asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the Royal Commission on the Health Service to make an interim report.

The terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service do not require an interim report, and it would normally be for the Royal Commission itself to decide whether to make one. I am not aware that it intends to do so.

Before the Royal Commission makes its final and first report on this important matter, will it be able to look into the vexed question of the abuse of ministerial patronage by the right hon. Gentleman? Will it be able to make a recommendation that would prevent a recurrence of the sacking of more than one-third of the area health authority chairmen, apparently on the ground that they were not Labour Party supporters?

If the hon. Member is objecting to the system he had better raise the matter with his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), because he established the system and I followed his procedure. Since the question has arisen I can tell the House that out of 90 chairmen, 58—that is almost two-thirds—have been reappointed. The remaining 32 are appointed for the first time.

Although it is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong rumour that the whole of the dental treatment service will be excluded from its considerations? Will he ensure that dentistry is not treated as a second-class service within the Health Service?

As far as I am concerned the dental treatment service has a high priority. It is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. I have had no representation from the Commission to suggest that dentistry should be excluded from its considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for the provision of medical products at retail level.

Despite a steady decline in the number of pharmacies since 1960, this does not appear so far to have caused serious difficulties for National Health Service patients. This is one of the matters which I am currently discussing with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the decline from 14,000 pharmacists to 11,000 in the last 10 years is causing hardship, mainly to the elderly and to mothers with young children? Is he further aware that that decline of between 300 and 500 a year will continue unless his Department can agree terms of remuneration quickly?

As I said, I have had recent meetings with the profession. On 16th June I met the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, and I expect to meet that committee again shortly. As for closures, although, as the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a steady decrease in the number of pharmacies, many closures are due to changes in population and redevelopment in cities, and so on. I have no evidence that this has been causing difficulties, but naturally I am concerned to ensure that there should not be a continuing decline. That is one of the issues under discussion with the industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pharmacists are desperately concerned about this situation and feel that their remuneration will not be satisfactory and that there will be continued closures of small pharmacies, particularly in villages and small estates, where grave social problems will be caused? Will he do something more effective about it when he speaks to the Pharmaceutical Society?

One of the points that I made to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee was our concern for small pharmacies. One of the questions on which we are exchanging views at present is whether, in terms of remuneration, there ought to be a system that is more beneficial to the small pharmacy than the large one. That is an issue that we are now considering.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to ensure that the Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield is brought into immediate use.

As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) on 26th April, building work on the hospital is still in progress.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be totally absurd for this superb modern hospital, which was built at a cost of about £20 million, to stand unused year after year because of lack of revenue to finance bringing it into use? Will he look very carefully at this situation with a view to providing the Trent Regional Health Authority with finance necessary to commission it?

The contractors are handing over this building to the regional health authority floor by floor. Ten of the 18 floors have so far been handed over and the remaining floors are being fitted out. There is a subsequent Question on the Order Paper about the allocation of funds to the Trent Regional Health Authority, and I shall be dealing with that point when it arises.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me that in Sheffield we have a great fear of this beautiful hospital standing there like Centre Point but, of course, not making any profit, at the same time as the sick and the medical profession are urgently in need of it? Will he also accept from me that we think that the existence of the old hospitals will more than likely cost just about as much money as it would cost to open this wonderful hospital? Therefore, accepting, as I do, what he has just said, may I ask him to rethink the whole problem?

The out-patients department and the medical school are already in use, and, subject to resources being available, it is planned to bring the rest of the hospital into use progressively between April 1978 and February 1979. The AHA is giving urgent consideration to the point that my hon. Friend has raised. It is meeting its RHA to discuss its finance problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is not that the hospital is not completed, from the building point of view, but that the Government have not made available the necessary money to make sure that it can be opened on time? Would it not be more sensible to spend our money on hospitals and something useful for the people instead of cutting public expenditure and not making available the money when the hospital is actually almost ready for occupation?

Resources allocated to the NHS are growing currently at the rate of 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent. a year. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about spending money on hospitals. Indeed, I am always inclined to spend money on hospitals. I find it a good thing. Obviously, rationalisation of local resources will have to take place if the Hallamshire Hospital is to open.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he still plans to introduce legislation in the current Session requiring trade unions to occupy half the trustee positions under an occupational pension scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to publish proposals for putting trade unionists on pension fund boards.

