asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which appetite suppressants are supplied through the National Health Service.

A doctor may prescribe any appetite suppressant drug which he considers appropriate for a patient.

Will the Minister of State say what value the medical profession places on these preparations how much they are costing the National Health Service, and whether we should subsidise self-indulgence in this way?

The cost to the National Health Service is £2½ million a year. The British National Formulary, which my Department issues free to all doctors, says that:

"appetite suppressant drugs have little place in the management of the obese patient and there is no substitute for will-power".

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for private hospital licences she has received; and when she anticipates granting the first licences for private beds outside the National Health Service.

Twenty-nine developers have sought advice from my Department. As the House knows, the proposals published on 15th December envisage further discussions with the professions and representatives of the private sector about the possibility of ensuring by voluntary means that developments in the private sector do not endanger the service the National Health Service gives its patients. The consultations will cover the point as to whether any reserve powers that it proved necessary to take in the legislation might be exercised by the independent board. We are waiting to hear the reaction of the profession to the results of the recent consultants' ballot on these proposals. Meanwhile, it would be inappropriate for me to offer any assurances or indication whether or not particular development would qualify for a licence. My Department has advised all applicants accordingly.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that under the Goodman proposals, the longer it takes to build new private hospitals the longer it will take to phase out pay beds? Does he further realise that by failing to approve or decline applications for licences, he is putting an effective blight on the development of new hospitals? Will he therefore initiate a major new hospital building programme?

I appreciate the hon. Member's difficulties, but I think we must await the outcome of the discussions and the possibilities they represent.

That is not good enough. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that he is now standing on their heads the original proposals in the consultative document? Does he not accept the point made by my hon. Friend for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that, having made the phasing out of pay beds dependent on the provisions of private practice, any suggestion of quantity licensing to restrict the growth of private practice is wholly inappropriate?

We have to try to reach a voluntary agreement on any provisions that would endanger the National Health Service—and there are some. One can envisage a very large hospital being built in a small town. That would impair the NHS. I would have thought the Opposition would be as concerned to stop that sort of development as are the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she last met representatives of the pensioners' organisations; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she last met representatives of the pensioners' organisations; and if she will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the British Pensioners' and Trades Unions Action Committee on 27th September 1975. On 28th October 1975 she received a deputation from the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a single woman or widow aged 60, whose only income is her pension, is now above the income tax threshhold? What representations has he made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter?

That supplementary question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in recent statements, has indicated his awareness of the type of problem to which the hon. Member refers.

Although we appreciate that strong attempts have been made in the Cabinet recently to oppose any massive cuts in his Department's expenditure, does my right hon. Friend realise that the difficulties for pensioners lie not just in some of the matters affected by the White Paper dealing with public expenditure? Does he appreciate they are also affected by nationalised industries' prices, the lack of home helps, bus and rail fares, and many other things, and that they did not get the £6 pay increase in the autumn?

The whole House—certainly this applies to hon. Members on the Government side—agrees on the need progressively to increase the real level of retirement pensions to bring to an end the massive dependence on means testing which is a characteristic of life today. It is significant that during the lifetime of this Government, pensions have risen substantially faster than prices.

As many pensioners are still worried about rocketing prices in the shops—whatever the official statistics may say—how soon can they expect a Government announcement on the timing and amount of the next uprating?

If the hon. Member does not rely on the official statistics that have been accepted by successive Governments, I wonder what kind of subjective judgement he makes. It is significant and welcome that inflation over the second half of 1975 was running at about half the rate for 1975 as a whole, and we are therefore well on target to reach the Government's aim of reducing inflation below double figures by the end of 1976.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the White Paper issued last week a sum of £150 million a year in round figures is allocated for the progressive upgrading of pensions so that they may draw nearer to the proportion of average earnings that we wish them to be?

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, the position of pensioners is fully protected under the terms of the White Paper published last week.

