asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will issue his new report on member participation in occupational pension schemes.

I will report on the outcome of the consultations we are having on member participation in pension schemes when those consultations have been completed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if he continues with his dogmatic approach it will be possible for trade unionists to nominate 50 per cent. of representatives on company pension funds when it is possible that only 5 per cent. might be members of trade unions? Is he further aware that in a recent survey on a parallel matter 84 per cent. of trade unionists questioned thought that all employees of the company, and not just trade unionists, should participate in the election of representatives? Why does the right hon. Gentleman seek to deny democracy in this way?

I would make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing dogmatic about the position that we have taken. In the White Paper we are not requiring that every scheme should change. In fact, many schemes will not change because trade unions and members of those schemes are satisfied with the existing structure. It is not a prescription for a requirement for change. It creates the opportunity for change, and it is a change that is much needed.

Is the Secretary of State saying that he is not now envisaging compulsory legislation for member participation or, in his right hon. Friend's words, trade union participation in occupational pension schemes?

I am not saying that at all. I have not withdrawn from anything said in the White Paper. It is precisely the proposals in the White Paper that are being discussed with the CBI, the TUC and other organisations. We are discussing how we can implement, and the methods of implementing, the proposals contained in the White Paper. We are being very flexible in our approach. I will report to the House as soon as our consultations have been completed.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the proposed extension of the non-contributory invalidity pension to married women.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his statement to the House on public expenditure on 22nd July last, the extension of non-contributory invalidity pension to disabled housewives is deferred until November 1977, and there is nothing I can add to my right hon. Friend's statement.

While accepting the financial and other difficulties involved, may I ask whether there is a chance of the Minister bringing the date forward sooner than he has announced?

The Chancellor made clear the reasons for the deferment. I am afraid that there is nothing I can add to my right hon. Friend's statement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we were told that the extension was deferred for administrative reasons? Is my hon. Friend aware that if there had been no difficulties in that regard the money would now have been paid? A substantial number of people in the country, and on all sides of the House, are getting a little sick and tired of the fact that the worst off in our society are being penalised. Will my hon. Friend please convey to the Treasury the views of hon. Members on all sides of the House that this is wrong?

There have been administrative problems as well as the problem of resources. I appreciate how strongly my hon. Friend feels on the matter. I know he will appreciate that my right hon. Friend and I are also very concerned to make sure that this new benefit is in payment as soon as possible. There is nothing that I can add to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timing of the introduction of the benefit.

Is not more concern needed? It will shortly be three years since the House, by a overwhelming vote, expressed its desire to see this measure put into effect. It has been delayed for administrative reasons for much too long. Will the Minister do something about it?

I must repeat that there are reasons of resources as well as reasons of administration why it has not been possible to introduce the benefit earlier. I have said that I am grateful to those members of the all-party Disablement Group who have helped me to make sure that the scheme, when introduced, is not a botched one, as it might have been without their help. I am afraid that I cannot go further than the terms of my original answer.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the non-contributory invalidity pension for disabled housewives can now be introduced without any inequity between cases of the same disability? Can my hon. Friend also say how many disabled housewives are likely to benefit from the new measure?

With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we expect that there will be 40,000 new beneficiaries. We are extremely concerned to make certain that there are no inequities. As with the present incapacity benefits, the question whether a married woman is entitled to the NCIP will be decided by the independent statutory authorities, in the first instance by an insurance officer with an appeal lying to the local tribunal, and then to a national insurance commissioner.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has planned a further meeting with representatives of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

My right hon. Friend is meeting Commission members again on 23rd March.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets members of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will he confirm or deny the reports which are circulating that the Government intend to cut the real value of unemployment pay?

The Government intend no such action. Therefore, it will not be necessary for it to be discussed.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will he press upon its representatives that they should make it easier for pensioners and other long-term recipients of supplementary benefit to have their rates and rents paid direct to the authorities rather than their having to collect the money, take it home, possibly keep it at the risk of its being pinched, and then hand it to the appropriate authorities?

This is a matter which the Supplementary Benefits Commission is looking at closely. At present, it cooperates with local authorities. I take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise on this matter that the councils themselves are extremely anxious that a change should be made? Although everyone will recognise that it is good to encourage people to manage their own monetary affairs, some tenants fail persistently in this regard.