The Government's proposals concerning the role of members in the running of pension schemes were published last year, but no decision has yet been taken about the introduction of legislation in this Session.

I welcome that reply as far as it goes and express the hope that the Minister will tell me that there is no intention to introduce legislation next Session, should the present Government survive. Will he confirm that in a recent public opinion survey almost 70 per cent. of the people interviewed disapproved of the Government's proposals, whereas more than 80 per cent. approved of the idea of all employees, and not just trade unionists, being involved in the running of their pension schemes? Why are the Government so obstinate about taking note of public opinion on these matters?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's negative attitude. I should have thought that he would welcome proposals that brought industrial democracy to 11 million people in Britain in occupational pension schemes. The hon. Gentleman refers to the CBI survey. That is only one that has taken place.

Is it not true that according to the latest report from the Government Actuary's Department, 75 per cent. of those in the public sector and 88 per cent. in the case of public corporations are covered by pension funds, as compared with only 39 per cent. in the private sector, and that the general level of pensions in the public sector is higher than that in the private sector? Will my right hon. Friend say how the representation of members of funds in the public sector compares with that in the private sector?

It is quite true that in the public sector there is a higher percentage of members. Frankly, one of our objectives is to increase occupational pensions in both the private and the public sectors. As to what percentage take part in the management of these schemes, it is the Government's desire, through the White Paper, to see that this participation goes right across the board, including both private and public sectors.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, however, that voluntary participation in the management of pension schemes is developing rapidly in the present context? Does he realise that some of us who have laboured to obtain an agreed pension policy will profoundly regret it if he pursues divisive and unnecessary legislation in this field?

After the Government's widespread consultation within industry, with both sides, the White Paper has done more to bring about participation in the last 12 months than what has taken place in the last 20 years in pension schemes. Many managements pay lip-service to participation but never consult their employees on any basis.

Has my right hon. Friend read the report that appeared in The Guardian a few days ago which indicates, from a supposedly reliable Liberal source, that this measure will be shelved? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Where are the Liberals?"] They are not present, as usual. They are absentee part-landlords. On this day, when we have been discussing the nature of our next Queen's Speech and the legislative programme for the next year, will my right hon. Friend announce that the measure will not be shelved but will be introduced, and that he will be exerting the greatest possible pressure to that end?

I thank my hon. Friend certainly for his reference to The Guardian. I read that report with great interest. I can inform my hon. Friend and the House that the Government are still seriously considering the Bill based on the White Paper. We hope to be able to make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.

Will the Minister say what kind of democracy it is that would exclude any member of a pension scheme from voting for the trustees? What surveys does he have which rebut the findings of the CBI survey?

The Government's proposals are to give the vast majority of people in pension schemes the vote for the first time.

Why not all of them?

As I have indicated, many people have not been consulted in the past, and the Government, through their White Paper, believe that the trade unions, which have conducted negotiations on every other aspect of conditions for working people, can be entrusted with this one as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from disabled drivers about the phasing out of the three-wheeler.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report to the House on his meeting with disabled drivers in Westminster Hall on 17th May.

Numerous letters and petitions taking various points of view have been sent to me and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Disabled. We had the opportunity to meet disabled drivers who lobbied Parliament, on 17th May, asking for the vehicle service to be restored. We also met representatives of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled on 26th May.

Is the Minister aware that mobility is vital to this group, and that the widespread delay in making a number of decisions on this matter is causing tremendous anxiety? Why has the scheme to commute the allowance not yet been introduced, when there has been provision for the allowance for over a year?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so committed to the extension of the mobility allowance, because, as he knows, this will enormously increase the number of people who will get assistance as a result of their disablement who were never able to do so before.

That sounds as though there may be some progress. Is the Minister aware of the confusion and anxiety that exist among many disabled people over the lack of a clear policy at this stage, particularly the anxiety among young school leavers? What priority do the Government give to the disabled?