When the right hon. Gentleman last met pensioners' organisations did he tell them that the Government intended to go back on the decision that Parliament forced on them last year to raise the earnings rule by £15 a week next year? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the White Paper proposals will reduce the real value of the earnings rule in 1976–77?

That is a piece of impudence from a party that tells us that the public expenditure cuts are not large enough and wants even larger cuts, which would inevitably increase unemployment. Any sane man or woman looking at the economic and financial circumstances of the country recognises that we have to take into account priorities, and that we have promised to dynamise the £35 earnings limit that will be reached in April 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will review the level of the additional heating allowance to supplementary and other benefits.

Extra heating additions are payable only with supplementary benefit, under discretionary powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which keeps the amounts of these additions under continuing review.

If the scale allowance for heating was sufficient last November to cover normal expenditure, will it be sufficient when the cost of electricity is shortly increased by 12 per cent.? If it was sufficient last November, why was it necessary for the Secretary of State for Energy to give a piece of cynical advice to elderly pensioners by telling them that they could burn fuel now and pay their bills later?

The advice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy gave to the fuel boards was widely welcomed throughout the country, certainly amongst pensioners. On the question of the level of the scale rate for supplementary benefits, the rates for national insurance and supplementary benefits have kept in line with earnings and have risen substantially faster than prices since the Government came to power. As a result, about £1,000 million extra, in real terms, has been put into the hands of pensioners. Furthermore, the extra additions over and above the scale rate of supplementary benefits have increased even faster under this Government—by 83 per cent.

Has my right hon. Friend seen in today's Press a report of the speech made by the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to the effect that the basic entitlement rates of supplementary benefit should be raised so as to reduce the discretionary element? Is that not in line with the more fundamental point made by the Child Poverty Act Group, that we should be following a policy of "back to Beveridge" so as to reduce means testing to a minimum?

We are awaiting the recommendations that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will make to the Government. I cannot, therefore, comment on the Press report. On the general question of raising the scale rates so as to reduce discretion, the increase in the scope of discretionary powers in the hands of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has caused concern to the Commission. We have to decide on the general question of the level of scale rates and whether the increase in line with earnings since 1948 is sufficient or a more general review is needed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people regard the process of going to the Supplementary Benefits Commission as a humiliating process? Is he aware that letters have appeared in the Scottish Press suggesting that old folk would rather freeze to death than go through that process? Is the Minister satisfied with the take-up of supplementary benefits?

The evidence to which the hon. Lady alludes is entirely contrary to the substantial increase in the number of elderly people who are now in receipt of extra heating additions. The latest provisional estimate is that the number is nearly 1 million—970,000—which, if it is correct, is 23 per cent. above the level of seven months ago. That indicates considerable success for the Commission in getting old people to claim their rights.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there are old people who, although they are happy that their gas and electricity will not be cut off, have bills of up to £100 or £150 which they will eventually have to pay? What are the Government doing about that? There is no point in the Secretary of State for Energy telling us something if complementary arrangements have not been made to meet the bills of those old people.

I accept the general point that my hon. Friend made. On our side we have been concerned to provide a policy that is complementary to the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, which we welcome. That policy is a better form of liaison between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the fuel boards. If supplementary benefit recipients in exceptional circumstances are having difficulties with fuel payments, exceptional needs payments are made available. If there are not exceptional circumstances, but if hardship would arise from disconnection, new arrangements have recently been implemented for deductions from the allowance, week by week, to ensure that large lump payments are avoided. That is a condition for ensuring that there is no disconnection.

Is the Minister aware that old people, unlike the Government, like to live within their incomes? In my part of the world, where there are considerable numbers of old people, there is a strong force of opinion in favour of an increase in the supplementary allowance rather than the offer of credit.

That is why I said that special arrangements will be made for weekly or monthly payments, to get over the problem of very large payments having to be made at fairly irregular intervals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she will start the new level of supplementary disregard for one-parent families.

