steps that the Government might take to check the increase of juvenile crime is to implement speedily the proposals of the Select Committee which considered the working of the Children and Young Persons Act? Can he give a likely date for the implementation of those proposals?

The Government's response and their project for action have been published already. Such measures as call for Government action are being considered, and consultations are being pursued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from voluntary organisations about their rôle in the structure of the urban aid programme.

Papers have been submitted recently by the Standing Conference of Councils for Voluntary Service and by the Greater Manchester Council for Voluntary Service.

Is it not the case that, since local authorities must take a contribution of 25 per cent. if an application under the urban aid programme from a voluntary organisation is to be approved by the Department, a large number of problems, particularly in a period of financial stringency, immediately arise? Therefore, could a grant be made covering the sum applied for, which would not necessarily be the total cost of the project?

We do not believe that a change in the criteria would be desirable or would lead to greater take-up. A large number of applications for grants under the urban aid programme—about 20 per cent. of all approved expenditure—have been for projects run by voluntary organisations.

The urban aid programme is unnecessarily confusing and complicated for the applicants. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time he discussed with his right hon. Friend a means of overcoming this problem and making applications easier, so that resources are directed where they are most needed?

I am always willing to discuss ways in which the situation might be improved. But if it is unnecessarily complex to have a local authority set out its own priorities for its own area, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. Local authorities can best settle the order of priorities in their own areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with progress in phasing out the remand of schoolgirls to prison.

The Government attach great importance to phasing out the remand of girls under the age of 17 to prison. With a view to ending the remand of 14-year-old girls to prison service establishments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is engaged in urgent consultations with the local authority associations, in particular on the ability of the community homes system to contain the small number of very violent girls of this age. We are also in consultation with the authorities concerned over the conditions to be prescribed in Regulations under Section 69 of the Children Act 1975 for the issue of certificates of unruliness.

My right hon. Friend's action in ending the remand of girls of 14 to prison is greatly appreciated. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that there are at present three boys and three girls aged 15 in local prisons and over 132 schoolboys and girls in remand centres? In spite of the very welcome action by my right hon. Friend, further progress is urgently needed so that we may end the remand of all schoolchildren to prison service establishments.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of acceptance of the principle involved. However, the provision of the necessary alternative places in community homes is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that because of the lack of facilities magistrates often have difficulty in finding places for young boys and girls who need temporarily to be kept in custody? Is he looking at the problem generally as well as at the particular question of schoolgirls?

Yes; I am well aware of what my hon. Friend has said. We are proceeding with a programme which will increase the number of secure places in observation and assessment centres. That will materially help, particularly in securing accommodation for girls.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to speed up his Department's replies to Members' letters.

The handling of all correspondence is kept under review, and letters from Members are accorded a high priority of treatment. Many of the letters which I and my colleagues receive about individual cases call for detailed inquiries, often outside the Home Office, to be made, and a full, early reply cannot then reasonably be expected. In such cases an interim reply is usually sent.

I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties and those of his Department in this respect. I join those who wish him well on his departure in due course to Brussels. As a parting present, however, will he see whether he can bring his Department a little higher up the league which shows the speed with which Departments reply to Members' letters? At the moment I have the feeling that his Department is at the bottom and that it takes the longest to reply.

It is certainly very near the bottom, and I agree with my hon. Friend to that extent. There are some good reasons for this. A lot of the inquiries we receive have to be sent out, particularly to the police, who are fairly slow in replying. Various other considerations of this sort must be taken into account.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout my parliamentary life, and regardless of who was Home Secretary at any given time, the reputation of the Home Office was always inferior to that of any other Department on the question of dealing with correspondence? Will the right hon. Gentleman distinguish the last few weeks of his period in office by instigating a thorough inquiry as to why that is so?

There are certain valid reasons for that. As I have indicated, we tend to reply at too great a length, but we also have to make a great number of outside inquiries. This is a serious position and I pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge on 24th June, he will collect statistics on a basis which distinguishes the nationality of those convicted under Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1965.

Criminal statistics are not normally collected on this basis, and we doubt if the usefulness of information about nationality would justify making special arrangements.

Is not that answer ridiculous humbug? Does it not smack of the secrecy of the Star Chamber? Why does not the Minister say outright what the nationality is? Is this a cover-up for persecuting the English nation?

The hon. Gentleman has a somewhat affectionate place as a licensed buffoon in this Chamber—

Withdraw.

Disgraceful.

