asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many times he met the organisations representing the nursing profession to resolve the dispute over the salaries for regional and area nursing officers ; which organisations were present ; and if he will make a statement.

I saw representatives of the Staff Side of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council three times during the course of these negotiations, including one occasion when a deputation was received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Staff Side membership covers 12 organisations and was represented by its chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. Following these meetings, discussions were resumed between the two sides of the council and I have subsequently been able to approve an improvement on the provisional salaries previously announced.

How significant was the Prime Minister's intervention in this matter? As the Secretary of State's first pay decision was made under his NHS powers and he made that decision against the wishes of the Nurses Council, will he now be making a similar kind of promulgation? Is he aware that if he does so, although the Nurses Council will acquiesce it will not accept that as being the final word, as injustice will still exist, and will wish to continue negotiations even if he promulgates this fresh decision which, thank goodness, is likely to be a little more favourable than his first decision?

My right hon. Friend's interest was great and his intervention was effective. I have been requested by both Management Side and the Staff Side to apply the revised salaries, although the Staff Side has made it abundantly clear, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that it does not accept them for the continuing future but awaits the review promised for 1975.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as Vice-President of the Royal College of Nursing, I am fully behind the nurses, as I believe he is? May I ask him to remember that if he wants any help with the Treasury, I am the woman?

I continually frighten the Treasury with my hon. Friends displeasure if we do not achieve the results that we both want.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some holders of ancillary posts in the hospital service who may not be properly remunerated but who nevertheless receive more in salary than nurses who have extra responsibility? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that situation to see how it can be rectified?

Yes, but the Question is on the subject of the top administrative nursing posts.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total salary increase under phase 3 for a third-year student nurse, a newly qualified staff nurse, and a sister, respectively, within the National Health Service.

This is a matter for consideration by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council at the appropriate time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this House is getting sick and tired of that kind of answer? Does not he recognise that whatever the increase is it will be considerably less than the forecast increase in the cost of living over the next 12 months, which is commonly recognised to be in the region of 15 per cent.? To reduce the standard of living of the most dedicated public servants in the country is an outrage which should be put right by the Government forthwith.

I cannot comment on the substance of what may emerge from the negotiations about to be set in train. If the hon. Gentleman is sick and tired of my answers, I can only tell him that so long as the Whitley Councils continue in existence, inevitably such answers will continue to follow the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are some fully-trained nurses and ward sisters who, after deductions, earn only 60p an hour and that this traditional exploitation of nurses is one factor in causing the serious shortage? If the Government claim to be helping the low paid, they cannot contract out of helping the nurses by shifting the responsibility to the Whitley Council.

I have no doubt that the point made by the hon. Lady, if it has substance, will be presented to the Whitley Council by the Staff Side.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with representatives of NALGO concerning the transfer of staff from the local government health service to the National Health Service ; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) on 14th December—[Vol. 866, c. 221–2.] I am sending him a copy of my letter of 10th December to NALGO. Consultations with the Staff Side are continuing as necessary.

Is the Minister aware that there is still considerable alarm and despondency among local government health service workers regarding their future career and employment prospects? Is there anything else that he can say at this stage to alleviate their fears?

I respect the hon. Gentleman's judgment. I do not know how recently he has canvassed opinion, but only this month we sent out the latest circular on the protection of employment, which was prepared after long consultation with NALGO and which will, I think, ease the minds of many of the people of whom the hon. Gentleman is thinking.

Is the Minister aware that in Gateshead the liaison committee set up to consult the staff about the reorganisation has not yet even met, and that many members of local authority health services are so worried about the lack of consultation on salaries and conditions of service that they are applying for and obtaining positions in other sections of local government? Therefore, this side of the health service may be sadly depleted in staff from 1st April.

