asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress she is making in implementing the Quirk Report recommendations on speech therapists; and if she will make a statement.

The speech therapy services were integrated under the National Health Service on 1st April 1974. My Department has recently appointed a member of the profession as Adviser in Speech Therapy, whose advice will also be available to the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office. Implementation of the remaining recommendations depends on further discussion with the College of Speech Therapists and on the resources that health authorities can make available for this service. The House will recall the very substantial improvement in the pay of speech therapists, recommended by Lord Halsbury and implemented by the Government early this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Salford there is only one speech therapist although there should be 11 and although the need for therapists has been stressed by the teachers? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the shortage is not due to money but is because many areas cannot get therapists as there are not sufficient training places for them?

I am aware that there is an acute shortage of speech therapists in certain areas. I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend's constituency is one of those areas. As I think he knows, the Government have accepted the target in the Quirk Report for building up to a total of 2,500 whole-time speech therapists but, as he says, the problem in the interim is partly of training and not merely of money. We are in consultation with the Department of Education and Science on ways of increasing the number of speech therapists. I am glad to say that a number of degree courses are now being introduced in addition to the diploma courses.

The right hon. Lady has explained what is happening to speech therapists, and it is true that Lord Halsbury has done them proud, but is she aware that nurses in schools without health visitor certificates and nurses in tuberculosis clinics are not getting the money which they need and which would put them on the same footing as nurses with health visitor certificates for exactly the same work? Does the right hon. Lady realise that she or one of her Ministers promised the House that this matter would be considered? What is happening now?

I am sure the hon. Gentle-is aware that that is an entirely different question which does not arise from the Question on speech therapists. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is being discussed in the Whitley Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made on the provision of hospital services in the Leicester area; and if she will make a statement.

Three major developments are in progress: an expansion of the Leicester General Hospital, including 124 acute beds and supporting services, which is expected to be completed by the end of this year; phase II of the Leicester Royal Infirmary, containing 415 acute beds and supporting services, which is scheduled for completion in 1977; and a 168-bed geriatric unit and day hospital on the Glenfrith site, expected to be finished by the end of 1976. The provision both of new maternity facilities at the Leicester General Hospital and of residential accommodation at the Leicester Royal Infirmary has received approval to start in the current year, subject to receipt of suitable tenders.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, but will he bear in mind that it is vitally important that Leicester's teaching hospital be not lost sight of and that rapid progress be made towards getting the necessary output of qualified doctors by the given date?

The expansion of the medical student intake is one of the highest priorities, despite the fact that we are having to limit capital expenditure on hospital buildings. That is one of the reasons for the large number of projects being built in the Leicester area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Leicester has increasing health problems and one of the lowest ratios of hospital beds to population in the country? In the circumstances, will be give Leicester people the assurance that the plans for improving the health services in Leicester will be continued in spite of any cuts that may have to be made?

It is an acknowledged fact that there is a level of health deprivation in Leicester and throughout the region. We are trying to concentrate our resources on the basis of putting them into areas of health deprivation and of seeking to find better indices of such deprivation. I cannot give the assurance that my hon. and learned Friend wants other than to say that we recognise Leicester has a high priority.

As these local facilities are within the context of the national health resources, will the Secretary of State announce exactly what cuts she is envisaging nationally, and particularly the implications they will have for medical health staffing?

We are not yet in a position to give regional health authorities capital allocations for future years, although in her answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 29th April my right hon. Friend indicated that the effect of the Budget on the Department's regional allocations for hospital and community health services in 1976–77 would be a 25 per cent. reduction on the allocations for the current year.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost during the latest year for which records are available of caring for destitute young people aged between 16 and 18 years.

This information is not available in the terms requested, but during 1974 the total amount of supplementary allowances paid to young people aged between 16 and 18, including those living as part of a family, is estimated to be £11½ million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although the problem of destitute and homeless young people is acute and terrible in London and was well highlighted in the television programme "Johnny Go Home", the problem also exists in many other parts of the country, particularly in the great cities en route from Scotland to London, including Leicester? Will he give an idea whether there will be any increase in Government help to public and voluntary bodies which are trying to cope with this desperate human problem?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is now seeking to encourage local authorities and housing associations to provide more single-person accommodation, although there are constraints in terms of resources in regard to competition with more accommodation for homeless families. Furthermore, the Housing Act 1974 makes local authorities and housing associations eligible for the first time for grants and subsidies available for other types of accommodation if they provide single-person accommodation. We hope that they will take full advantage of that facility.