As soon as it is practicable to do so.

Is the Minister aware that 280,000 families are in urgent need and that it is time we had some positive news? Is not this a miserable concession, which will mean little in real cash terms?

The hon. Gentleman should read the newspapers. The organisations that represent the interests of lone parents welcome the change that is being made. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that principal legislation is necessary before this can be done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is correct in saying that this is a welcome advance for families on supplementary benefit where the lone parent can work part-time? For other families, where the lone parent is not working full-time and is not benefiting from child interim benefit, will the Minister offer some long-term addition?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting the view expressed by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). My hon. Friend will bear in mind that we have increased supplementary benefit scale rates pari passu with the equivalent national insurance rates. In that way the financial position of one-parent families has been fully protected against inflation.

When the Minister read the newspaper to which he referred my hon. Friend, did he notice the comments of the National Council for One Parent Families, which said that the child interim benefit

"is causing widespread confusion, resentment and anger."

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the child benefit scheme will come into operation. Arrangements are being made to bring it into operation in April 1977. The hon. Gentleman, even taking into account the party political battle which takes place in the House, should not impugn the good faith of Ministers or hon. Members, or their intentions on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps she is taking to replace National Dried Milk with more acceptable and safer brands of proprietary dried milk.

I hope shortly to be able to announce arrangements to supply proprietary brands of modified milk free of charge to those entitled to free supplies under the present scheme.

Will the Minister undertake, first, to consult the obstetricians and paediatricians—which he did not do when the Government removed National Dried Milk for babies under the age of six months—before making any recommendation which, like the last one, may stir up a great deal of fear and unhappiness amongst mothers and doctors who get the wrong end of the stick through Press reports?

As the hon. Lady has rightly acknowledged, the anxieties that were generated were largely due to the sensationalist way in which certain persons in the Press tended to treat my announcement. As for consultation, following the report of the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on medical aspects of food policy in 1974, we set up a further committee to examine this matter. That committee reported in December 1975. We certainly have undertaken very full consultations on this highly technical question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that his Department continues to supply a form of National Dried Milk? Will he say what steps he is taking, and when the results of those steps will be known, to produce a new formula for National Dried Milk that will be in line with the guidelines issued earlier by his Department? Will he also give an indication of the relative cost of a new formula for National Dried Milk, compared with the proprietary brands that have approval at present?

I have said that we are considering the option of reformulating National Dried Milk. I am having consultations on this issue with my right hon. Friends responsible for the health departments of Scotland and Wales. There are some difficulties. I cannot at this stage tell my hon. Friend what the cost is likely to be. However, I hope that in the interval prior to its introduction we shall be able to give full protection to needy families, in terms of getting the type of modified milk powders that they require.

I am glad to hear the Minister agree that his Department's handling of this matter has created needless alarm. Is it now his intention to amend the Welfare Food Order 1975?

We are undertaking consultations with the manufacturers in order to make the necessary amendments to the Welfare Food Order 1975, to ensure that needy families will be able to obtain modified milk powders under the present arrangements. However, even prior to those consultations they were able to obtain modified milk powders at a price that represents the cost to the health authorities plus a 10 per cent. handling charge. That price is substantially below the commercial price.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the reformulation of National Dried Milk will be introduced as a matter of great urgency? Is it not true that the abandonment of National Dried Milk is a victory for the manufacturers of proprietary baby foods? Does he recall the Adjournment debate, some time ago, in which I pointed out that many of these manufacturers were abusing their position by foisting proprietary baby foods on mothers so that the babies became hooked? Is it not a matter of real urgency that National Dried Milk, which certainly was cheaper, should be replaced?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the considerable price bargain that exists for mothers who purchase National Dried Milk, because a 20 oz. pack costs 20p, whereas the price of a 16 oz. pack of a modified proprietary brand may range between 60p and 85p. Therefore, there is still a substantial price advantage. We have not withdrawn National Dried Milk, precisely because there is no health risk beyond the first six months of life. Therefore, it remains a considerable price gain for mothers who use it. I cannot add to what I have already said about the reformulation of National Dried Milk. We intend to proceed on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of suspected social security abuse were investigated in October, November and December last year; how many prosecutions were proceeded with in each month; and how many persons were found guilty in each month.