I certainly take note of the hon. Lady's point.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that old-age pension benefits, sickness benefits and unemployment benefits were always the same until the vandals at present on the Opposition Benches passed the 1973 Act, and that it was they who made the distinction between the unemployed and the rest of those receiving social security benefits?

The Government give equal importance to the recipients of retirement pensions, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, and benefits for the disabled.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to correct his right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who perpetrated a manifest falsehood? The Conservative Party has never drawn any distinction between the benefits paid for unemployment and for sickness.

Oh, yes; definitely it did.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the Government hope to conclude discussions on the report of the Committee on Child Health Services.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 14th January.

Does the Secretary of State understand that the Opposition accept fully the need for these consultations and that we hope that early action will follow as a result of them? Meanwhile, however, will he encourage health authorities to go ahead with the implementation of various sections of the report which perhaps do not cost very much or, indeed, any money at all? I have in mind in particular the psychiatric sections of it.

I am looking at which parts of the report might well be proceeded with much earlier than the others, especially the recommendations which have either nil or very little resource implications. But it would be wrong to take any piece of it out of context and reach a decision before consultations. Giving until 30th June for consultations, bearing in mind that there are roughly 140 organisations involved, is giving about the right amount of time. I take the report very seriously. As soon as the consultations are completed, I shall want to bring to the House the Government's conclusions on how to implement the recommendations.

Is it not strange that moral factors and cheaper economic factors can wait? Would it not be helpful for the Treasury if my right hon. Friend implemented Chapter 8 of the Court Report without further discussion? That section of the report deals with perinatal care. My right hon. Friend could save 2,000 lives per annum. What is more, 10,000 children who are now born disabled need not be born disabled. Bearing in mind that it costs £4,000 per annum to look after such a child, in one year my right hon. Friend could save £40 million.

I share my hon. Friend's concern. However, I do not think he suggests that, if I immediately said "Yes" to his proposal, that number of lives, with one wave of a wand, would no longer be damaged. I agree that these are vital proposals and that they are not heavy in resource demand. It is right, however, for me to consult the professional organisations. It would be wrong to rush ahead and say that we intended to do this regardless of what the professional bodies thought.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that this is such an important report with so many implications for the future care of children that it would be wrong to start implementing parts of it before we had a full debate in the House?

It would be wrong before there had been effective consultations, and it would be a great help if there could he a debate in the House. But I am not the Leader of the House, and I cannot enter into a commitment, although I would very much like to see a debate on this vital report.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what final date for completion of the new Preston Hospital can be envisaged, given reasonable progress by the contractors.

It is expected that the main development of the new Preston Hospital will be completed by March 1980.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is considerable satisfaction in Preston that this project is to go ahead? Will he, however, give further consideration to whether, in view of the general unemployment problems that we face in Lancashire, there might not be a way to persuade the contractor to reach an earlier completion date than the one which he has given?

I shall take my hon. Friend's views into account, of course. Phase 2 of the contract is due to start before phase 1 is finished. There will be an overlap there, and this will assist with the problems to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the staff at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital will be offered alternative employment when the in-patient facilities are closed.

The Camden and Islington Area Health Authority (Teaching) has said that there will be no compulsory redundancies and that staff at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital will be offered alternative employment when the in-patient facilities are closed at Euston Road.

Is it not the case that the transfer of in-patient services has been postponed again? Why is this? Is the Minister aware that the staff of this famous hospital enjoy the high regard and even affection of the very large number of women who have been treated there? Can he give an assurance that when these facilities are closed down these able and dedicated staff will not only be given employment but will be given comparable employment?

Certainly it is the intention to offer comparable employment to employees of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital wherever possible. The removal of facilities from Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital to Whittington Hospital has been postponed for a further eight weeks to ensure that the wards to receive the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson patients are of the highest standards when they get there.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hospital has given a unique service for nearly 100 years to women living in central London? Will he consider again the many proposals before him to close other hospitals in central London, as the closure of many specialist units would be yet another factor leading to the decline of our inner city areas?