That was, indeed, a fear, but I hope that it has been reduced by the circular issued earlier this month, to which I have referred, and by the promulgation, also this month, of the second-in-line post salaries, which will, I think, show many of the local authority health staff what prospects there are in the reorganised health service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give an assurance to the House that by 1st April all the posts will be filled, particularly those of area administrative financial officers, medical officers and district community physicians? These are key posts on which the reorganised National Health Service must rely if it is to work efficiently and successfully.

I fully expect that full teams of officers at regional, area and district level will have been appointed by mid-March.

As my right hon. Friend has so recently sent out a circular, will he consider, as a courtesy, letting me have a copy of it?

Most certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with NALGO since 17th December on the reorganisation of the NHS.

There have been no specific discussions, apart from those taking place in the Whitley Councils on remuneration and other matters, since 17th December, but I am considering comments by a number of staff organisations, including NALGO, on a consultation paper about appeals issued on 30th November.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should have consulted NALGO right at the beginning of the reorganisation of the National Health Service? He had not done so by 17th December, and I have received a number of representations from NALGO branches, including my own, expressing concern about appointments. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that NALGO is in such a ferment that there are proposals for strike action, so concerned are its members about the situation in many parts of the country? Should not the Minister get together with NALGO immediately and discuss the matters outstanding?

I should like publicly to pay tribute—[Interruption.]—I hope the hon. Lady will have the courtesy to listen to my answer.

I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman.

I should like to pay tribute publicly to the continuous and constructive co-operation that the Government have had from NALGO in the consultations on reorganisation, which have been going on for a very long time. It is true that there are some outstanding matters, particularly appeals. It is true that NALGO is not totally satisfied, but it has been very effective in the consultation and has achieved—and perhaps this is associated with the time involved—a great number of improvements for its members.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now able to publish the Lane Committee's Report.

The committee's report has been received and it is hoped to publish it as soon as possible.

When publishing the report does the Secretary of State intend to publish simultaneously the Government's views on what action should be taken on the report, or does he intend that there should be a time lag between the two?

We are studying the report, but it was received by us literally only a few days ago and I cannot commit myself to an immediate response. As the House is aware, a Private Members' Bill will come forward next month.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep and sincere feeling about the present position on abortion held by a wide cross-section of the community? Is he aware of the demand for legislation and action rather than merely waiting for a report? Will he give us an assurance that the Government will do nothing to hinder the Private Member's Bill?

I must reserve my position on the Private Member's Bill until we have studied the report for which the House and the country have been waitng. It is true that there are strong and sincere opinions, but they are, unfortunately, conflicting opinions.

If the Private Member's Bill measures up to the recommendations of the Lane Committee and fulfils those recommendations, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will support it in the House?

The hon. Gentleman puts his question very reasonably, but I must ask the House to await the publication of the report.

Does not the Question of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and his very proper interest in the Lane Report indicate that he recognises the dire consequences of his legislation?

I think that my hon. Friend will be eager to read the Lane Report with its thorough assessment of all the implications.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, before he receives the report of the Finer Committee on one-parent families, he will introduce interim measures to help women who have been awarded alimony by court order and are unable to obtain such an amount.

As the difficulties encountered by women through the non-payment of maintenance awarded by the courts are within the terms of reference of the Finer Committee, it would not be right to anticipate its conclusions. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive its report within the next few weeks, and consideration of its recommendations will begin straight away.

As, on the initiative of the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and I went in the spring to see Morris Finer, the chairman of the committee, I know some of the difficulties. Unless immediate action is taken, cannot this problem be extracted from the rest of Finer, as the woman who has not been given all her alimony, and her lawyer, are at a hopeless disadvantage?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the trouble he has taken in discussing this matter with Mr. Finer, but he will recognise that this is part of a much wider problem. Under the existing arrangements we try to ensure that women at most risk, namely, those who are entitled to supplementary benefit, receive a regular income, whether or not their maintenance is actually paid.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is tragic that this report has been so long delayed, in view of its extreme importance? Will he give the House an assurance, first, that publication will be expedited and, secondly, that action upon the report will be expedited?