Order. The term "buffoon" should not be applied to anyone in the Chamber.

Then I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. But the facts that the hon. Gentleman rambles about here are not germane to Section 6 of the Act. That section deals with incitement to racial hatred, and the Act states that people who incite to racial hatred shall be dealt with whatever their nationality. There is, therefore, no question of the conspiracy which the hon. Gentleman seems to see in everything.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

I shall take it immediately after Questions.

It relates to your ruling a moment ago, Mr. Speaker. However, I shall raise it at the end of Questions.

I shall be obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he will do that.

I might not agree with everything that is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), but the Minister should understand that my hon. Friend holds views very strongly and he puts them forward most sincerely in the House.

The depth of conviction is not of itself justification for the views that are put forward.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the BBC.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Chairman of the BBC.

In view of the excellent suggestion by Professor Alan Thompson, the Chairman of BBC Scotland, that Scotland should have another national anthem, would it not be possible to have an anthem that is more Socialist oriented? Would it not be possible to sing that anthem at the end of every Session of Parliament, provided that we could keep the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) away from the Mace?

Whether or not Scotland should have another national anthem, either more or less Socialist oriented, is not a subject for conversation between the Chairman of BBC in Scotland and me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportuniy to advise the Chairman of the BBC that Members of Parliament do not usually make formal complaints lightly about political bias in BBC programmes? Is he satisfied with the ability of the BBC to investigate complaints of that nature?

I am not sure that I would absolutely underwrite the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. But I hope that the BBC takes with appropriate seriousness the questions that are put to it and that it has appropriate machinery for dealing with them.

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should see the Chairman of the BBC as soon as possible? Will he then raise the case of Mr. Denis McShane, who was dismissed by the BBC for having participated as a bogus contributor to a radio 'phone-in programme on the instructions of his producer? Will he further raise with the chairman the fact that the practice of putting on bogus contributors to these programmes is a fraud which is being perpetrated at public expense? Is he aware that we would like to know how widespread it is?

To be honest, I have no idea what my hon. Friend is talking about. If he will write to me about the matter, I shall gladly look into it. I am certainly not in favour of fraudulent 'phone-in programmes with fraudulent participants. The question of BBC staff policy must, however be a matter for the Chairman. If my hon. Friend will write to me, I shall inform myself of the matter and if I think it necessary I shall pass it on to the Chairman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Chairman of the BBC the need to provide radio and television learners courses in the Gaelic language in Scotland comparable to the standard of Ochen' Priyatno or Svidanie v Moskvye or, if the Secretary of State prefers it, Dewch i Siarad or Cam Ymlaen?

That is a matter that can certainly be considered, but I should have hoped that the spontaneous force of these indigenous languages, deeply rooted in local culture, would not need to be instructed exclusively by a central organisation from London.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government will publish their comments on the 1974–75 report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, "The Organisation of Race Relations Administration".

The Government have given a good deal of consideration to the Select Committee's valuable and wide-ranging report, and we are planning to publish a full reply as soon as possible.

As some of the Select Committee's recommendations were about resources, and in view of recent reports in some Sunday newspapers, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government are about to announce a new programme of aid to inner city areas?

The Government are well aware that aside from the general need, which I think the House knows I fully support, for stringency in public expenditure, there is a special problem in inner city areas. I hope that we shall be able to consider it constructively even in the present climate. As the House will be aware, the Race Relations Bill Standing Committee imposed a general duty on local authorities against the advice of the Government. However, having considered the matter I should have no wish to resist that course, and that duty will stand.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of his best acts in this area before going to the presidency of the European Commission would be to provide reassurance that there will be an improvement in genuinely good race relations by tightening the restrictions on new entrants?

I do not believe that that question can be usefully answered strung on to a Question about urban deprivation and the recommendations and report of the Select Committee. I have said firmly and clearly—this remains my view—that effective control of immigration is essential to good race relations. Exactly where we operate that frontier, bearing in my mind our commitment, which we intend to preserve, and certain considerations bearing on family unity as well as United Kingdom passport holders, is a matter that we debated at length in the House. It would be a mistake to think that I could advance the argument in the course of a short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the Boundary Commission in establishing electoral areas for the county council elections to be held in 1977.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England last month started the first of its reviews of county electoral arrangements in the county of Northumberland. I understand that it is unlikely that any of these reviews will be completed in time to take effect for the 1977 county council elections.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the enormous difficulties that will be caused as a consequence of the register not being prepared in time? In Lancashire it is obvious that we shall have to revert to the 1973 electoral register. In this rather ludicrous situation, would it not be possible to expedite the provision of the electoral register for 1977?