The fact that we are multiplying by three the amount of money that is being spent by this Department on mobility for the disabled shows the sense of priority that this Government have given compared with our predecessors. The hon. Gentleman can see that it is a very high priority indeed.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Central Council for the Disabled no longer exists? It is now RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation.

I welcome my hon. Friend's support and absolutely share his concern about trying to achieve this objective. The discussions so far are going in an encouraging way. That is why I feel that it is likely that I shall be able to make a statement to the House before the recess.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether at any time specifications have been submitted to motor car manufacturers to produce a four-wheeled vehicle suitable for the disabled, and, if so, what progress has been made?

A good deal of work has already been done on the conversion of existing vehicles. Part of the discussion with the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—has in fact dealt with different types of Minis that would be available. My Department is now engaged in research jointly with the Department of Transport, and we are studying the available information. We are considering what further research is desirable in order to identify, among the many possible lines of development, those adaptations or prototype specialist vehicles which have the best prospect of meeting the specialist needs of disabled people.

Does the Secretary of State realise that many disabled drivers require a vehicle and not a mobility allowance, and that the reason why we have this lobby, and why there is such consternation in disabled driving circles, is that it is believed by the disabled that the right hon. Gentleman intends to cut off their lifeline with society? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position now, because these people are in a dreadful state and require clarification as soon as possible.

I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends constantly repeat this sort of thing and create stress, disturbance and alarm among disabled people. [Interruption.] I wrote to all those concerned, seeking to reassure them. I want to make it clear in the House today that I am determined to ensure that no one who has a tricycle issued under the old scheme will be made immobile by the phasing out of the tricycle. I have already made this clear to them. I have said also that we have now made arrangements that will make it likely that the existing trike holders will be able to have trikes until 1982–83. Conservative Members ought to be able to accept these reassurances. It is a pity that these stories are constantly repeated across the floor of the House.

In view of the amount of public money invested in British Leyland and Chrysler, does not my right hon. Friend feel that we have a right to ask either or both of them to co-operate with the Government in the production of a purpose-built replacement for the tricycle?

We are in discussion with Leyland about what can be its most effective contribution to the needs of disabled people. Leyland has made some important offers, in terms of the purchase of existing vehicles, and I am certainly prepared to discuss with the company whether it can go further in terms of adaptation.

But is it not a fact that under the new scheme about 3,000 newly-disabled persons and young school leavers who are disabled, who would previously have had transport, are now housebound and unable to go to work, to school or to university? Is this not a monstrous thing to have done to this group of people? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

It is not true that they are all housebound. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Employment Service Agency's travel-to-work scheme is willing to provide assistance to young people and to other disabled people who need extra expenses to be covered to enable them to get to work. This scheme is already available, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are now discussing with the Department concerned whether the scheme can be revived in a way that will make it more helpful. In any case, there is the mobility allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the report of the Review Body on hospital consultants' pay to be published.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the publication and the Government's acceptance of the Seventh Report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration on 26th May.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in its report this impartial body has concluded in outspoken terms that the pay structure has become riddled with anomalies since 1975 and that there is a lack of logic in the arrangements and a serious decline in morale? Is he further aware that the confidence of doctors and hospital consultants will not be restored until this matter is put right? What steps is he taking to put it right?

There is no question that the review body did, as the hon. Gentleman said, report that the first two stages of pay policy, together with the new contract for junior hospital doctors—agreed before the pay restraint measures—had produced anomalies. There is no question about it. I am afraid that that situation exists among many other sections of organised workers in society; it is not something that affects only doctors. In the discussions now proceeding for further arrangements we must, of course, hope that there will be greater flexibility. That point has been strongly put to me by the British Medical Association as well as by the review body.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that every report issued since the Pilkington Committee established the review body has been received by the doctors with acrimony? Will he now, in the light of the work of the committee formerly chaired in his Department by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. Owen), present to the Royal Commission evidence from his Department on the complete restructuring of the hospital medical services?

I shall not make that promise immediately. I am very ready to have discussions with my hon. Friend about any further evidence that my Department ought to give to the Royal Commission. We have already given evidence to the Royal Commission, as my hon. Friend knows. As to the report of the review body, the profession has still not decided whether to accept the recommendations that have been made in it.