I assure my hon. Friend that the report should be received by my right hon. Friend very shortly and that it will be published as quickly as possible. To be fair to the committee, which was set up at the end of 1969, it had very wide terms of reference and a good deal of research was required, because much of the information it needed to formulate its report was not available.

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

So far as the Act relates to matters within the responsibility of my Department, we are satisfied that local authorities are generally making good progress with its implementation, bearing in mind inevitable resource constraints.

I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is doing his best to see that this first-class Act is implemented properly, but is he aware that some local authorities are laggards, with no sense of responsibility or compassion? Will the hon. Gentleman chase up those authorities and also consider holding a conference of voluntary organisations and local authorities to see what can be done to put pressure on local authorities which are not answering the call of the Act in the way they should?

The hon. Gentleman should furnish the House with specific details of individual authorities which are falling short. He will recall that Parliament placed the implementation of the Act squarely upon the shoulders of local government, and there are local electors who can visit upon those laggard authorities the proper judgment.

Is it not time that my hon. Friend's Department let the House of Commons know which local authorities are not implementing the Act in the way we should like it implemented? I am getting a bit tired of local authorities who, having been given a wonderful Act to help the chronically sick and disabled, do not take advantage of it. We ought to know the local authorities which are failing.

My right hon. Friend gave some information to the House on 25th July 1973 about four authorities that had at that time failed fully to implement Section 1 of the Act, but I am glad to say that those authorities have now taken steps to fulfil their obligations.

When an assessment centre run by a regional hospital board proves that a family needs to be rehoused or to be coped with and told how to live together, if the local authority fails to carry out the recommendations of the assessment centre will my hon. Friend publicly condemn that local authority?

The hon. Gentleman, with his extensive knowledge of the needs of the handicapped and of local government, will I think, on reflection, agree that local authorities have a vast number of pressing and extremely worthy calls for the assistance of the handicapped upon their limited resources, and that it would be invidious to select one particular case without going fully into the background.

Will my hon. Friend say what central Government funds have been allocated to local authorities to help them implement the Act and whether he is satisfied that the money is being used to the full in this way?

Not, I regret, without notice, but I will gladly do so if my hon. Friend will put down a Question. He will know that a great deal of the revenue money comes through the generalised rate support grant negotiations.

Is the Minister aware that the figures published by his right hon. Friend for 1972–73 reveal some shocking variations in local provision? In contrast to the backsliders, there have been many superb achievements by local authorities. Therefore, in the light of the Secretary of State's figures, what action is the Minister taking to lift the general standard to the level of the existing best?

We had a recent debate on this subject in which the comparative league table showed how dangerous it was to draw rapid and superficial conclusions from some of these statistics. I remind the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) that in terms of the legislation he sponsored the House was clearly determined to place responsibility on local government, and hence on local electorates, for the discharge of the duty laid upon them by this Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present numbered of registered disabled people in Great Britain.

On 31st March last, 577,577 handicapped people were registered with local authorities in England under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, including people who are blind and deaf.

Against the background of those figures, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the sacrifices made by many people in looking after disabled relatives rather than forcing them to go into hospital? Is he further aware that, although those people may be receiving some form of social security payment, this does not leave them with much opportunity to pay National Insurance contributions and that this in turn, at a later stage in their lives, may cause them to suffer in terms of the State retirement pension on which they have had little coverage? Will he consider the possibility of franking the insurance stamps of such people to make sure that they have protection?

I shall want to study the specific and carefully prepared supplementary question put to me by the hon. Gentleman, without at this stage giving any commitment. In terms of the broad picture of need that he outlined and the sympathy which I am sure the House has in this respect, I echo what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government have made some attempt to help through the operation of the attendance allowance.

When, this autumn, the Department produces its report on the treatment of the disabled, will it include a recommendation for a national disability income?