No record is kept of the total number of fraud investigations, nor can monthly figures be given for prosecutions, but, on provisional figures, the total number of prosecutions for all benefit offences in 1975 was 15,000, and about 98 per cent. of these resulted in convictions.

Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling that too much of the taxpayer's money is being given to people who are cheating the system? Does he consider that the number of prosecutions and convictions satisfactorily reflects the extent of the abuse? Is he satisfied that he has enough inspectors, or people who are qualified to supervise the operation of the system, to stamp out the abuse in future?

We are deploying substantial staff resources on anti-fraud and anti-abuse measures. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the administration of the social security system should be seen to be under sufficient control. However, at the same time it should provide a humane administration for the vast majority of claimants, who are genuine and need help. I hope that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his hon. Friends would attempt to use or to build up the arguments about abuse in this House or, indeed, the country, so as to produce a backlash that could mean a worsening in standards for genuine claimants, who form the overwhelming majority of those who use the resources of my Department.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that successive independent inquiries into this matter have revealed that the fraud amounts, at most, to about £3 million or £4 million a year? When answering this question, will he provide the figures for fraud in connection with income tax, which I understand amounts to not less than £400 million every year? If Opposition Members were to ask questions about fraud in connection with income tax rather than social security we would take much more notice of them.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that on the basis of such evidence as we have only a tiny minority of people try to abuse the system. It would be utterly wrong for a Government to change the methods of control so as to deter genuine claimants from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.

One does not need to allege fraud. Does the Minister agree that the rules require further consideration? Has his attention been drawn to the case of Mr. Desmond Adams? Have we now reached the stage at which a man is entitled to have his motoring fine paid for by social security?

I have a note on the case to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Sunday Express again—I think that article is contained in that newspaper—he will see that the headline refers to social security. In fact, it has nothing to do with my Department. The article is dealing with a local authority social services department. The right hon. Gentleman should be careful before he makes inaccurate statements.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations she has received over the poverty trap from organisations working in the poverty field.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations she has received over the poverty trap from organisations working in the poverty field.

None, Sir.

I am surprised at that answer. Do the Government intend to reduce the number of families suffering in the poverty trap? What steps do they intend to take to deal with the elements that make up the poverty trap?

We have already confirmed improvements to non-means-tested benefits, namely, the non-contributory invalidity pension, the mobility allowance and the child benefit. We have also increased the family allowance, for the first time since a Labour Government last increased it. We did that last April. That shows a measure of our determination to get rid of this problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest child benefit for lone parents exemplifies this trap very well? There have been bitter complaints that some parents will be worse off if they claim this benefit and that a great many others will be only marginally better off by doing so.

Over 250,000 one-parent families are expected to make some gain as a result of the child interim benefit, and probably 45,000 will gain the full amount. The reason why the child interim benefit is not disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes is that the family allowance, which it replaces, is not disregarded either. It would be most odd to disregard the child interim benefit in April 1976 and not to disregard the child benefit in April 1977. The other reason is that, as a Labour Government, we do not want to entrench people more deeply in means tests.

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Education is proposing to introduce a new means-tested benefit for school transport? Will that not make the position even worse? What are the Government proposing to do to get out of this ludicrous situation and to make sure that it does not continually recur?

I have indicated that the money benefits that we have introduced will not make the problem worse. As for the question whether the benefit to which the hon. Member refers—which, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education—makes the poverty trap worse, given that there is a run-on of benefits, and that they will not be adjusted immediately but will continue until the end of the year, when there is normally an increase in the income limits, there will be no worsening of the poverty trap.