I have very much in mind the matters of health care in the inner city areas. Whenever a community health council disagrees with a health authority's proposal for closure, that proposal ends up on either my desk or that of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman can be confident that we shall take all these factors into account.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of my hon. Friends and I are glad that the transfer of patients was postponed and that we hope that the whole principle is still under consideration? Does he agree that it is dangerous to dispense with this specialist hospital for women in view of the grossly male-dominated State medical services in general?

There is no intention to dispense with the concept of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. Both my right hon. Friend and his predecessor are determined that the hospital will be transferred to the Whittington Hospital under the name of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital and that there will be facilities there for women to be treated by women. In that way the hospital will be preserved. It is our firm intention to proceed with that plan.

Price asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will next review the level of the mobility allowance.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his statement to the House on public expenditure on 22nd July last, we propose to increase the rate of the mobility allowance in November of this year. I cannot add to that announcement at present, except to say that the review of the level of the allowance will be carried out in adequate time to bring in the increase from November.

May I ask the Minister two quick questions in response to his reply? First, will he guarantee to the House that when the allowance is increased it will be sufficient to take care of the substantial inflation in travel costs? Secondly, will it be sufficient to assist disabled people to acquire a car, bearing in mind that the present allowance is too low to make that possible?

We are enjoined by legislation to have regard to the national economic situation as a whole, to the general standard of living and to such other matters as the Secretary of State thinks relevant. I cannot anticipate the review, but we have said repeatedly that we hope to be able to maintain the real value of the allowance and, if possible, to increase it. As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, I cannot go further than the terms of my right hon. Friend's letter to disabled drivers, except to say that I am closely in touch with the Central Council for the Disabled in respect of consideration of arrangements to help disabled drivers who want to purchase cars of their own.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is grave concern about the upper limits for the mobility allowance scheme and the delay in allowing it to people up to 60 and 65 years of age? Is he aware that there is particular concern about there being no intention to allow it to people over 65? Does he appreciate that in rural areas especially the mobility allowance is essential, and that it is even more essential in the age ranges to which I have referred? Will he give an assurance that the Government will move rapidly to extend the scheme in that direction?

It is a new allowance and I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it is an essential new benefit. I am under many pressures. There are those who want to extend the age range, there are those who want to include the blind and there are those who want to increase immediately the amount of allowance. We are in the process of trebling public expenditure on mobility for the disabled. I shall try my very best to help as many disabled people as I can to improve their mobility.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the extension of outdoor mobility help for young people has been warmly received throughout the country? How many applications have been received for children between the ages of 5 and 10?

At this moment about 9,000 applications are being processed. For the most part, they are on behalf of children in the 5 to 10 years age group. As the House will know, the benefit will be paid to children in that age group from 13th April 1977. I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the help they have given in publicising the extension of the mobility allowance to severely disabled children.

As regards the capital purchase of vehicles for the disabled, what precisely are the recommendations given to hire-purchase companies? There appears to be grave doubt as to whether they have offered real relaxation of their terms.

There should not be any doubt about the lifting of hire-purchase controls in the case of disabled persons wishing to buy cars by that means. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular difficulty in mind concerning one of his constituents, I shall be glad to examine it. When I referred to hire-purchase arrangements, I was doing so in the context of the excellent work now being undertaken by the Central Council for the Disabled.

I appreciate the difficulties that the Minister faces in trying to extend the mobility allowance even further, but will he look seriously at the problem of youngsters under the age of five, particularly where there is a short life expectancy and where the offer of the mobility allowance would be of great assistance to young mothers who find themselves in awkward situations?

I am mindful of that problem. I shall do whatever I can to extend mobility help. The hon. Lady, who takes a personal interest in these matters, will appreciate the clamant pressures that one has from people who have had no help before but who think that they should be helped under this new scheme.

Without wishing to detract from the mobility allowance scheme, may I ask what progress has been made in finding a suitable alternative invalid vehicle?

My right hon. Friend has said that we accept that when it is no longer possible to replace the invalid tricycle for the disabled driver who still wants a specialised vehicle—we accept that there will be a continuing demand for specialised vehicles—we shall examine the home and world markets to help such people. I cannot go very much further than that today. My hon. Friend may be well assured that we are determined not to immobilise anyone who is mobile now. However, we must have in mind that there are people whose advancing disabilities make it impossible for them to continue to drive. The mobility allowance will be available to them in future.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the sale of analgesics.

No, Sir.