I am afraid, if I may quote advice given by a party leader on another occasion, that the hon. Gentleman must wait and see.

Is it not a fact that the Government's recent Social Security Act totally failed to make any provision for the disabled on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) and indeed in any other way? Is he also aware that at that time we were telling the Government to produce a great, comprehensive policy of provision for the disabled? When are we to get it and when do the Government intend to take action on this matter?

We must wait for the report in October. The right hon. Lady, with her accustomed fairness, will acknowledge the substantial advances made by the present Government in provision for the disabled.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now increase the death grant to £75.

No, Sir. The death grant will be considered, along with all other claims on the resources available, when this year's review of national insurance benefits is carried out.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of dying is an increasing burden on poor families. Is he further aware that when the death grant was introduced in 1949 it covered the cost of a funeral, but that today it falls £45 short of this aim?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he will realise that it is a question of priorities. It depends, for example, on the amount of the available resources which we allocate to increased pensions. The cost of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be an extra £35 million a year. For that sum of money we have been able, for example, to provide over 100,000 attendance allowances for the severely disabled.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that men born before 1883 and women born before 1888 are not entitled to death grant? If this is so, will not the Government bring a compassionate approach to this problem, as they did to the matter of pensions for the over 80s?

I confirm what my hon. Friend said and I would remind him, without commitment, that this, along with other competing demands on resources, will be considered in this year's uprating.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will instigate an investigation into the numbers of children under 16 years of age living rough, without parents or guardians caring for them.

I am aware of recent reports that some young people, including perhaps a small number under 16 years of age, sleep rough, but I am not sure that an investigation would help. Local authorities have the power to return children of this age to their parents or to receive them into care and provide accommodation for them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a Mr. Henderson, of the Elfrida Rathbone Society, claims that there are 3,000 children, some of them very young, living rough in the Liverpool area alone. Does he agree that such reports need investigation so that they can be acted upon if they are true, and refuted if untrue?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point. It is difficult to get accurate figures, but we study with care the reports we receive, including this one. There are some indications that the problem is growing. It is for this reason that local authorities have substantial powers and duties. I pay tribute to the valuable work carried out by voluntary organisations in this field, often with Government support.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements he has made to safeguard the neediest households as a result of recent increases in the cost of basic necessities.

Both supplementary benefit and family income supplement levels were increased in October and since then beneficiaries over pension age have received a special payment of £10. The Government will continue to keep a close watch on the adequacy of benefits.

Does the Minister realise that the £10 bonus is rapidly fading from memory and that what is fresh in the minds of the old and the poor is the continuing inflation which is taking place? Will he give an estimate of the amount or proportion by which he expects living standards of the older and poorer people in our community to be reduced if the present Government remain in office during 1974?

I am not prepared to speculate on the last point, but I must, in fairness say that since the present Government have been in office pensions have been increased by approximately 55 per cent., whereas prices have risen by 34·5 per cent. In other words, there is a margin of real improvement in the value of the pension achieved by the Conservative Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the most needy families are separated wives with young children to look after and that they are not protected? Will he consult the Home Secretary to see whether dependants can get away from the lengthy process of having to go back to the courts to obtain increases in child maintenance allowances?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point. The Finer Committee is studying this matter, but many of these women will be entitled to supplementary benefit. If they are so entitled, we shall ensure that they receive a regular income week by week whether or not the maintenance payment is made by the husband.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement regarding improved pensions under the Tory Government is not true? Is it not the case that already retirement pensions represent a smaller percentage of national average earnings than they did in 1967—seven years ago—but that by the time the next increase comes along they will represent a smaller percentage of those earnings than at any time since the national insurance system came into being? Is it not clear that the best way to help the pensioners is for the Government to give an immediate pension increase of £10 for single persons and £16 for married couples? If this Government will not take that step, then after the election the Labour Government certainly will.