Although I recognise what my hon. Friend has said about the difficulties of working to the 1973 electoral areas, I do not believe that it would be possible in this instance to meet his request.

In view of the already heavy burden that the Boundary Commission has to bear, will it be possible for it to draw up the constituency boundaries for direct elections to the European Parliament in 1978 sufficiently early for the political parties to select their candidates and put their programmes before the people?

We believe that that will be possible, but I have no doubt that there is a heavy burden on the commission at present.

Would it not be absolutely sensible for the county council boundaries to be finished first before the commission goes on to the boundaries for the European Parliament, because the two are not unrelated?

I do not think that that arises from the original problem. In fact, the commission is proceeding as best it can to district and and county reviews as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he may well receive a proposal for the alteration of the ward boundaries in the Bradford metropolitan district, about which there are diverse views? When he comes to make Orders as a result of the recommendations of the commission, will he take carefully into account any objections made to them on behalf of working people as they apply to the ward boundaries to which I have referred?

I take note of my hon. Friend's pre-emptive strike.

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

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

Now that the Salmon Report has been published, and in the light of the third point of Mrs. Ward-Jackson's addendum at page 118, will the Prime Minister seek to initiate a public inquiry into the relevance of her remarks regarding the activities of local government in the North-East?

I have not studied the report in detail although I have read the conclusions. I shall look up what is said in page 118. As regards an independent inquiry, I understand that this has been considered many times. The view is taken that, as criminal proceedings arising from the various ramifications of the Poulson affair have not been concluded, it would not be right to consider setting up any other sort of inquiry at this moment. However, later in the year we shall be able to consider the matter again.

Wherever my right hon. Friend pays an official visit in the near future, will he take the opportunity of attacking the cruelty and stupidity of the parliamentary tactics adopted by the Leader of the Opposition which result in dragging sick Members to the House, including Members with debilitating illnesses and infections such as mumps, in addition to preventing Ministers— [Interruption]— from attending conferences of major international importance?

I think that there has been a revulsion against the tactics of bringing certain Members to the House earlier this week. Anyone who saw some of those who were brought here, as some of us did, would believe that there must be a much better way of conducting our affairs. I understand that there may be some improved arrangements next week, but it is not for me to comment on that at the moment. As regards infectious diseases, I hope that my hon. Friend was not close enough to anybody to catch any.

Perhaps the best way of avoiding these things is not to have five guillotine measures in one day. Why could not the Prime Minister follow the example of the Opposition and refuse to bring in his most sick Members? We did not bring in all of ours.

That is not quite the information I had, or the impression that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was conveying about certain sick Opposition Members. Perhaps the best remedy, if we cannot put our own affairs in order, is to have a large Labour majority at the next General Election.

As the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) did not feel able to take part in our debates on the Education Bill, would not Blyth be a suitable place for the Prime Minister to make a speech explaining whether he believes in freedom of choice in schooling for all children or only for the children of the rich and powerful?

I have every intention of making a speech on a number of educational matters at an appropriate moment in the autumn. As regards the education of any children, that is the right of the parents and no one else.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Clayton-le-Woods.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he should have the opportunity to visit Clayton-le-Woods, which is within the boundary of the Central Lancashire New Town, he would find great concern that the public expenditure cuts may result in houses being provided without the amenities and educational facilities which should go with them? Can he assure us that there is no danger of cuts of this nature?

I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer later. Our plans will affect new towns, among other matters, but I cannot go into detail at the moment.

As the Prime Minister is not going to Clayton-le-Woods will he find time on the way to his Sussex farm to meet teenagers in my constituency and explain why he has not declared redundant his grotesquely incompetent Secretary of State for Employment for his total failure to deal with the problems of jobs for school leavers?

A question phrased in that way seems to import more political prejudice than concern for the real problem. I imagine that that was the hon. Gentleman's intention. We are considering what additional measures may be brought in to facilitate the employment of more school leavers in the next few weeks and months.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the number of school leavers and other people who are unemployed is due to the crisis of capitalism, the system which Opposition Members support hook, line and sinker? Does he not also agree that swingeing public expenditure cuts would produce even more unemployment and would represent a yielding to international bankers? Is not the real task of the Labour Government to seek Socialist solutions against the support of capitalism by hon. Members opposite?