What steps does the Minister intend to take to make hostel accommodation available in city centres rather than the long-term, purpose-built, single-person housing to which he has referred? Does he not agree that this is what is needed?

I was not referring only to purpose-built long-term accommodation, because short-term accommodation with a high rate of turnover could also be involved. If the hon. Lady is thinking of the inner cities, and particularly of London, which has the major problem, the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association have had a working party sitting for some time seeking to provide means of giving a higher priority of provision to single-person accommodation. I am hopeful that they will have some answer soon.

Will my hon. Friend see to it that there is more effective coordination involving the Home Office, the police, his own Department, local authorities and people purporting to provide accommodation for homeless young people, of which we have had some horrifying examples lately? Does he not agree that we should take a serious view of the situation?

I agree that there needs to be closer co-ordination, and the Home Office is already undertaking any internal inquiry about why information concerning the Gleaves hostel empire was not distributed among Government Departments. We are always mindful of closer co-operation, particularly with local authorities which have to provide accommodation. This is why we have written to the chief executives of Camden and Westminster to try to encourage them to provide better answers to the question of identifying homeless young persons at risk and to refer them to suitable accommodation.

Will the Minister confirm that public money was made available to Gleaves in respect of hostels run by that concern? Will he also say what checks took place before the money was paid out?

It is not true that money was paid direct to Gleaves. Gleaves did not receive block payments from the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the presentation of a list. Under Section 17 of the Supplementary Benefits Act the commission can award payments to a third party, for example to a hostel warden in respect of board and lodging vouchers, but each voucher is issued to one individual only for one week at a time and only after that individual has been interviewed by a Supplementary Benefits Commission officer. There is no truth in the statement that block payments have been made to Gleaves.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she has received any representations from the CBI on the payment of supplementary benefits.

No, Sir.

In regard to the payment of social security benefit to strikers, does not the Minister accept that the significant share of responsibility for the welfare of families of people who may strike against the Government's pay policy this winter should fall upon the trade unions? Has any consideration been given to assisting those families by way of loans from the social security system, to be repayable on return to work? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are the only civilised country that acts in such a benevolent way to strikers and their families?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was against extreme views, even of those attributed to so notable a person as the President of the CBI. I am sorry that he has not behaved in such a manner this afternoon. May I point out to him that when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was responsible for these matters in a Conservative Government he conducted a major inquiry into the subject and created the present state of the law in respect of strikers. The present Government are not prepared to make mothers and children pawns on the board of industrial conflict.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further recent representation she has received about introducing a pension for disabled housewives ahead of 1977.

A substantial number of representations have been received recently including, in particular, representations initiated by the National Federation of Women's Institutes. The replies have pointed out that the introduction of the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension has to be phased in as part of our heavy overall programme of benefit improvements.

Will the Minister say what he means by "has to be phased in"? If some people can receive pension from 1st January 1976, why cannot all invalid housewives who can neither work nor undertake housework in their own homes receive similar pensions? Will he give a more satisfactory answer?

No, Sir. Housewives are being phased into non-contributory invalidity pension after men and single women breadwiners. The criterion is incapacity for work. In the case of housewives there is an additional criterion of incapacity for housework. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the making of dividing lines as to who is or is not incapable of undertaking housework is a difficult test to devise in a way which can be seen to be both efficient and fair.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will now lower from two years to 12 months the qualifying period for the long-term addition to supplementary benefit.

This is a question which we shall consider as resources permit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who are dependent on supplementary benefit, particularly one-parent families, are becoming increasingly desperate and disillusioned concerning their ability to cope in the present economic crisis? Does he agree that the Government should take action at least on the short-term measures suggested by the Finer Report? If the Government continue not to accept the guaranteed maintenance allowance, when will they come up with measures involving a non-means-tested benefit for all one-parent families?