The figures I gave were accurate and, furthermore, they are a great deal better than the record of the Labour Government. Would the hon. Gentleman now like to say how much his extravagant promise to the pensioners would cost, and who would pay for it?

Order. We cannot have a debate now.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many BE hearing aids he has contracted to buy in the first year of the scheme, and how many in subsequent years ; and what proportion of the hearing aids will be imported.

No contract has been placed for imported aids and tenders from potential suppliers are still under consideration. While the rest of the tender exercise remains to be completed, I would prefer, as indicated in the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 4th December, not to disclose the number of aids we have so far contracted to purchase.—[Vol. 865, c. 321–2.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the welcome announcement of the new policy last July aroused the expectations of about I million partially deaf people in the country and that the mystery surrounding the implementation of this policy is causing a great deal of disappointment? Is he aware, further, of the suspicion that this mystery is connected with his disregard of tenders from home manufacturers and his overlooking the services of 1,000 trained dispensers in the private sector of the industry?

When announcing the new provisions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear, first, that the programme would have to be phased—and therefore I think that many people understood that they would be dealt with later rather than earlier—and, secondly, that the necessity to conduct the programme through the hospital service made it difficult to employ private dispensers.

Irrespective of whether hearing aids are imported or supplied by means of local tenders, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it will be just as cheap to have three or four different qualities of hearing aids giving different outputs of clarity, and therefore that he should not stick to one common denominator but should take a variation, whatever his source of supply may be?

The hon. Gentleman came personally to see me to make this point. Certainly we undertake to bear it in mind.

My hon. Friend will recall that we pledged ourselves to open Government. What is the ground for secrecy in this instance?

At a time when new tenders may be coming in it is not reasonable to indicate what has been selected already from the successful contractor. If my hon. Friend feels very strongly that we should give further information about this, I will consider whether it can be reasonably done within the normal commercial arrangements for considering tenders.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the new arrangements for preventing national insurance cards being issued to illegal immigrants ; and whether he will make a statement.

In the light of further study of the operational implications, I hope shortly to introduce a procedure under which applicants for national insurance cards who have recently entered the country will be asked for their passports or other identity documents ; this procedure would be applied in those areas of the country where difficulties arise over the accuracy of immigrants' personal particulars.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of some of the fears being expressed about this scheme, will he confirm that it has worked in the West Midlands without difficulty? Will he also confirm that if the scheme is successful it will remove the incentive for the illegal immigration trade, which is the prospect of employment in this country?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is that my Department is undertaking to spread these procedures as I have said, so as better to carry out its own statutory obligations. I cannot predict what the outcome will be.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has a most sinister implication? What right has his Department to act as a policeman for the Home Department?

There is no question of my Department's acting as a policeman. It has a statutory obligation to issue insurance cards to the particular persons identified in the insurance cards. When an applicant cannot always speak English accurately and there is some doubt about the precise name under which he or she goes, because of the habit of using different forms of names, it is only reasonable to have some procedure for checking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) said, in part of the country a procedure has been in use for some time using passports to help my Department get the facts right.

How will my right hon. Friend's officers identify which applicants have entered the country recently?

My Department reacts to applications from people who seek national insurance cards for the first time.

Will not the Secretary of State acknowledge that the retrospective effects of the 1971 Act have made a lot of people illegal who, because of the six months' limitation, would otherwise have been accepted as being here legally? Will he assure the House that his Department will become no party to a situation where such people holding national insurance cards at the moment and working quite happily in the interests of the British economy are in any way hounded by the Department?

My Department is in duty bound to establish whether the person applying for a national insurance card is the person whom he or she purports to be and to get the identification correct. It is only if some breach of a law is thereby suggested that my officials have any duty to communicate with the Home Office. The prime purpose of this procedure is for the fulfilment of the statutory duties of my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Sharp report on disabled drivers.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 2nd November 1973.—[Vol. 863, c. 31–2.]