Does the Secretary of State consider that the existence of this report will result in a substantial reduction in the recent massively increased waiting times to see hospital consultants? If not, what action will he take so that the massive delays that arthritic patients in this country now face before receiving treatment are reduced?

The right hon. Gentleman is not really right. For a long time we have had an increase in waiting lists. I am happy to say that the increase now seems to have stopped and that with regard to 90 per cent. of cases, which are urgent cases, the waiting period is now starting to decrease. That is encouraging. Certainly a year or so ago it was very disturbing indeed. Relations in the Health Service are much improved and for that reason waiting lists are not as serious a problem now, although they are still serious. My Department has circulated proposals, which are now under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been made to him from lone-parent families on the implementation of the Finer Report.

We have received a number of letters in which the subjects most frequently mentioned were the implementation of the Finer Report as a whole, improved maintenance recovery and financial help generally, and provision of day-care facilities. In addition, my right hon. Friend has twice received a deputation from the Finer Joint Action Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those views reflect the general feelings both inside and outside the House with regard to the implementation of the Finer Report? Does he accept that the Labour Party, if naught else, is the party of compassion and social justice? It is therefore necessary that the Labour Government should ensure that these aspects of the Finer Report are brought into being. The fact that Back Benchers are compelled to vote for resources going in other directions to areas of less need has created many problems for the Government at the moment.

Although a number of Finer proposals have been implemented, not all are practical. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that since we took office the Government have added £380 million a year to social security benefits for one-parent families. These benefits are now running at a level of £650 million a year. The House will also be aware that the problem of one-parent families is an increasing one. At the moment, there are about 630,000 in this country. That figure is increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. a year. It is a massive social problem as well as a financial problem.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one-parent families in particular have suffered more greatly in the last three years than have families without children?

I am aware of the difficulties among one-parent families and I know that there is a great deal of poverty among them. That is why the Government have taken the actions that they have. We should like to do more, and we shall do when the resources become available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that single-parent families are among the poorest of the poor and that the Government are simply not doing enough for them? Does he agree that the most important two things that can be done are, first, to give them a guaranteed maintenance allowance on a generous scale and, secondly, for him to consult his other Cabinet colleagues about implementing the Finer Report in full instead of handing out concessions to wealthy people, as the Government do at the moment?

I remind my hon. Friend of the public expenditure difficulties at the moment and the calls upon public expenditure from pensioners, one-parent families, working families with children, and large families. All these groups are competing for priority from the Government and within our society. I certainly take note of the points made by my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will take note of the fact that this is an issue of priorities.

Is the Minister aware that there are two basic actions that he could take at the moment to help one-parent families? He could review the situation of claw-back as it affects the child benefit scheme for one-parent families and he could end taxation on widows' pensions.

I take note of both those points. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that a 50p premium is paid to one- parent families. At the moment the Government are looking at the whole issue of child benefit, and any improvement in child benefit must benefit one-parent families.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many signatures he has now received to the National Mobility Petition.

About 100,000 signatures so far. I shall be receiving the bulk of the signatures tomorrow, when I formally take receipt of the petition at a meeting organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House. I understand that there will be over 400,000 signatures.

The Secretary of State said earlier that he is seeking ways and means of making the mobility scheme more flexible. Does he agree that the only way to do this is to continue to make available a suitable vehicle for the disabled? Is he, in fact, now seeking ways and means of making such a vehicle available to the 3,000 young who became 17 since last July and who have not got a vehicle?

I have made it clear on many occasions that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Disabled and I are looking carefully at the sorts of specialised vehicle that may meet the needs of those who have trikes at the conclusion of the lifetime of trikes. As I have already reported to the House, we are also considering whether we can introduce a new scheme that will assist people, especially in the lease or purchase of vehicles. I have already told the House that I hope to make a statement as early as I can.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the constant reference to the vehicle pays little regard to the amount of work done for those people who are unable to drive? Since the impression is constantly given that the trike is being withdrawn from existing users, and since nothing that my right hon. Friend says in the House seems to make the Opposition and people outside accept the fact, will he consider making a ministerial television broadcast in order to reach the public and give them the true facts?