In view of the representations by the Conservatives that we should increase public expenditure in one direction or another, and given that, on the other hand, they want public expenditure cut in all spheres except one—defence—will my hon. Friend have consultations with the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether he can contribute any cuts in defence expenditure, thus satisfying one of the desires of the Conservative Party?

The best action that the Conservatives could take, if they were serious about ending the problem of the poverty trap, would be to change their leader, because she seems determined to cut public expenditure and to increase defence spending.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she intends to introduce legislation on drug prescriptions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals she intends to make to limit the prescription of certain proprietary drugs.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she intends to introduce legislation on drug prescriptions.

We have no plans to add to the statutory provisions governing National Health Service prescribing.

With 3 billion tranquilisers being prescribed every year in England and Wales, is there not a danger that if we picked up the man in the street and shook him he would rattle? Should not something more be done to control this costly cascade of pills down the public gullet?

I agree with the hon. Member's concern. Everything possible should be done to cut the prescribing bill. We are trying, by means of information to the doctors and the general public, to reduce the level of drugs prescribed. Unfortunately, however, this bill is constantly rising for the National Health Service.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern over the controlling of the prescription of drugs not only by general practitioners, where there is some control, but in hospitals? Is he further aware that this concern exists particularly over drugs prescribed for psychiatric purposes? Will he watch very closely the increase in the number of these drugs being prescribed and the price charged by the manufacturer?

Concern is expressed from time to time at the over-prescribing of drugs in psychiatric hospitals. There is a very difficult question of balance for doctors in dealing with disturbed patients, but wherever cases have been brought to our attention we have tried to look into them. The Hospital Advisory Service has psychiatric hospitals within its remit and is able to make representations.

Has the Minister studied the text of last week's White Paper? From it he will discover that unless the bill for prescribed drugs is limited in some way the new hospital building programme will have to be considerably slashed, because of the shortage of funds.

I do not know whether the Conservatives would be prepared to support the Government if they introduced proposals to limit prescribing by doctors. One of the problems is that the cry often goes up about clinical freedom, and we must accept that that is a valid argument. The family practitioner service is exempt from some of the cash controls, because it is a demand-oriented service and it is difficult to put it within a rigid framework. I do not think, therefore, that the case to which the hon. Member has alluded will arise.

Does the Minister agree that one aspect that needs examination is the degree of drug pushing by private drug manufacturers? Will he consider whether the drugs industry should be nationalised? That would provide a most acceptable solution to the problem facing the National Health Service.

Labour Members have for long believed that there is a case for greater public ownership in some of those industries which carry a major public health responsibility. My hon. Friend should not underestimate the effect that the voluntary price restraint scheme has had over the years in reducing the profits of the drug industry. Those profits were unacceptable in the early 1960s, but are now at a level which is much more commensurate with the normal profitability of other sections of industry.

Does the Minister accept that it is important to preserve the clinical freedom of doctors to prescribe what is in the best interest of the patient, and that that is what the health service is all about? It would be revolutionary and undesirable to intervene in the judgment of doctors in these cases.

I believe that we should carry the medical profession with us on this. The comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House are often reflected in concern in the profession. It is not altogether revolutionary to make these suggestions. There are a number of countries with tougher restrictions than ours. Great advances can still be made, however, by educating the prescribing doctor and by creating a greater public awareness of the cost of various medicines. We are pursuing negotiations with the industry on both those counts.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consultations she has had with the pensions industry about the implementation of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations she has had with industry over the working of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.

We keep in regular touch with the TUC, the CBI and the pensions organisations about the implementation of the Act. The most recent meeting with the pensions organisations was on 15th January.

Is the Minister aware of the profound disquiet at the present arrangements for contracting out, since they will discourage pension schemes that offer above-minimum benefits? Will the Minister point out to the TUC that if pension funds are forced to invest in nonviable State enterprises our retired citizens will inevitably receive lower occupational pensions?