Is it not about time that the Minister made up his mind about the recommendations of the Medicines Commission? Is he aware that Help the Aged is most anxious that these basic drugs should not be restricted to chemists? It feels that that would cause considerable inconvenience to the elderly, especially in rural areas.

This is the first exchange of parliamentary views that we have had in the Chamber since I announced my recipt of the Commission's advice last October. I have received representations from Help the Aged along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

In making up his mind on this issue, will my hon. Friend be aware that many of my hon. Friends, including myself, are suspicious of the drug companies' campaign to extend the sale of drugs? Many of us feel that too many drugs of this sort rather than too few are being consumed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to educate the population at large that drugs are not confectionery to be bought off the shelves but medicines that should be taken with advice and care?

It is important to educate the public about the true place of medicines in our national life. My hon. Friend's worry about the drug companies was a factor that was brought to my attention by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Since it is now four or five months since the hon. Gentleman received the alternative reply in terms of the recommendations by the Medicines Commission, is it not time that the uncertainty was ended? Does he not appreciate that a large number of traders, both large and small, want to know where they stand? If there are to be changes in the law, those traders will have to incur expenses in applying those changes. Will the Minister soon make an announcement?

There is no immediate need to lay regulations before the House. I have received no representations from anybody about any state of uncertainty, although I have received representations from people outside the House and from hon. Members in the form of Written Questions, both for and against the proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to pay compensation to the victims of vaccine damage, to improve procedures to minimise the number of future casualties and to establish an inquiry into the administration of whooping cough vaccine.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement I shall be making at the end of Questions this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the total amount of means-tested benefits for which people were eligible but which were unclaimed in the last year for which such an estimate is available.

Estimates in this field are necessarily uncertain. For family income supplement and free welfare milk, it is estimated that unclaimed benefits amount to about £1 million and £12 million respectively. For supplementary benefit the amount is clearly much larger, but no reliable figures are available and the subject is being studied further in con nection with the review of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme that my right hon. Friend announced last September when the annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission for 1975 was published. The report suggested that the 1974 take-up rate, in terms of numbers of persons eligible for benefit, had been of the order of 75 per cent., but this does not provide an adequate indication of the amount of unclaimed benefit.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very full answer. Does he not agree that it would be better if certain persons in the media, and, indeed, some Opposition Members, spent more time ensuring that people in need were getting the benefits to which they were entitled instead of spending their time making often wildly inaccurate statements about alleged abuses of social security?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The take-up of benefits is an indication that many people are not rushing to take every benefit offered by the State. Indeed, we are concerned that many people who are entitled—this relates particularly to elderly people—are being deterred from taking the benefits to which they are entitled because of the campaign throughout the country. I urge those who have a genuine claim for benefit to come forward and claim it.

On the other side of the matter, has not the right hon. Gentleman noted the statistics issued by his Department in regard to the county of Dorset—namely, that the amount of detected frauds in social security matters has multiplied threefold in 12 months? Is that statistic equally reflected in other parts of the country, how much cash is involved, and would not that cash be better spent in assisting deserving people?

The figures given by the hon. Gentleman show that the Government do not intend to allow people to defraud the system. A greater number of prosecutions has taken place, and we shall continue to prosecute people who indulge in fraud. In taking that course, we must not deter the many millions of people who are genuinely entitled to benefit. My Department pays out about £10,000 million a year in benefit, and last year the amount of which the Department was defrauded amounted to £1·6 million.

The figures given by my right hon. Friend show that large numbers of vulnerable people still do not receive their full entitlement. What steps is he taking to ensure that those people are living at the standard to which they are entitled? Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that they receive full entitlement?

The Government are using the publicity machine, are issuing leaflets and are advertising to ensure that people take up the benefits to which they are entitled. Furthermore, the Supplementary Benefits Commission is examining the matter in great depth.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the extreme complexity of many benefits and the great difficulty faced by those who wish to understand to what benefits they are entitled?

Yes, I shall do what the hon. Gentleman requests of me, but he will note that we are constantly enjoined to implement and extend mobility allowance and invalidity benefit. If we are to extend those benefits to those who need them, obviously it is a complex exercise.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons, at the latest available date, are receiving more per week in tax-free social security benefits, including benefits in cash and in kind, than they would receive if they were working for the average taxed wage.