I have done precisely that on television on a number of occasions. The difficulty is that it seems that Conservative Members are absolutely determined to mislead disabled people. [Interruption.] It is true. I have seen some of the advice that was given during the preparation of the petition that I shall receive tommorrow. For instance, signatories appear to have been told that current trike drivers will be housebound when the supply of trikes runs out. I have made it absolutely clear that that is not so. No one who has a trike issued under the old scheme will be made immobile by the phasing out of the trike. I have insisted to the House that I am determined that this shall be so.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question and say what he proposes to do about the 3,000 young people who are stuck in their homes? Is he going to leave them there, unable to work? When he next quotes me, will he do so accurately and not misquote me?

What I quoted from what the hon. Gentleman said in Westminster Hall was absolutely accurate. I, and a number of other hon. Members, heard what he said. We are still awaiting his answer. The Government have accepted that it is not only those who are able to drive but those who are not able to drive who need assistance. That is why we took the decision to introduce the mobility allowance—in order greatly to increase the assistance available to disabled people. I have already said that with regard to other vehicles I expect to make a statement before the House rises for the recess. I have now said that three times, and I hope that Conservative Members will not press me further.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he will take to bring about an equalisation of resources available to the Trent Regional Health Authority as against other regional hospital authority areas in England.

The Government are committed to achieving a fairer distribution of resources between health regions in England and will seek to redistribute funds in favour of deprived regions, such as the Trent Region, as quickly as is consistent with the preservation of important services in other regions. In the current year Trent received an increase in revenue funds equal to 2·94 per cent., compared to 0·25 per cent. to 0·40 per cent. for the Thames Region and Oxford.

Should not those figures, and the comparison with the Thames Region, be set against the disparity that at the moment gives the Thames Region 70 per cent. more medical and dental staff, 30 per cent. more nurses and only one-third as many people waiting for more than a year for general surgery? Is it not true that at the rate of progress we are making towards equalisation it will be a whole generation before the despair and demoralisation in the Trent Region is worn away? Is that satisfactory?

I am not prepared to redistribute resources away from the London Region at a rate that will damage the teaching facilities there, because that would be damaging the seed corn for the future. My hon. Friend's comments about the rate of equalisation between various parts of the country were extremely pessimistic, and I would not like to stand by them.

I accept the need for resources in the Trent authority, but is the Minister aware of the needs of the North-West authority, particularly in relation to the rate of pay for ambulance men and the need of the authority to meet that rate of pay? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Minister has taken out a court injunction to prevent the unions from appearing before the Central Arbitration Committee? If there is no truth in that, since it has been widely reported in the Northern Press will he take this opportunity to deny it?

The second part of the hon. Member's question is without foundation. The first part does not relate to the Trent region, or its health authority, but I take this opportunity to point out that the North-West Regional Health Authority has had the largest growth in funds of any region—3·2 per cent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the severe shortage of psycho-geriatrics facilities in the Trent Region, particularly in the Sheffield-Barnsley-Rotherham area? Recently I had to seek the good offices of the Wakefield area in the York Region in order to find a hospital bed for a constituent. In that case, every medical opinion that was sought recommended hospitalisation, but a bed could not be found in the area designated.

There is a shortage of facilities in the Trent Regional Health Authority. That is why we are putting a disproportionate amount of resources into that authority, compared with others. The shortage of psycho-geriatric beds is a national problem. I have visited the area referred to by my hon. Friend and have looked at the problem there.

Will the Minister resist the temptation to introduce proposals to ruin the provisions for the hospital service in the London area and thus make it impossible to persuade people to come here from overseas for training and as patients?

We must reconcile the desire to move quickly to a fairer distribution with the need to allow the better-off regions more time to make their plans for rationalisation and redeployment of their resources, and the freedom to manouvre. We must be careful to see that funds are not moved so quickly that it will do irreparable damage to the provision of clinical teaching facilities in the better-off regions.

Will the Minister make sure that there is no detriment to the better-off regions because they are more efficient and wise in the use of their resources?