My hon. Friend seems to be making a point that is more consistent with a speech than with a visit to Clayton-le-Woods. There is no doubt that what happens on public expenditure is bound to have an impact on unemployment. We have to balance these matters, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will show in a few minutes' time.

Regardless of whether the Prime Minister goes to Clayton-le-Woods, will he repeat to the House what he said a moment ago that decisions on the education of children should be taken by parents and not by the State?

That is certainly my view and it is the view of the great majority of people in this country, who now have a greater freedom of choice and a wider curricula than ever before.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to Bonn.

My visit to Bonn on 30th June was in accordance with the informal understanding reached between my predecessor and Chancellor Schmidt that the Heads of Government of our two countries should aim to meet for bilateral talks about every six months. As has become customary at these meetings the talks were conducted in an informal manner and covered the questions of common concern which were uppermost in our minds. A particularly welcome feature this time was the inclusion in part of our discussions of members of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy. They were already in the Federal Republic and, at Herr Schmidt's invitation, joined the talks along with representatives of German management and trade unions.

Was the Prime Minister able to reassure the German Chancellor that his commitment to introduce legislation for direct elections to the European Parliament in the next Session is firm, definite and unequivocal?

I have nothing to add to the many answers I have already given on this matter in the House. The position remains exactly the same as it was last time I answered these questions.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that these private tête-à-têtes between the President of France and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic are a very unsatisfactory way of conducting the affairs of the EEC and are provoking serious resentment among other members?

I am not sure that that is true. There has been a substantial tour of visits by Heads of Government. Some visits have been more useful than others. I have found my talks valuable in concerting our approach, not on Community questions alone but on much wider questions concerning our policies in other parts of the world.

Did the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the Federal German Chancellor what he has never made clear to the people of this country—namely, whether he believes that freedom of parental choice in education should be available in the public sector as well as in the private sector?

We did not discuss education.

When my right hon. Friend next visits Europe, will he take up with EEC Heads of Government the question of economic aid to Italy? Can he tell us whether the statement of the West German Chancellor that there would be no economic aid from the Community if there were Communist participation in the Italian Government represents the policy of the British Government?

I followed the exchange between Herr Schmidt and the Press on these matters. There was an exchange of views in Puerto Rico on the general matter, but if there were a request from the Italian Government—and none has yet been received—Communist participation in that Government would be a complicating factor. That was the nature of the discussion, but no conclusions were reached.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that German and Belgian politicians want to turn Europe into a federal State, as do many of the Christian Democrat parties? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that neither of the main political parties in this country wants anything like that? Is it not only fair to make that clear?

I admire the pertinacity with which the hon. Gentleman pursues his case, but I do not believe that saying something 77 times makes it more valid than saying it once. The hon. Gentleman and the House know my views on this matter very well.

When my right hon. Friend met representatives of the Bullock Committee, was he able to ascertain whether their report would be available on time so that legislation on worker participation can be introduced next Session?

The exchange of views that we had on industrial democracy was extremely valuable to both sides. The British representatives, who included employers and trade unionists as well as independent members, felt that what had happened and was happening in Germany offered a great many lessons. In a private discussion with me Lord Bullock said that his committee was making rapid progress, but I cannot promise on his behalf when the report will be ready. As soon as it is received, we shall begin consultations with a view to introducing legislation, but I am naturally unable to say when that will be.

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to visit Greenwich he could meet members of the Labour group on the local authority, who have already made substantial cuts in their aims and aspirations and in their services to the people and who are willing to co-operate with the Government in maintaining a genuine standstill on spending? Is he also aware, however, that they would make absolutely clear that they cannot accept further cuts which would have a major impact on families in real need?

I am aware of the situation in Greenwich and of the cooperation extended by the Labour group. What concerns me about local authority expenditure is that when it is necessary to economise many authorities choose to cut services in preference to staff. As the purpose of the staff is to provide the services, I hope that they will keep a proper balance in these matters.

Would not the Prime Minister, if he addressed the council in Greenwich, have an opportunity of explaining the direct link between the expenditure bonanza during the Government's first 18 months in office, which was the price for their two General Election victories, and the collapse of confidence which has led to the no doubt inadequate cuts which are about to be announced?

I should certainly explain that local authority expenditure which qualifies for rate support grant has gone up by about three times in the space of three years. That, alas, is not expenditure over which the Government have direct control. They pay 65 per cent. or some proportion or percentage of it. However, there is no direct control over current expenditure by local authorities. That is undoubtedly part of the source of our difficulties at present.