I wish that my hon. Friend would occasionally draw attention to how much money in additional resources has been spent by the present Government in the whole area of social security. The record of the Labour Government bears comparison with any previous Government in this country throughout the whole post-war period. There is no dispute between my hon. Friend and the Government about wanting to improve the lot of deprived families, whether one-parent families or any other group of families or individuals in the community. We shall achieve this as quickly as available resources permit us to do so.

Does the Minister agree that he has not answered the question? Does he agree that it is now 13 months since Finer reported? The Government have not yet provided time for a proper debate on that report. Does he not agree that this is a scandalous situation and shows a distorted sense of Government priorities?

If there is one thing which is scandalous in the history of the treatment of one-parent families—and, indeed, of all families with children—it is the failure of the previous administration to increase family allowances ever since 1956. As for what has been implemented arising out of the Finer recommendations, I refer the hon. Gentleman to Questions already answered in this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what level of unemployment will be assumed by her Department for 1975–76 for the purpose of fixing the level of national insurance contributions.

I must ask the hon. Member to await the Government Actuary's Report which we shall be laying before the House in due course, together with a draft order fixing contributions for 1976–77.

I can hardly say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that with high rising unemployment, special measures are needed to bring relief and hope to those who will be affected in increasing numbers during the coming winter? Can he give an assurance that his Department will take the initiative to bring together the combined resources of the Government, local authorities and voluntary bodies to try to assist the large number of people who will find themselves out of work during the coming winter?

Dealing with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can give him the assurance that this Government, through my Department, are doing everything possible on the lines described by him to assist individuals who have difficulties. As for his reference to special measures, he will be aware that there is another substantial uprating for November of this year which will help not only retirement pensioners but all other recipients of both long-term and short-term benefits.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the line which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) is fraught with a little danger in that although most right hon. and hon. Members will applaud the efforts of local communities, authorities and others and Government Departments combining to reduce the level of unemployment in areas where the dole queue may be as large as 20 per cent. of the working population, there is a fellow known as the district auditor who may call upon a local authority and say that it has reduced unemployment levels too greatly and that it will be surcharged to the tune of £30,000, as happened in the recent case of the 11 councillors at Clay Cross?

My hon. Friend will get me into trouble. He knows a great deal more than I do about these matters. I think that his question would be more appropriately addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what requests she has received from the pharmaceutical journals for clarification of her policy towards them: and if she will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations about the possible effects of our proposals to reduce pharmaceutical promotion. I do not wish to see the position of journals of reference value prejudiced.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reply. He will agree, I am sure, that there should be the widest possible dissemination of information on new drugs. He will be aware that accidents have occurred because of misunderstandings over the use of new drugs. In my constituency the pharmaceutical industry is a very big and very good employer. It provides excellent working conditions. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not impede the fine progress which this industry is making?

Yes. I think that the pharmaceutical industry makes a valuable contribution to the country's export drive, and we shall do everything possible to help it. However, it spends a high percentage—something like 14 per cent.—of the product of its home sales on promotion. Although there is a need for information about new drugs, I think that there can be too much promotional activity.

Does my hon. Friend also accept that although it is necessary to protect the future of pharmaceutical journals, some of the protection might be afforded by redirecting resources from the industry, which spends too much money on representatives, creating a ratio between representatives and doctors of about one to eight?

The whole question of medical representatives needs looking into. Doctors are scientifically trained, and obviously they need objective information. But whether they need such a large amount of spending on medical representation is open to doubt. I feel that too much is being spent.

Does the Minister agree that it would be all to the good if his proposal led to the pharmaceutical industry spending its promotional money strictly on the provision of information—reducing the money spent on favours and general promotional activity concentrated on general practitioners which have commanded so large a part of it hitherto?

Yes. I have made it clear that gifts and lavish amounts of samples are a charge which should not be made on the National Health Service. At the moment they are claimable on the VPRS system. I think that there is a widespread feeling that this is an area for sensible expenditure cuts which might then be devoted to the National Health Service. I look forward to the support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will institute a high-level inquiry into the possibility of extending the scope of preventive medicine.

I have already announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 30th June—[Vol. 894, c. 277–8.]—the Government's intention to issue a consultative document on preventive medicine either at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. The Government consider that this is the best way to advance this very important subject.

Would it not be helpful to gather people together to discuss this? It seems to me that we have in the past paid too little attention to the old adage about prevention being better than cure.