This is not a matter of wisdom or efficiency: it is a matter of historical favouritism. Obviously, I want to look after the teaching facilities in London and see that they are not damaged.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the implementation and continued operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

I am satisfied that a very large number of disabled people have benefited in real and practical ways from the provision of the Act, ranging from the specific services under Section 2 to the extensive provisions under Sections 4 to 7, concerning access. The Act has been of help to millions of handicapped people. In the case of Section 2 alone, 300,000 households with disabled people were helped in the year 1975–76 with appliances, telephones and adaptations to property, and 101,000 people with holidays. Expenditure on aids, adaptations to homes and telephones rose from about £2·8 million in 1972–73 to about £8·8 million in 1975–76. It is difficult even to estimate the large numbers of people who have been helped by improved access facilities under the provisions of Sections 4 to 8 of the Act. They would possibly have to be numbered in millions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the lesson to be drawn for the future is that legislation of this sort should not be enacted unless the necessary funds are available to implement it? Does he further agree that this Act has caused a great deal of overwork in social services departments, and has also caused much misery through unfulfilled expectations among a wide section of the population?

My main conclusion is entirely different. It is that the Act has revolutionised the attitude of the public towards disabled people in this country. It has led to local authorities throughout the country providing assistance to the disabled that was never provided before.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the weakness in the Act is that it does not define sufficiently what is meant by "need" for the disabled? This has resulted in a situation in which enlightened authorities are making much greater provision than others. In fact, some authorities have diminished the definition of need and are providing less than they were a year ago, because of the public expenditure cuts. Is this not a breach of the Act?

It would be extremely difficult to define need by legislation. Obviously, this is a matter of subjective judgment by doctors and social workers.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 3rd February.

When the Prime Minister does meet the TUC will he discuss the recent speculation about the future of public service pensions? Many pensioners in the public sector are anxious about reports that the Government may not uphold commitments under the 1971 Act made by the former Conservative Government in this matter. At a time when all the forecasts show that prices are going down while incomes are going up, would it not be nonsense to introduce legislation to do away with this commitment?

I saw the report in one of the newspapers. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are no proposals for modifying the Pensions Increase Act of 1971. The increases will go ahead in accordance with that Act.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the first item on the agenda when he meets the TUC should be the alarming increase in teenage unemployment today? Unless more effective action is taken in this regard, it will prove to be one of the worst economic and social problems facing the country.

Yes. This is a matter that is frequently discussed between Ministers and representatives of the TUC and others. The Government are now considering what steps should be taken in response to the Holland Report before the rest of the schemes run out, as they will do in the not-too-distant future. Discussion on this matter will take place, as well, at the European Council when it meets next week. I hope that more funds can be devoted to the budget of the Social Fund in order to provide training or further education for these young people. This is a most serious problem and the right. hon. Gentleman is right to press it continually.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious unemployment prospects facing the Northern Region—not just in relation to the matter on which he must be bored with hearing from me but in the shipbuilding industry, which will be suffering from order book problems in the early autumn? There are also the problems of Plesseys and a number of other serious industrial difficulties that need the Government's urgent attention.

The position in the shipbuilding industry has been foreseen for some time. That is why action has been taken in connection with the Japanese shipbuilding industry. Sufficient orders are not coming through at present, and of those that are coming through the Japanese industry is taking a disproportionate share in relation to the facilities that exist in the world for building ships. There have been discussions on this matter with the Japanese, and the European Council has also discussed it, because it affects the whole of Europe.

When, on Saturday, the Prime Minister announced that better times were coming, had he in mind the fact that there would be an additional 35,000 people unemployed this month and that an additional 100,000 unemployed school leavers would now be on the list? What does he intend to do about the situation, and how can he go about the country saying that better times are coming when the results show quite the opposite?

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that if we can hold the position on incomes—[HON. MEMBERS: "If."]—yes, "if"—the prospects for this country for 1978 to 1982 will be better than they have been for many decades. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, nothing can alter that fact. That is why I place so much importance on not having a runaway increase in incomes in the next 12 months.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Newcastle.

I visited Newcastle with President Carter on 6th May I have at present no plans for a further visit.

