asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the expenditure so far actually incurred on the building of regional secure units.

I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) yesterday.

Is the Minister aware that an incredibly small proportion of the moneys which his Department has allocated to regional authorities is being spent on regional secure accommodation? This amounts to a national scandal, and as a result 1,000 people who are mentally ill are languishing in prison. How long will his Department continue to connive with the regional authorities in this matter?

It is not a national scandal, and we are not conniving. We have told regional authorities that if they cannot spend the money on regional secure units they should spend it on alternative psychiatric care. They are doing that. I expect regional secure units to be operational from the early 1980s onwards.

Will the Minister give a clear assurance that he will not agree to the closure of any community home until he has carried out the fullest investigation into the recommendations made for closure by any children's regional committee?

If my hon. Friend will table a Question on that matter, I shall do my best to answer it.

What discussions has the Minister had with his own union —NUPE—whose declared policy is to oppose the siting of regional secure units in the grounds of existing mental hospitals? Does he realise that this has led to considerable problems at the Prestwich hospital and others? Will the Minister deal with this as a matter of urgency because it is causing great anxiety?

I have had discussions, and I have been to Prestwich hospital. I am aware of the problems, but I do not think that we should exaggerate them as an obstacle to the creation of regional secure units. These units are, after all, new concepts. They were ordered about four years ago. They require extensive planning and consultation. There is also the question of tying them in with the interim regional secure units. I think that we should put the matter in perspective.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the operation of schemes by county councils for assisting pensioners and the disabled to pay for telephone rental.

Overall there has been progress by local authorities in helping disabled people with telephone rentals. The House is well aware of my concern over disparity of provision as between authorities, and I shall continue to do all I can to encourage further progress.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for thousands of our senior citizens and the disabled the telephone is the only link with the outside world? This is a severe drain upon their financial resources. Therefore, will he issue a new directive to county councils asking them to be more helpful and understanding and to give assistance wherever possible?

I am very well aware of the importance of a telephone as a lifeline for frail elderly and disabled people. I emphasise that the total number of households in England provided with telephone rentals has risen from 47,000 for the year ended 31st March 1975 to nearly 74,000 for the year ended 31st March 1977. I am prepared to take up any case with the local authority where it is alleged that the requirements of the law are not being carried out. I shall have fully in mind all that has been said here this afternoon.

Is the Minister aware that this problem is even worse in rural areas because of the number of disabled people who are away from telephone facilities and neighbours? If he intends to issue a further circular to local authorities will he draw to their attention the fact that it is possible to get assistance towards this and that there are Acts other than the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970?

The problems of disabled people can be compounded in rural areas. But there is much that right hon. and hon. Members can do to nudge things forward in their own localities. I saw recently a very important article by my hon. Frend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I hope that it will be widely read, because its message was very important.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for the disabled and the elderly, who are often not in good health, the telephone is no longer a luxury but a necessity? It is the only way in which they can maintain contact with their families and friends. Will he go further than my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) and liaise with the Telephone Communications Board and the unions involved? If he does so, I am sure that he will arrive at some compromise to enable those who need telephones to have telephones.

My hon. Friend's argument was very much the one that I advanced in the House in 1969 and 1970 in commending to Parliament clause 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, as it then was. I shall consider the suggestion that has been made. I can give no further undertaking this afternoon. I emphasise that I shall do everything possible to nudge things further forward.

Does the Minister agree that for the elderly and disabled who are living alone, quick communications in an emergency can easily make the difference between life and death? Bearing in mind the difficulty of the enormous costs of extending the telephone scheme, will he consider the electronic alarm system that is being introduced in Stockport? I understand that it is not only for those who live in warden homes but for some who live in their own homes. That scheme may help a great deal.

There are alternatives to the telephone that may be important in some instances. I emphasise—I think that even"Mr. Buzby"would agree with me—that the telephone is deeply important to those who are isolated by disablement. I shall keep in mind all the suggestions that have been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the present arrangements for paying supplementary benefit during strikes.

Yes, Sir. Where necessary special arrangements have to be made to cope with the extra work load.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all parts of the House there is considerable concern about the increasing number of strikes where, first, there has not been a ballot of the workers concerned? Bearing that in mind, and the fact that most hon. Members agree in principle with the paying of supplementary benefit to strikers, should not he be considering in his review the making of an exception of those who are on strike without first having had a secret ballot of the workers involved?