It is not possible to give a figure, but the number is certainly very small.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is something desperately wrong with a system in which there has been an admission by the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission that 20 per cent. of workers are better off by not working than by working? Is he not aware that the figure does not include possibly another 20 per cent. who are only marginally better off by working? Will he first introduce legislation, to tax benefits, if the Government seek to tax every other source of income, and, secondly, will he make certain that it is impossible to earn more by not working than by working?

It does not advance the hon. Gentleman's case if he misquotes the chairman of the Commission. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman refers involves possibly one in 10 workers. Taking other factors into account, we believe that the figure is much higher when we consider those who are supposed to be defrauding the system. If I may give the hon. Gentleman some information on this matter, a person with average weekly earnings of £67 gross in November 1976, with a wife and four children and paying average rent and rates, would have a net weekly income of £49·54. If he were receiving all benefits, including earning-related sums, he would obtain £46·58. The important thing, however, is that after earnings-related benefit has ceased—and we must remember that the benefit was introduced to shield people during immediate unemployment—the figure would be about £40 per week. Since we are talking about large families with a great number of children, the hon. Gentleman appears to be attacking the children in those families.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members are becoming increasingly irritated by attempts made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) to seek to protect his waning political fortunes by that type of puerile supplementary question? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to the House that if there are any further attempts to ask him such questions they will be given a Bronx cheer?

The many complaints and letters which I have received from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have been and are being analysed by my Department. I hope to make an interesting statement to the House in the not-too-distant future.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is absurd that people are able to obtain more money from social security benefits when they are not working than they obtain when they are working? Does he agree that the fault lies in the low tax threshold?

Low wages.

Will he seek an opportunity to discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is aware of the tax threshold and has already informed the House that he is considering that matter. Does not the hon. Lady accept that we are dealing with a very small number of people in the category of large families of whom I spoke earlier?

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice has been offered by circular by his Department to area health authorities, teaching hospitals and retained boards of governors about the employment of public relations consultants.

Advice on public relations services in the reorganised National Health Service was given to health authorities and hoards of governors in May 1974 in Health Service Circular HSC(IS)35. My hon. Friend has written to my hon. Friend following his earlier Questions on this subject and enclosing a copy of this circular.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, at a time when there is great pressure on public expenditure in the Health Service, it is unacceptable for regional health authorities, such as the South-West Thames authority, to employ the part-time services of a public relations consultant at £6,000 a year plus expenses? Will he reconsider the advice given about public relations and prohibit the employment of part-time consultants by organisations within the Health Service?

I do not think that I shall actually prohibit it. Very few health authorities make use of outside consultants. The majority use their own staff. I shall look at the question again, but the health authorities know that I expect them, within the limits of the resources available, to do public relations tasks with the funds and staff at their disposal.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the view of the Royal College of Surgeons that low morale is one of the problems in the NHS? Would he agree that public relations officers are not the answer to this problem? The best way to overcome it is to have better relations between himself and the health staff.

I shall certainly not comment on all the published evidence to the Royal Commission, and I am getting tired of evidence which starts off with the assumption that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. It is in no such situation. The NHS is facing major problems but it is trying to face them realistically. No service is done to the National Health Service or to patients by exaggerating the situation.

Does the Secretary of State recall that the previous Administration paid £250,000 to a firm of consultants, namely, McKinsey and Co., to reorganise the Health Service? That reorganisation has proved an unmitigated disaster, and the firm in question now says that it gave the wrong advice. Would my right hon. Friend seek to get back the £250,000 of the taxpayers' money?

I thought that it was quite remarkable that the firm which assisted the former Conservative Secretary of State in his efforts now recognises that the reorganisation was a disaster. I think that all of us are suffering as a result. Every time I hear Conservatives criticising the extent of administration within the Health Service I think that everyone should recognise that they imposed the system on us. I will not accept criticism from them, and I have to fight very hard to squeeze to the minimum the management costs for the efficient administration of the NHS. It is significant that no one has yet defended the position of the previous Conservative Secretary of State.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his immediate predecessor said in a document entitled "Health and Prevention" that the reorganisation had enabled the Department of Health for the first time to organise priorities and the effective allocation of resources within the NHS? Will he at least acknowledge that?