I agree that we pay too much lip service to preventive medicine. This will be the first document put forward. It will be for consultation. When it is published, the idea of bringing together people to discuss it is one which I shall want to consider.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I support the request of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for an inquiry? In view of the fact that so little is spent on preventing illness and so much on curing it, this is vitally necessary. If my hon. Friend agrees to an inquiry, will he include in its terms of reference the effects of such things as pollution, food additives and various other causes of so much illness?

Many of the facts are well known, and if there is any responsibility for the lack of action on preventive medicine it probably lies in this House. There has been a marked reluctance on the part of successive Governments to tackle the problem. We shall bring forward evidence of many aspects, and I hope that it will be possible to debate it. However, that will be a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are scores of known causes of mental handicap but that very few ways are known of preventing those causes? Will his consultative document deal fully with the prevention of mental handicap?

I am sure that it will cover screening. It is a very complex subject, and the document could be very large. It will tend to concentrate on the main areas and perhaps later go into detail on the area in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested. This is an important area, and there have been some recent advances. But progress is slow, although I am hopeful for the future.

On the subject of preventive medicine, is my hon. Friend aware that the early introduction of good rehabilitative services can be of assistance in prevention?

This is an important aspect. Much of it is related to our concept of community care and involves close association between health services and local authorities. My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear repeatedly that it is impossible to look at the nation's health without looking at the National Health Service and the personal social services together.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she has reached a decision on earnings-related benefits for the self-employed.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on 8th July.—[Vol. 895. c. 103.]

Can the right hon. Lady give us any idea how long her studies will take and some estimate of how many self-employed people will still be left in business at that time to receive these benefits when they eventually come?

The hon. Gentleman's last quip rather militated against the seriousness of his question. We are taking extremely seriously this examination of the possibilities of extending earnings-related benefits to the self-employed. This is a difficult problem. Its solution has defeated the efforts of all previous Governments. I cannot say whether we shall be successful. I am afraid that I cannot give a date for when I shall be ready to put my conclusions to the House. But I am taking the matter very seriously and I am anxious to find a solution.

On extending benefits generally to the self-employed, has any thought been given to the possibility of renegotiating the reciprocal agreements between this country and a number of European countries, for example, so that in the future the self-employed may obtain sickness and accident benefits in respect of illness or injury occurring in those countries?

One of the difficulties that we have faced is that membership of the Community does not automatically bestow these reciprocal benefits on the self-employed, because we have better facilities for the self-employed through our public services. But I was happy to go to the Federal Republic of Germany to sign a reciprocal health agreement which extended to the self-employed from this country benefits equivalent to those that the self-employed from that country obtain here from our health service. We continue to press ahead with these agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present cost of providing speech therapy in the National Health Service.

The cost of providing speech therapy services is not available centrally, but the cost of employing speech therapists in the National Health Service in England is estimated to be about £3·3 million a year.

In addition to the question of costs, can the Minister say what is being done to encourage the area health authorities to appoint chief speech therapists and thereby establish a proper career structure, and what is being done to promote the speech therapy tapes for rehabilitation?

I take the view that what share of total resources can or should be devoted to speech therapy, as in many other areas, must be the responsibility of the health authorities to determine in the light of the resource restraints under which they are operating. We have made it clear that we attach importance to speech therapy but that it is one of the many priorities which are pressing for extra resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement regarding the implementation of Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 by local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the most recent information she has on the extent to which local authorities are implementing their duties under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will issue a further circular to local authorities regarding their legal duties under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

The statistics showing help provided by local authorities under Section 2 are placed in the Library of the House each year as soon as available. Local government reorganisation makes comparisons difficult but the returns so far received in respect of 1974–75 suggest that the number of households assisted last year showed an increase over the 1973–74 figure.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will she thank her hon. Friend with responsibility for the disabled for the reply on Section 2 that he gave to the National Deaf Children's Society and Action Research for the Crippled Child? Could that reply be widely circulated among local authorities so that they know the mandatory nature of Section 2? Is she aware that those of us who served in Committee on the Act did not realise how cunning we had been? Will she please review Circular 12/70, particularly the paragraph which discourages people from taking action under Section 2? Will she make sure that this review is made known to the public at large and to the disabled in particular?