Is not this getting rather absurd? Is my hon. Friend aware that this report was originally due or hoped for almost a year ago, and that it was finally delivered to the Ministry some time in October, when we were told that there was a delay over printing? Now it is still delayed. Cannot my hon. Friend get on with this and give us a date for its publication?

I cannot give a specific date, but in view of the very point that he made about the length of time taken by Lady Sharp to deliver her report, my hon. Friend will appreciate the complexity of the subject that she dealt with and the need to consider it deeply as to its implications within the Department before publication.

Although we accept that Ministers require time carefully to read the report, is the hon. Gentleman aware that disabled drivers and disabled passengers also want to study its recommendations? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, further, of the deeply disturbing accident figures involving his Ministry's three-wheelers? Does he recall that Lady Sharp's report was with the Secretary of State on 5th October last? Why cannot he publish the report forthwith?

I am bound to reply to the hon. Gentleman as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). It is a complex report and it needs careful consideration within the Department. When it is published, the disabled drivers' groups as well as right hon. and hon. Members will have ample opportunity to discuss it in consultation with the Department.

In view of the fact that this is a complicated subject, would it not be better to publish the report and have the benefit of feed-back from disabled drivers themselves? Secondly, why is there no consultation with technologists up and down the country who can produce or modify vehicles so as to enable very severely handicapped people to have vehicles which they cannot have now? Thirdly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are concerned that the very severely handicapped who are not mobile are apparently not covered by the report? Will the hon. Gentleman consider providing vehicles for people who are so severely handicapped that they cannot drive themselves?

On that last point, the hon. Gentleman will want to consider the report when it is published. As I have said already, there will be ample opportunity for disabled groups to consider the report, in consultation with the Department, when it is published, but I believe that it will be to the advantage of the House if the Government have been able to give full consideration to its implications and proposals before presenting it to the House in order to be able to give definitive answers as to future policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he now proposes to take on the Houghton Report.

As I told the House during the debate on the report on the adoption of children on 9th November last—[Vol. 863, c. 1335–51.]—the Government are pressing forward with the preparatory work for legislation on the report's recommendations. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) has a Bill concerned with the recommendations which is for Second Reading on 8th February.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I urge on him the necessity for the Government making clear their position on this vital matter as soon as possible?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the progress of group practice.

In 1966, 30 per cent. of general medical practitioners in England practised in groups of three or more principals. I am pleased to say that by 1972 the proportion had increased to almost 60 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he any further plans to encourage this trend?

Yes. The existing incentives towards group practice encourage, and will no doubt continue to encourage, general practitioners to get together.

What proportion of the doctors who practise in group practices practise from health centres?

One-sixth.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to introduce legislation requiring travel companies to warn travellers of the risk of contracting tropical diseases in certain countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation in order to compel travel agents and tour operators to issue details of health hazards likely to be encountered in overseas travel.

My right hon. Friend sees no need for legislation in this field.

In view of potential epidemics from diseases contracted in some parts of the world in particular, and the desire of most people to prevent further compulsory inoculation, is not the proposal that I put forward for legislation a reasonable compromise?

We are satisfied that the existing basis of providing information, widely diffused as it is, is adequate to ensure that the public know all that they need to know.

Is the Minister aware that a lot of unnecessary suffering, hardship and pain could be eased by accepting the proposal in the Question? Will he consult the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on this matter and reconsider the issue?

If the hon. Gentleman, having alleged that hardship is being caused, will furnish me with specific evidence, I shall gladly consider it and, in the light of that, consider whether I may have to take up the specific point that he made. At present we are satisfied that the advice and information is adequate fully to cover the public.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement concerning the Government's policies on the recommendations contained in the Quirk Report on speech therapists.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the consultations on the Quirk Report on the speech therapy services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to implement the recommendations of the Quirk Report in relation to the future of speech therapy.