I very rarely hear right hon. and hon. Members opposite talking about planning with such warm enthusiasm. I have not sought to condemn every aspect of the reorganisation. It is perfectly true that planning can be done more effectively as a result of the reorganisation. We knew that the NHS needed to be reorganised, and the time may come when further changes must be made. But it would be very unwise for any Secretary of State now to throw the Health Service into a new traumatic reorganisation, and it certainly would not be in the interests of the patients.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) typically has taken a sentence out of context?

No.

Yes, it was taken out of context in order to distort the whole of the theme which I deployed on these matters when I was Secretary of State—namely, that the reorganisation of the NHS carried out by our predecessors in office was a management disaster.

I am so used to the right hon. Gentleman taking statements out of context that I did not even deign to comment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the part which he has played in the great debate on education.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement outlining his part in the great debate on education.

As a follow-up to my speech at Ruskin College last October, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and Wales have agreed to organise wide-ranging consultations on the issues which I had raised. There is to be a series of eight regional conferences during February and March to which representatives of parents and teachers, trade unions and employers, local authorities and other organisations are being invited; a back ground paper for consideration by the conferences has been prepared and is to be published tomorrow, and a copy will be placed in the Library. A Minister will preside at each conference. Following these discussions, the Government will publish a Green Paper in the summer. I shall continue to take the closest interest in these developments and am much encouraged by the interest that has been aroused.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Science openly admitted in an education debate from the Royal Institute that was televised on BBC2 last week that comprehensive schools were unable to meet the needs of gifted children? Is he aware that these gifted young people are vital to the future success of this country? Would he ensure that no institutions of academic excellence are destroyed before the end of the great debate? Also, would he ensure that adequate provision is made for gifted children?

My right hon. Friend said nothing at all to lead the hon. Member to that conclusion. The discussions taking place in these regional conferences will cover a number of matters of common concern. The four major issues that will be discussed are the curriculum, standards and their assessment, training of teachers, and the relationship between education and working life. If the subjects are approached on the basis on which I tried to start this debate, that can do nothing but good.

We are all very grateful that one of the subjects to which attention is being drawn is the relationship between education and industry. Does the Prime Minister accept that the much-vaunted industrial strategy to which his Government claim to be committed is not worth the paper on which it is printed unless the education system turns out highly qualified entrants to the labour market?

This is one of the questions to which I called attention in my original remarks. As a follow-up I was very glad that we were able to make arrangements between the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Science for employers to make grants of up to £500 a year for scholarships for further education and training without that amount being taken into account against mandatory grants. This is where we want to establish a relationship, and I agree entirely with what the hon. Member has said.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that in addition to these subjects it is open to the conferences to discuss a broader range of educational topics which are of interest and importance to the regions in which the meetings are being held?

There is no restriction on the nature of discussion, but the issues laid down have formed the subject of the memorandum. I hope that hon. Members will read that in the Library, because it focuses on the real issues on which we have to reach common agreement and about which parents and industry are very concerned.

Surely the Prime Minister would agree that, as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) are in happy harmony for once, we are quite right to be concerned about gifted children. This is much more important than any obsession with doing away with grammar schools. Surely there is room in a mainly comprehensive system for a certain number of selected schools for highly gifted children.

As a Socialist I am all in favour of everyone having the fullest opportunity to develop his or her talents to the maximum. That seems to be a necessary condition for a healthy society and I am certain that our education system will be formulated accordingly.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech on parliamentary democracy and individual liberty given by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 21st January at Swadlincote represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secre tary of State for Education and Science on parliamentary democracy at Swadlincote on 21st January represents Government policy.

My right hon. Friend began her speech by saying that she did not intend to discuss the affairs of Government, but in so far as she did touch on them the answer is "Yes".

Since the right hon. Lady was talking about Marxists during a large part of her speech, and following the final rejection last night of the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) as local party candidate, will the Prime Minister say where he stands? Will he come clean about this and say whether at the next General Election he will be supporting the candidate of the Newham Marxists or whether he will be supporting the right hon. Member as an independent democratic Labour Party candidate?

There is no ministerial responsibility on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman may take it that I shall be supporting all the candidates who support the Parliamentary Labour Party and that I shall be vigorously opposing any Conservative.

Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean on this? Does he share the right hon. Lady's unease about Trotskyism and Trotskyites, and does he agree that Marxists have shown little concern for democracy?

It is true that Marxists have not shown too much concern for democracy. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in her speech, they share that with the Conservative Party, which, as she said, has shown very little practical demonstration in championing the causes of unpopular minorities or campaigns against discrimination on grounds of sex or race and many other matters that she interpreted as being aspects of freedom. I have not seen that the Conservative Party has been very active in these matters.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition in furthering debate on the matters to which he has just referred was to make a radio broadcast from Wales in which she attacked the Asian immigrants, very few of whom live in Wales?

indicated dissent.

I represent a Welsh constituency which contains certain coloured communities, and a number of those people are Asians. I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that they consistently vote Labour and that they would not listen to that kind of rubbish.

What the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) said is quite wrong. However, may I return to Questions to the Prime Minister, as I understand that that is the object of this quarter of an hour on Tuesday afternoons? Is he aware that he has steadily refused to answer questions about the influence of Marxism in the party which keeps him in power? Does he, like his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, condemn that influence, or is he too reliant on it to put his policies into practice to condemn it?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Will the hon. Lady be kind enough to wait five minutes and raise her point of order at the end of Questions?

May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to raise this point of order now, since I have a statement which appeared in Dawn Overseas, which is the journal of the Pakistani immigrants, which makes it quite clear that the statement I made is correct?

When there is disagreement between hon. Members it is not exactly a point of order, and I must remind the House that time is going on.

I agree with the right hon. Lady, but I thought that this subject was appropriate for Questions to the Prime Minister in his official capacity. Those Questions are not designed to give the right hon. Lady an opportunity of pursuing points which are rather unworthy of her, as she knows. I am almost tempted to go into the internal history of Conservative Central Office, and that would do nobody any good. [Interruption.]

Order.

The right hon. Lady knows very well where I stand on the issue of Marxism and the other issues. I do not propose to spend time on questions dealing with issues which have nothing to do with my Prime Ministerial rôle.

Is not the Prime Minister tempted to answer the question for a change? Does he welcome or does he condemn the support of Marxists to keep him in power?

I would no more welcome or condemn it than the right hon. Lady would welcome or condemn the support of Fascists for the Conservative Party. What is more, I would not even insult the right hon. Lady by asking her a question such as that. I hope that we may conduct discussions in this Chamber on the basis that all parties are concerned with the issues of freedom, liberty and democracy. That is where I expect the right hon. Lady to stand, and she knows very well that that is where I stand. [Interruption.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]—not aware that I have no hesitation whatever—[Interruption.]

Order. Barracking is not part of the tradition of this House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I wholly condemn Fascism anywhere, and that I ask him similarly wholly to condemn Marxism?

Answer!

I do not discourage the discussion of philosophical ideas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that may help to shape our society. Maybe the right hon. Lady is afraid of them. I am not. I am ready to meet them and face them, but the right hon. Lady should not confuse discussion with support.

asked the Prime Minister if he will visit Caernarvon.

I have no present plans to do so, sir.

Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Caernarvon and elsewhere that, should the Government fail to get a timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill because of the collaboration of Labour Members with Conservatives who are determined to wreck the Bill, he will extend the present Session through to 1978 or for however long it takes to get the Bill through?

I think that I would be in accordance with precedent if I answered that question as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Houses would answer it, by saying "Not next week, Sir."

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us who support the devolution Bill will not be prepared to support a guillotine if it allows the European direct elections Bill to come in? Would not the best occasion for Royal Assent to be given to the Scotland and Wales Bill be the fourth Friday in July 1979?

There is no direct connection between these two Bills. I hope that my hon. Friend does not intend to play the fool on either of them.

Is the reason why the Prime Minister will not visit Caernarvon the fact that he was visiting it last night, instead of voting in the House to prevent the defeat of his own Government—although he was unpaired last night—on the Reduction of Redundancy Rebates Bill? If not, will he tell the House why he secured the defeat of his own Government by not voting last night?

I understood last night that I was paired. I hope that the lesson has been learnt by all of us, in view of the difficulties over the pairing of sick Members yesterday, that if the Opposition are setting a trap we ought to be a little more careful in the future than in the past.