On the first point, I shall certainly convey what my hon. Friend has said to the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, who, I am sure, will carefully consider the suggestion. On the second point, I do not think that there is any need for me to add to what I have said, which is sufficient clarification in itself.

Will the right hon. Lady look carefully into the situation in which one area health authority discharges patients who are mentally handicapped or disabled back into the area of another health authority because the one area does not have the facilities and hopes that the other does? I know of a case where that has happened and it is not satisfactory. Will the Secretary of State look into these particular cases?

I should certainly be willing to look into any case that the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member cared to bring to my attention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a feeling abroad, particularly among people serving in local authorities, that this legislation is optional? Would it not be useful if local authority members and officials were advised that this is the law of the land and that the Act must be administered in full? How will it be possible for local authorities to administer the Act successfully in view of the anti-inflation legislation?

I do not quite see the relevance of the last part of the question, but on the first part I repeat that, once a local authority accepts that need exists in respect of one of the services listed in Section 2, it is incumbent on it, I am advised, to make arrangements to meet that need. Of course, "need" is an imprecise concept and local authorities have discretion in determining that need. Parliament did not attempt to define that precisely, so that there is and must be an area of discretion of which local authorities will take advantage in dealing with the conflict between what they desire to do and the resources they have available. Of course there are other facilities additional to those in Section 2 which are of value to the disabled. For example, they need cash—we try to give it to them—they need a house sometimes and they need social work support. The idea of help is a complex one.

Will the right hon. Lady investigate why there is not one Possum appliance in the Wessex Regional Health Authority area? Will she also look into the fact that the giving of appliances and adaptations to disabled people will often save a local authority a great deal of money in the long term, as identified in the Sunday Times article on Wendy Bassett last Sunday?

I have of course seen that report and was as interested in it as was the hon. Lady. I am having inquiries made into the case and will be glad to write to the hon. Lady about it as soon as my inquiries are complete. With regard to the Possum machine I will draw the attention of the Minister with responsibility for the disabled to what she has said. Even there, however, it is a question of doing the most one can within the resources, which are limited. We all know that, and as a House we must accept it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will reduce for lone parents the weekly number of hours of work required to qualify for family income supplement.

We are still continuing studies to identify, if possible, an acceptable scheme which would benefit lone parents unable to work 30 hours a week.

Would my hon. Friend accept that that answer will be welcomed? Would he also accept that most people concerned with assisting one-parent families would support the Government's view that a system of child cash allowances to replace means-tested benefits is the best approach? Would he also accept, however, that the introduction of a scheme of that sort with benefits on a scale large enough to meet the aims will be many years delayed? Will he consider carefully whether the FIS can be used to benefit parents who earn too much to benefit from supplementary benefit but who cannot, because of family responsibilities, work long enough to qualify for the FIS? Will he in particular consider whether in those circumstances the hours limit could be reduced to 25 or 20 hours?

I agree that the introduction of a Finer-type guaranteed maintenance allowance, if non-means tested, at a cost of £400 million a year is not possible in the immediate future. As to reducing the number of hours for entitlement to FIS for lone parents, if the number of hours were reduced from 30 to 24—or 25, as my hon. Friend suggests—only about 5,000 families out of more than 600,000 would benefit and double assessment of all families would be required to see whether they would get greater advantage from family income supplement plus rent and rate rebates or from supplementary benefits. Therefore, what we are concerned to do is to devise a scheme which will give extra help to a significant number of extra families but which is also operationally manageable.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that one of the problems is that the more people there are in receipt of FIS, the greater the number of people who are liable to get into the poverty trap? Have the Government made any progress in reducing the number of families who are subject to these high marginal tax rates?

One change which reduces liability to the poverty trap is the fact that there is no immediate adjustment of benefits. Therefore, families in receipt of family income supplement and such things as free welfare milk and free school meals now receive those for a period of at least a year before adjustments are made. Although this does not eliminate the poverty trap—the only way to eliminate it is by providing benefits as of right—nevertheless it reduces the liability.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied with the arrangements under which GPs in medical practices are paid.