No. Supplementary benefit is paid to families only where need is proved, and that will continue.

Will my right hon. Friend stand up against the campaign from the Opposition to penalise the rising generation, for whom we should be providing resources by, for example, providing supplementary benefit? Is he aware that at the next General Election Conservatives look like having a deliberate campaign against that generation?

I accept what my hon. Friend has said. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has brought the issue into the political arena in a recent speech. I can only reiterate that I and the Government will stand up to the campaign. We believe that where benefit is due to families of strikers and to others who are entitled it should be paid.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, instead of taxpayers having to find the money, the unions should look after their members' families?

No. Where need is proved, the Government will pay supplementary benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many medium security units exist in the Trent regional health authority area for the mentally sick and mentally handicapped persons, respectively; how many places there are in each unit; and how many units are to be built within the next four years.

There are no permanent units in Trent at present. Plans to build one with 60 beds at Towers hospital, Leicester, are well advanced toward a building start early in 1980. Detailed local consultations will begin soon on proposals to site a second unit of 45 beds at Balderton hospital, Newark. Both units will cater for mentally ill and mildly mentally handicapped patients who require treatment in regional secure units.

Does that mean that the Trent regional health authority area will be neglected still further? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the parents of these children—the children are not all young, as some of them are approaching middle age—are deeply disturbed about what will happen to their children when they, the parents, pass into the next world and their children will be left in this world on their own? What will he do to help? Will he give some guarantee to the unfortunate parents that their children will be looked after?

There are interim places already in existence. Four such places have been provided at Pastures hospital, Derby, and 12 more should be in use by August 1980 at Towers hospital. The main regional secure unit will be constructed at Towers hospital, Leicester. That will begin in 1980 and should be available for the children of the parents about whom my hon. Friend is so concerned.

Bearing in mind that the Trent region is so vast, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that answer is satisfactory? Will he tell the House what he intends to do in the next four years to provide special units for younger persons so that they are not mingled with much older people?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's expression of confidence that for four years I shall be able to continue the administration of regional secure units for the Trent regional health authority. I take that as a good omen. I am completely satisfied with the answer. It will eventually provide about 100 places in regional secure units. There will be places for younger people.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer to an earlier question—that money is now being spent on other psychiatric projects—means that there will now be a shortage of money for secure units? If so, will he provide extra funds for them?

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my answer. We have made money available for the funding of regional secure units. As long as they are not actually in existence, we give permission to regional health authorities to devote that money to other psychiatric needs in the Health Service. As the regional secure units come on stream, the money will have to fund the regional secure units.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of people in Cornwall and the United Kingdom, respectively, are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit.

In November 1977, about 8·9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population were partly or wholly dependent on supplementary benefit. Comparable information for Cornwall is not available.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that this is a scandalous situation? In 1963 the Labour Party published a document entitled"The Twelve Wasted Years"which condemned the proportion of the population forced by the then Conservative Government to live on means-tested benefits. Since then the proportion of the population living on these means-tested benefits has increased and increased again and again—

Order. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is advancing an argument and not asking a question. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

I am perfectly prepared to accept that, Mr. Speaker. However, I did phrase it as a question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we now have the means-tested society in place of the Welfare State? What will the Government do to reduce the proportion of the population forced to live on these means-tested benefits?

It is not a scandal. There has been a great increase in the number of retirement pensioners. There has also been a faster increase in the number of these means-tested benefits has increased families. However, the responsibility of the State is to ensure that people are relieved and that they have a decent standard of living. There is no need to be ashamed. The people who should be ashamed are those who are sometimes disparaging of those who claim supplementary benefit.

How many people are receiving supplementary benefit because they are in arrears with their national insurance contributions and those contributions have been waived?

I take it that my right hon. Friend has in mind allegations made yesterday in a court and while the case—

Order. If that is what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is talking about, we cannot have it. We must not in any way refer to the case that is now under way.

In the light of recent cases in Cornwall and elsewhere of unemployed persons receiving £130 a week tax free from social security, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider placing an upper limit on the amount that any one person or family may receive in any one week from social security? Is it not completely unjust that an unemployed person can, by not working, get the equivalent of almost double the average national wage of someone who is working, and for that matter six times the single old age pension?