I am not aware of the existence of profound general disquiet of the type that the hon. Member suggests. I think that his Front Bench will confirm that I am right in that. I understand the problems of the industry in regard to the effect of the counter inflation policy after 31st July. Although this is primarily a matter for the Department of Employment, I have indicated to the pensions interests that we should be very pleased to receive representations and to have consultations with them in the discussions leading up to the counter-inflation policy that will take effect after next August.

Does the Minister accept that the Government's current incomes policy is a considerably restricting factor in the development of occupational pension schemes? Will he therefore put maximum pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that when we move into the next phase of the incomes policy a positive encouragement is given to the development of occupational pension schemes?

I do not think the hon. Member is being quite fair on this. As from 31st July this year, employees and employers will be able to implement schemes which have the effect of providing half pay on maturity and on final salary basis. Those are high and hitherto unattained levels for large numbers of the work force. I recognise some of the problems inherent in a situation of this kind and I shall be pleased to hear the detailed views of the pensions industry on this matter.

I greatly welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said, especially about the consultations concerning the next stage of the incomes policy. Does he agree that it is rather miserly to restrict the improvement in benefits to the minimum contracting-out level? Will he take an open view on this matter, because this is a process that could properly proceed without damage to the Government's incomes policy?

Millions of people would not think it miserly to have half their final salary or pay on retirement. They do not have anything like that at present. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that contributions to pension funds have an effect on unit labour costs, just as other forms of pay have an effect. Pensions and pension funds are deferred pay. Nevertheless, I have made it clear that we are prepared to listen to the detailed views of the industry on this sub- ject, because specific instances—for example, those affecting back crediting—can produce difficulties. We are prepared to discuss these matters with the pensions interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further cuts she proposes to make in the capital programme for hospital and local government services in 1977–78.

The details were published last Thursday in the White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393).

Given the salutary reading from that White Paper, is the Minister aware that in Wellingborough and certain other towns all the general practitioners work from a privately financed and run health centre? Does that not offer a formula for the future financing of health centres, thus releasing resources for hospital building?

My experience is that general practitioners are constantly making demands for capital grants for health centre buildings which we cannot totally satisfy. The Government have given this subject high priority and will continue to do so. The idea that there is a large private sector wishing to take up health centre building is not my experience.

Is the Minister aware that 70,000 of my constituents will be deeply incensed if they have to wait another five years after the start of the new town for a new hospital in Hemel Hempstead? May I press him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek cuts in wasteful motorway programmes and defence expenditure before lengthening hospital queues?

The Public Expenditure White Paper reflects a choice of priorities, high on the list of which is health and personal social services. They are given higher priority than the motorway programme or the defence programme. The Public Expenditure White Paper reflects Socialist priorities. Perhaps it is not understood sufficiently in this House that the growth of expenditure in the National Health Service will be 2·7 per cent. and in personal social services 3·9 per cent. over the next year. Over the following three years, the growth will be 1·8 per cent. and 2 per cent. for the National Health Service and personal social services, respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the planned hospital for Skelmersdale New Town, several years ago, was given the title of "the best buy" by his Department? The land is still available and the Government are under an obligation. Does he not agree that the Government have an obligation to build a new hospital, because that would give the much needed vote of confidence that the people demand from the Government?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, particularly about the employment situation in Skelmersdale. I have promised to look into the question of the hospital building programme. In the last analysis it must rely on the overall priorities of the regional health authority concerned. There are other aspects, such as Skelmersdale's being a new town, which I shall examine.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations she has had with the medical and nursing professions before closing wards and reducing staffing in the National Health Service.

Temporary closures of hospital wards and the levels of staffing in the National Health Service are matters for individual health authorities in England. There are established procedures for consultation regionally and locally between the authorities and the medical and nursing professions, and also the other health service professions, on these matters.