I have no major proposals for changes, but improvements in the arrangements are negotiated from time to time and priced by the Review Body. I shall be glad to consider any changes my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is it not the case that a general practitioner can run his practice with the aid of assistants and that these assistants are paid at present £6,000 a year while the general practitioner can receive £9,000 a year from the Family Practitioner Committee? Will the hon. Gentleman investigate this and take steps to prevent this profiteering?

I will look into any individual cases. I think it is normally accepted that assistants are employed with a view to eventual partnership, and these should be training posts. In some cases the assistantship can become almost permanent, and then there is this development to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which is in some cases undesirable.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in reducing the abuse of the social security system.

In all its social security operations, the Department seeks to strike the right balance between dealing with genuine claimants in a prompt and civilised way and providing adequate safeguards against fraud and abuse. One of the best safeguards is the detection and prosecution of fraudulent claimants, and the number of such prosecutions increased from about 12,000 in 1973 to nearly 14,000 in 1974.

While accepting that answer, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is something wrong with the system when a student who works in his vacation finds his earnings aggregated to his parents' income, whereas if he takes the advice of the National Union of Students, as 9,000 did last Easter, and collects supplementary benefits, these are tax-free? To the majority of taxpayers this is an abuse. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the tax payments?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to a statement made last week in which it was announced that the whole question of student support was under examination.

Will my right hon. Friend publish in the Official Report the amounts reclaimed from fraudulent claimants of social security side by side with the amounts reclaimed as a result of fraud under the income tax laws?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall try to provide those figures. It is a pity that Opposition Members do not show the same kind of concern for income tax frauds as they do in the case of a number of very poor people.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many National Health Service patients are cared for, on average, each month in private hospitals and nursing homes.

There are approximately 2,000 admissions a month to establishments in England.

Is it the policy of the Secretary of State to continue to use beds in the private sector for National Health Service patients while closing down the private beds within the National Health Service?

Certainly it would be no part of my proposals for the private sector to terminate these arrangements if it was suitable both to the health authorities and to the private sector to continue them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current value of the family allowance expressed in real terms as a percentage of the 1968 value.

On the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, June 1975, the family allowance for the second child represented, in real terms, 80·1 per cent. of the value it held in October 1968. For the third and subsequent children the percentage was 72·1.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a very deplorable situation? Is he aware that the combined value of child tax allowances and family allowances is lower after the April Budget this year than it was after the Budget the previous year? Will he make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take urgent action to bring these figures to a more reasonable state?

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the Government are proposing to introduce a child benefit which will amalgamate the child tax allowances and family allowances. The rate of these has not yet been fixed, but it will be fixed next year. We shall certainly bear in mind the representations that my hon. Friend has made.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how the economy can stand an increase of £6 a week for men who go out to work while there is nothing available for women who work at home?

The Question was about family allowances. Women gain from an increase in family allowances. The increase which the Government introduced this year was the first increase since 1968 under a previous Labour administration. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the last time a Conservative administration raised family allowances was 19 years ago.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC Congress in September.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.

No, Sir.

Since the Prime Minister is always accusing the Opposition of wanting to cause unemployement by cutting public expenditure, will he tell the TUC, if he receives such an invitation and accepts it, how he proposes to cut public spending next year when unemployment will be much higher than it is now?

The proposal was announced by my right hon. Friend. The House will know that unemployment, which is endemic in all advanced countries, for reasons of which the House is aware, is seriously affecting this country, but we are not prepared to accept the proposals of the Opposition which would greatly increase unemployment at this time.

If the right hon. Gentleman receives such an invitation, will he take advantage of the opportunity to explain to the TUC how he can reconcile his own commitment to more open government and to proper accountability by the British Government to the British people, as he expressed to the TUC last year, with his suppression of the Crossman diaries, with his lack of inclination to disclose—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but these interruptions come from the Prime Minister's own back benchers.

Order. This supplementary question is a trifle lengthy.

I have three other points which I suggest the Prime Minister should marry up.

Order. The hon. Member is wrong. He has only one more point to make, and that one shortly.

You are entirely correct, Mr. Speaker. How can the Prime Minister reconcile those matters with his refusal to give the Ombudsman the necessary papers so that he can pursue the Clay Cross affair—[Hon. Members: "Court Line."]—I am sorry, the Court Line affair—it is easy to get mixed up with these various affairs of the Government—and the secrecy concerning the Government's reserve powers Bill?