When the Prime Minister next visits Newcastle, will he take the occasion to remind Labour Members there that their vote against the establishment of a Scottish Assembly meant that they were reneging on the Labour Party's General Election pledge to establish such an assembly? In view of the Labour Government's inability to honour their pledges, will the right hon. Gentleman resign, call a General Election, and enable the people of Scotland to say what they think about Scottish Government via a General Election?

That is a very interesting proposition. In view of the fact that the Conservative Party clearly has no intention of pursuing any Scottish devolution, the hon. Gentleman is correct in assuming that a Labour Government will be returned who will be enabled to put their devolution plans through. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to convince people in various parts of England, and not only those in Newcastle, that devolution for Scotland is not just pandering to nationalism it will be necessary to introduce a vital and productive scheme for devolution to the English regions as well?

The position of the English regions has been discussed in the Green Paper issued recently, but Government legislation for Scotland will have to be introduced and we shall ask Parliament to pass it on the next occasion.

Wherever the Prime Minister next plans to visit, will he combine business with pleasure and make sure that his visit is part of his General election campaign?

Having had a fruitful visit to Exeter, where the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell- Hyslop) was kind enough and courteous enough to receive me and pay tribute to the work I had done, I should be happy to visit his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), although on that occasion we would not find ourselves on the same side of the barricades.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet President Carter.

I have at present no plans for a meeting with President Carter.

When the Prime Minister meets President Carter will he tell him that those of us who are concerned about the future of Concorde and its landing rights thoroughly disapprove of the President's feigned lack of interest in the question and his deliberate refusal to uphold his responsibility, as President, for enforcing federal treaties? Will he tell the President that we note the marked discrepancy between his words and his deeds, and further inform the President that the British and French Governments regard his position as hostile to the interests of those two countries?

I am not sure what response such a speech would be given, but I cannot think that it would be very persuasive, if the hon. Gentleman is still hoping, as I hope, that Concorde will be allowed to land in New York. I suggest that the tactics should be a little better designed than are those put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

Since Britain has decided to join the vital talks between the United States and Russia to stop all nuclear test explosions and thereby slow down the nuclear arms race, would it not be helpful for the Prime Minister now to tell President Carter that we intend to cancel the proposed underground test at Nevada, otherwise it will undermine our credibility and the success of the talks?

I shall not comment on the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I doubt whether our credibility would be reduced as long as the Soviet Union and the United States maintained their test explosions. It would indeed need agreement between all three Powers if it were to become really effective.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he were to decide to see President Carter this week he might well find no scheduled air service between the two countries? Has he been in recent touch with President Carter to see whether the log-jam of these negotiations could be broken, since they are now at a very late stage indeed, to the great danger of trade between our two countries?

I was in touch with President Carter at the end of last week, but I have not been in touch with him since, in person, although exchanges are taking place and negotiations will continue. We have constantly taken the view that it would be almost unthinkable to believe that this air service could be broken off in this way. That is why we shall continue to negotiate up to the last moment. There is a certain minimum position that a country must take in its air service. We are getting closer to agreement. That was the last report I had this morning. I hope that the negotiations will be completed satisfactorily.

While inevitably there are problems directly affecting the relations between Britain and the United States, and although there is general confidence in the way in which my right hon Friend the Prime Minister and the Government are handling these relations, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that there is widespread support for Jimmy Carter's fight for human rights and civil rights and that that fight has the support of the nation, particularly in view of the unjustifiable attacks made on the President?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a speech on this subject a few weeks ago and expressed the Government's position fully and adequately. During the discussions that are now proceeding in Belgrade to arrange the agenda for the further exchanges that will take place, our position will be made absolutely clear.

In leading up to those discussions, will the Prime Minister make plain to President Carter and the United States Government the mounting threat to the United Kingdom and Western Europe arising from the developing and increasing Soviet influence in Africa, which has now been extended to the Horn of Africa, with the developments involving Cuban troops and advisers to the Marxist Ethiopian Government?

The position of the Soviet Union in Africa is the subject of constant discussion between the United States and a number of European countries. Clearly, the Soviet Union has as legitimate a right as any other country to try to improve its relations, but that right is called into question when it comes to supplying arms and attempting to suborn Governments in that area. That has been made clear to the Soviet Union.