I am glad to hear that the Minister agrees that proper consultations are taking place. Will he undertake to have urgent consultations with the Royal College of Nursing following the announcement in the Press today that

"Unions push nurses off committees"?

Nurses are already represented on area and regional health authorities. The Royal College of Nursing is represented on staff organisations and on the Whitley Council. I shall gladly look into individual complaints, but overall the representation on staff organisation is a matter for the staff to determine.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Minister for Overseas Development, in Oxford, on 6th February, about the need for leadership amongst young people represents Government policy.

My right hon. Friend was discussing the trends of political opinion among students and other young people, Sir. No question of Government policy arises from his speech.

The Prime Minister will recall that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development referred to the report by the National Executive of the Labour Party about the danger of Trotskyist influence in the party. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that report? Does the fact that it has been shelved mean that it is Labour Party policy not to put the Reds where they usually are—under the bed—but to sweep them under the carpet.

I have made it clear that there is no Government responsibility in these matters, and, in certain aspects of what is going on, no sense of responsibility in other ways, either. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter outside Question Time, where it does not arise, I shall be happy to send him a copy of the speech that I made on the subject.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 5th February to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on industry and commerce.

I did so, Sir, on 10th February.

Has my right hon. Friend seen today's unemployment figures, which show a continuing rise—students apart—over the figures that he described as a tragic waste in his Birmingham speech? Does he accept that although measures already taken are welcomed in my constituency there is deepening concern that further measures are needed soon if a deterioration in the job situation is not to be found in the domestic electrical appliance industry?

In the speech that I made at Birmingham I referred to some encouraging signs. In that I was supported by most industrialists present. I said that the unemployment problem would take longer to deal with. Although we cannot draw too much from one month's figures, my hon. Friend will have noticed today that against an average weekly increase of 10,600 unemployed in the last three months of last year, the weekly increase in the past five weeks has been just over 4,000. It is still an increase, but less that some expected. My hon. Friend will note that unfilled vacancies have started to increase, overtime has risen, and short time working has fallen. However, I have not changed the view that I expressed at Birmingham, that it will take some time before employment figures fall.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech, on 5th February 1976, to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on economic policy.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I have just given, Sir, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).

In his speech the Prime Minister urged industrialists to invest now and be ready for the upturn. To what extent is that possible, bearing in mind his admission in the same speech that the public sector is overloading resources and that the Government are not planning cuts until 1977–78?

Intelligent industrialists, such as those whom I addressed, see advantage in going for investment now and not waiting until constraints appear in a period of recovery.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the twin problems of unemployment and rising living costs are bearing heavily upon the working class of this country, which means that they are carrying the greater burden of the economic crisis that we face? Does he not agree that the Government should alter policy directions to take that into account?

A very large proportion of the people of this country, at different levels of income, have suffered both from unemployment and inflation which are two closely connected questions. They are a result, first, of worldwide inflation and depression—the reasons for which hon. Members know—and, secondly, of particular factors in this country which began well before this Government came to office.

Mr. Peter Morrison.

Question No. Q3.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic policy, on 5th February 1976, in Birmingham, to the Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today, Sir, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).

Does the Prime Minister recall his reference in that speech to

"cruel delusions perpetrated on the British people"?

No, Sir, I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman's carefully prepared supplementary to the wrong Question, because I answered that particular point in answer to the previous Question, which he thought that he was asking.

Has the Prime Minister seen the forecast by the Henley Centre for Forecasting that in the next boom—in 1978—if it comes, the lowest level of unemployment will be 850,000? Does he accept that forecast, and does he recognise that it is bound to come to pass unless the norm for the next phase of the pay policy is zero?

No, Sir, I do not accept that estimate, but I think that all of us have observed that for about 20 years now the period of boom has been shorter and the unemployment figure, at the peak and the trough of the boom, has been growing worse. This is one reason why, as I said in answer to a previous question, I think that I was right in that speech in calling for people to even out their investment decisions and to start investing before the constraints on the boom appear.