It is quite clear that the hon. Member does not know his Court Line from his elbow. With regard to the Crossman diaries, the matter is currently before the courts and it would be wrong for me to make any comment in reply to the hon. Member. With regard to the Ombudsman and the question of Cabinet documents, this matter was debated in Parliament in 1965 on Government legislation and was fully explained to the House. The rules were laid down and have been followed by successive Governments. But if, after the totally mendacious and characteristic article in The Times yesterday, right hon. and hon. Members would like me to pursue this matter further, I shall be happy to make a statement in the House tomorrow and nail this once and for all.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's central strategy of keeping down unemployment is, to say the least, more than a little confusing to the average trade unionist when one takes into account the fact that, having been elected to keep down unemployment, we are now witnessing a very large increase, rising to well over 1 million unemployed this year? Is he aware that the Government are making announcements to throw more people on the dole, as was shown in the statement on Norton Villiers Triumph last week and the possible statement on the steel industry some time this week, while at the same time talking about introducing a temporary unemployment subsidy to reduce the unemployment level? What precisely is the Government's strategy?

My hon. Friend says that our strategy is difficult to understand for the average trade unionist, but he is not an average trade unionist. For example, he does not support, as he showed a couple of weeks ago, the TUC and the vast majority of trade unionists on the Government's anti-inflation policy. As far as unemployment is concerned, the world recession following the oil crisis hit every advanced country, many of which had higher unemployment figures than at any time for 30 years. Apart from the short-term consequences, the long-term problem we face is due to a lack of investment in this country and a failure to make better use of investment—I shall be fair about this—under successive Governments of different parties in this country.

Is the Prime Minister aware that at his Press conference on 11th July—I refer not to The Times, about which he has this strange obsession, but to page 3/5 of the official Downing Street transcript—he stated categorically that the Government would publish the reserve powers Bill? Why has he now run away from that undertaking?

This was very fully debated in the House—[Hon. Members: "Answer."]—and it was fully answered by my right hon. Friend. I gave no commitment to publish the Bill before the debate—

I have it here.

I have seen it. I have read that document and I remember what I said. I gave no undertaking. It was used by the Opposition Front Bench as an excuse for their total shambles in their approach to this matter.

Assuming that the TUC accepts the argument in relation to the £6, can my right hon. Friend explain to the House what he will say, if invited to the TUC conference, in very concrete terms about how the Government are going to deal with rising unemployment and what steps will be taken by the Government to begin to bring down this level, especially as areas such as the one from which he and I both come now have one in eight men unemployed? Does he accept that we cannot stand any more unemployment?

I hope I am right in interpreting that question as meaning that my hon. Friend now accepts the TUC view on the Counter-inflation policy, although that may not be so. When speaking about unemployment at TUC meetings I have repeated the warning I gave a year ago when I last addressed the TUC conference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Energy on 6th November to the convener of shop stewards at Small Heath that, to use his own words, the Government were fully committed to securing the future of the motor-cycle industry in this country can be reconciled with the Government's decision to abandon the industry and allow it to collapse? Is it not clear that the undertaking was grossly misleading to the work force of NVT and their families, and is it not high time that the Secretary of State made a public statement on this matter and gave a public apology?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been. This matter is to be debated later this week. I have seen a transcript of the recording of what my right hon. Friend said to the shop stewards and I have no doubt this will be stated to the House. I think it has been published in the Press. The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with it. It is a very clear statement involving no possible commitment by any Government in this respect.

Here is the letter.

How can the Prime Minister describe the current main policy as anti-inflationary when, in essence, workers are supposed to have their wages kept behind rising prices? Is he aware that this sort of kidology and phraseology will bring an enormous backlash from organised labour in about January or February next year?

I cannot remember offhand whether my hon. Friend supported the policy of the Government and the TUC in this matter. This is TUC policy, and the Congress has slightly more authority to speak for organised labour than has my hon. Friend.

Does the Prime Minister accept that trade unions have a unique position of power in our society? If so, does he agree that it would be very much in the national interest if, whenever possible, they were seen to be supporting the Government of the day, whatever their colour? Assuming that the Prime Minister receives an invitation to address the TUC, will he suggest to its leadership that in future it would be helpful if it invited not only the present Prime Minister but also the present Leader of the Opposition?