I regret that I am not able to make the statement to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 17th December. [Vol. 866, c. 270–1.] My officials will be consulting with the profession on the implications of unifying the service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet in this profession as a result of the uncertainty in which it is placed because it cannot ascertain the Government's views about the recommendations in the report? Are the Government prepared to state what target they have for recruitment to the profession and what steps they are taking to recruit married women and others to it?

My officials are consulting the profession on the implications of unifying the service. I shall make a full statement as soon as I can.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report clearly shows that this profession, which is not properly rewarded, is in short supply in the Health Service, and that this delay will prejudice this position? In view of this serious situation, will he expedite consideration of the report?

I have been under pressure from the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) on this subject. I am absolutely convinced of the importance of the profession, but I regret that I am not yet quite ready to make a statement.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that pay for this particular profession will be improved? Pay is at the root of the recruitment problem.

I think that that, as always in the first instance, is a matter for the Whitley Council.

Apart from the important question of pay, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendation of the Quirk Committee on the urgent need to unify the organisation of these services? Going beyond that, will he also bear in mind the need for combined research by neurologists, linguists and others in related disciplines into the question of human communication raised in the report?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already announced that the Government have accepted a recommendation for the unification of the service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how he calculates the figure of £130 million given as the cost to the taxpayer of abolishing the earnings rule ; and whether he has calculated the additional amount likely to be collected in income tax in the event of the abolition of the rule.

The cost to the National Insurance Fund, including the loss of contribution income, is estimated to be about £135 million a year. The cost would arise mainly from paying pensions to over 200,000 people who, together with their wives, are not yet drawing pension because they still have regular and substantial earnings. Allowance is made for savings on sickness and unemployment benefit which would no longer be paid. On the basis that the pension would be taxed if paid in full on top of earnings the amount likely to be collected in income tax would be about £35 million.

I regret that I heard very little of that reply, but has my hon. Friend taken into account the income tax not paid by pensioners working for undeclared cash because of the earnings rule? Will he bring his sense of social justice to bear on the indefensible anomaly maintained by successive Governments, whereby pensioners with investment income of any size are not subject to the earnings rule whereas pensioners with earned income are liable to have their pensions reduced?

The Government are sympathetic to improving the earnings rule, which has already been improved on two occasions since they came to power. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend or the party to this, but I assure my hon. Friend that his point will be borne in mind along with a great many others.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that when a man has earned a pension by a lifetime's record of contributions he should lose his entitlement to it because he is continuing to contribute to the wealth of the nation by remaining at work?

My hon. Friend knows that part of the contract in the National Insurance Scheme is receipt of pension for people who are not working. Were we to pay pensions to people who are able to go on working—to their credit—full time it would mean less for the very old, the disabled and the widows.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will facilitate staged retirement by, among other measures, reducing the age at which the earnings rule ceases to apply and also by making more flexible the age at which people wishing to do so may draw their national insurance pensions at the time of the annual pension review.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what encouragement his Department is giving to the concept of staged retirement ; and whether he will make a statement.

The present arrangements already allow some flexibility in how an individual arranges his retirement. Any changes of the kind my hon. Friends have in mind, in so far as they would involve reducing the minimum pension age or the age at which the earnings rule ceased to apply, would need large resources, and I am bound to say they do not seem to me to command first priority.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the very different demands of different occupations, let alone the very different health patterns of individuals, of which the present system takes so little account? Will he try hard to make the system fit the individual rather than the individual fit the system.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I think she will agree that the invalidity benefit which is now available within the National Insurance Scheme is a direct response to the need for a long-term benefit for those who have to give up work owing to ill-health before normal retirement age.

I agree that progress in this direction could not be fast. Does my hon. Friend accept that there should be some acceptance by the Government that such a concept should be part of the Government's pension policy?

I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be considered. Indeed, there is some move in this direction with the extra 25p for the over 80s. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that occupational pensions schemes will fulfil a valuable function, in that they can be much more flexible about the age of retirement than is possible with a large State scheme covering many millions of people.