The Prime Minister may be correct in not accepting just any wild forecast that cannot be soundly based for a period of 14–16 months ahead, but does he not now accept that the further figures of 22,000, in the basic figure of these seasonally adjusted figures, is a very serious development, as shown in the figure published today? Does it not mean that he must now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer urgently to take measures—because it will take 12–14 months before new jobs can result from such measures—to have controlled reflation and certain import controls which are now absolutely inevitable?

I do not agree with the final prescription of my hon. Friend. I do agree that a figure of 22,000—even though at a much lower rate of increase than recently—is very serious. In referring to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend will be aware that he has announced measures in the House within the last two weeks which could not possibly have affected the figures published today.

The Prime Minister has referred several times to the need to have resources for new investment, but bearing in mind that the taxpayer will have to pay extra taxes to meet the interest on the debt mountain that his Government have created, where does he think those resources will come from?

The right hon. Lady will be aware of a significant improvement of liquidity in industry over the past year. She will no doubt have seen that last Saturday there was a comment on this very question of hers, in which it was said that

"The real shock has been the debt service burden. It is not one for which the Government can be blamed altogether since it is partly because of the Chancellor's admirable determination not to print the money required."

Once again the Prime Minister has avoided the question. Is he aware that his Government, in the next four years, will be spending more—[Interruption.]

Order. The preambles of other hon. Members have been so long this afternoon that they nearly drove me to sleep. The right hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.

The Prime Minister's plans are for the Government to spend more, to borrow more and to tax more. Where, therefore, will the resources be found for investing more in private industry?

I have made it clear—from the improved liquidity and from the very substantial help given by the Government for investment and reorganisation, which I understand—unfortunately, I missed the programme last night—the right hon. Lady said she would cut out this year, including the money for Chrysler, Leyland and the regeneration of British Industry under the National Enterprise Board.

In relation to the extra money that is being made available for industrial investment, will my right hon. Friend indicate whether this was to be through the channels of the National Enterprise Board, as was laid down in the 1973 Labour Party programme and manifesto, or is it once again to be a case of general moneys being made available to industry, with no public accountability whatsoever? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that in Birmingham on Saturday there was a demonstration, organised by the West Midlands Trade Union Congress Regional Council, which indicated the antagonism of the trade unionists in that area to the policies being pursued by the Government at present in relation to their cuts?

Indeed, I read my hon. Friend's speech on that occasion, although I do not necessarily agree with it. However, with regard to the earlier part of his question, if he had listened—as I am sure he was trying to do—to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, or if he had heard that answer, he would have heard me say that while it is the policy of the Conservatives, which they have announced, that all this money for investment through the NEB should be cut out in order to cut Government expenditure, we were going ahead with it and it was a very significant part of our programme. I should have added to that the very large sums announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget and on two occasions since then for helping with restructuring, modernisation and new investment in a number of industrial sectors which are falling behind.

As that Birmingham speech contained a note of optimism on the part of the Prime Minister, what message of hope will he give to the 1,400 school leavers who have been unable to gain employment since they left school in Coventry last July?

The right hon. Gentleman is apparently getting a little topographical, for some reason that I have not fully understood. The answer is, of course, the measures announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I think supported by the right hon. Gentleman—two or three weeks ago. However, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed when he was there that had we followed the prescription of certain parties opposite on Chrysler and Leyland there would have been many, many thousands—tens of thousands—more unemployed in Coventry and the surrounding area.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce on 5th February 1976, on economic policy.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today, Sir, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).

That answer has inevitably lost the first bloom of youth. However, does the Prime Minister agree that there was a reference to

"cruel delusions perpetrated on the British people"

No, Sir, I do not accept that. I am becoming increasingly disappointed with the supplementaires put by members of the syndicate—as the whole House is, I think, becoming concerned about the way in which they are hogging Question Time, to the detriment of other hon. Members.