I think that would be a very good idea. It would be highly educational for the right hon. Lady. One of the reasons for the troubles of the last few years has been that successive leaders of the Conservative Party have never understood organised labour or the TUC. They have had long meetings with them, but have sought to bully and organise confrontations with them. They have never tried to understand the minds of the trade union movement.

Does the Prime Minister accept that if he had taken action earlier to deal with inflation, the level of unemployment would have been a good deal lower than that which we shall have to endure next year? As the Government's last economic package clearly did not restore confidence, will he say whether he expects to specify any public expenditure cuts between now and the TUC conference or before the House returns after the recess?

When the right hon. Lady says that if we had acted earlier unemployment would be lower, she is totally wrong. She knows that countries which have tried to follow the sort of policies she advocates—in so far as they can possibly guess what they are—have had much higher unemployment than ours and it has come to them much earlier.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows that he will make public statements, can he specify the cuts, as Prime Minister?

The cuts were specified in the Budget Statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year. A £900 million cut was announced in the Budget. The next lot will be announced, as is always done, in the Public Expenditure White Paper. The trouble about our predecessors is that they announced the cuts and never carried them out.

I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 18, line 44, at end insert

"and in consequence is neither paid for that day by his employer nor entitled to be paid by virtue of his contract of employment remuneration at least equal to the remuneration he would have received if he had been provided with work on the whole of that day".

With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 47, 62, 68 and 129.

When we considered this Bill on Report last week, we made good progress by short speeches not only from both Front Benches but from all parts of the House. It is our intention to continue in the same vein today.

The phrases "short speeches" and "good progress" sound like an oasis at the end of a desert. I shall certainly wish to fit in with that spirit.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 19, line 23, at end insert:

'or a trade dispute in a nationalised industry'.

"If the economy were expanding, with business in a confident mood and price rises well under control, the case for implementing measures of this kind would be extremely strong; the only reasonable argument in such circumstances could be about whether they should be introduced piecemeal in response to collective bargaining procedures, or as a wholesale legislative package. In present circumstances the argument must be about their contribution to inflation; if the economy is forced by law to swallow all this at one go its present malaise may be worsened."

The right hon. Gentleman's arguments seem to be about the principle of guarantee payments and not about whether such payments should be paid when a dispute flows from a disruption in a nationalised industry. The argument on principle was discussed on Second Reading and at great length in Committee. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that on the general principle we must agree to differ. We believe that it is right to make the advances in terms of guarantee payments to workers that are provided in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may disagree about that, but that is the matter which has been discussed. I think that the principle has already been decided upon.

Briefly I take issue with the Minister on whether it is illogical to discriminate against the nationalised industries. Clearly those industries are apart from the rest of the economy in two important respects. The first respect is that they command a monopoly of vital services. The second respect, which we have seen in recent months, is the extent to which pay and conditions in the nationalised industries have borne no relation to the market place. So long as those who work in the nationalised industries believe that the taxpayer is there to foot the bill, they will have to be regarded as different from the rest of industry. Unfortunately, we are beginning to see the effect of wage increases which have far outstripped productivity. Employment, and the prospects of employment, depends upon the forces of the market place coming far more into the reckoning of the Government than has been the case.

I return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the nationalised industries being monopolies. He suggested that nationalised industries are always in monopoly positions, but is that true? Is it not true that there are privately-owned companies which are in monopoly positions?

I would not seek to argue that every nationalised industry is a monopoly, but I think we are all aware of crucial services that are monopolies. The withdrawal of those services places individual employers in a position in which they cannot carry on their businesses.

My point was that we cannot draw a distinction in terms of monopolies and equate monopolies with nationalised industries.

The point I was seeking to argue was that if monopoly situations are allowed to operate without the normal sanctions of the market applying, there is created a separate and privileged position. Therefore, if people go on strike in that situation they are in a somewhat different position from people who go on strike in a commercial enterprise. So long as the position remains that the Government will foot whatever deficit results at the end of the day, that position will continue.

I am sorry that the Minister has not been forthcoming, but I am not altogether surprised. As he said, this is ground that we debated, albeit in a slightly different context, in Committee. Quite clearly there was a major difference between both sides of the Committee which has been reflected in this short debate.