The hon. Gentleman will believe anything that he reads and anything that he hears. He goes scraping in the gutter in the House as elsewhere to bring allegations against those who claim supplementary benefit. I shall have no more of it.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

I shall be much obliged if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will wait until after Questions.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during the course of Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) asked about insurance cards, and so on, that have been discussed down at Minehead. I do not want to get involved in that because I am a disinterested bystander, but you, Mr. Speaker, were quickly to your feet to point out to the Minister that he could not refer to that matter.

I rise purely for this reason: arising out of another incident some time ago in the same case, Lord Goodman, who sits in the other place, made a statement of retraction along certain lines in order to make his position clear. The question that I want cleared up—I seek no more than that—is why Lord Goodman could make a statement along those lines when my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot. Is it that this House is covered by privilege, as is the court? What is the reason? I cannot understand why one set of circumstances applies to one person but not to the other.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will discover that the noble Lord to whom he referred did not make that statement in another place; he made it outside. I have no control over what people say outside this House, and I do not want it, but within this House I am quite sure that it is the overwhelming wish of everyone, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that nothing shall be said about a case which is already under adjudication and which I am sure no one in this House would seek to prejudice in any way.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has now received about the use in Great Britain of the Swedish myoelectric hand.

My Department has received 123 inquiries relating to children of all ages.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his policy of demanding extensive trials before children can be fitted with this hand under the National Health Service—whereas in the private sector children are being fitted with the hand without any trials at all, as all the trials have been conducted in Sweden—is causing tremendous anguish among parents with children who desperately need this important new invention and do not see any prospect of getting it in the foreseeable future?

I appreciate how important this invention is to the parents of the children concerned. We are not wasting time with the trial. The trial is very necessary. Dr. Sorbye in Sweden has built up a level of experience over a number of years, but this was in a research environment. The hand being used has only recently gone into commercial production. We must not give the impression that this is a magic wand. It is an artificial hand. There is a great deal of work to be done. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay whatever in coming to conclusions about the trial.

Is the Minister aware that none of these appliances has been issued in Northern Ireland, even on a trial basis? Will he have discussions with his hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office to see that this situation is remedied?

I am constantly in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Twenty-five children are included in the trial at the moment. Our resolve is to try to make sure that the trial succeeds. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about consultation.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction about the quality and range of appliances available, particularly for children with bilateral amputations? Will he, when he is looking at the Swedish instrument, also look at the other instruments available under the National Health Service?

Yes, I shall he glad to do so. There may be dissatisfaction in some quarters, but there is also a great deal of satisfaction that we are taking this new step forward in trying to provide a new form of help under the National Health Service.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent consultations he has had with representatives of disabled people.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent consultations he has had with organisations representing disabled people.

I and my hon. Friend have frequent meetings with a wide range of organisations representing the disabled. We consult them regularly about major changes in policy and about proposed new regulations or circulars.

As a result of those representations, does the Minister agree that the benefit system now presents a ragbag of provisions, based on different and conflicting principles, with a vast range of varying rates and overlapping allowances? Will he, in view of the fact that the system is now regarded as so complex, introduce a Green Paper on the subject so that meaningful consultations can take place with a view to producing a much simpler system?

I am surprised by the attitude of the hon. Gentleman. Well, I am not actually. Since we came to power, we have made a tremendous advance in benefits for disabled people. With new benefits affecting hundreds of thousands of our population, we have dramatically increased the resources available for disabled people. They appreciate it. The war disabled organisations appreciate it. We have never had a closer relationship or a better dialogue with disabled organisations than we have at present.

Will the Secretary of State have an urgent meeting with the Motability organisation to discuss the very serious problem it is now facing with its leasing scheme? Is he aware that the £10 mobility allowance does not now cover even the leasing of a basic unadapted Mini? Is it not a disgrace that there is a double charge of VAT on both the purchase and the leasing of these vehicles? Will he press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have this tax clawback removed?

I believe that the Mot-ability decision, and the establishment of the organisation which enables a £10 mobility allowance to be turned into the availability of a vehicle, was an enormous step forward. I understand that the question just raised by the hon. Gentleman is to be taken in Standing Committee on an amendment that has been tabled. Therefore, I will make no further comment on it today.

Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from groups representing the remaining"Y"list of thalidomide-damaged children? Does he agree with me that the only way in which this tragedy can be brought to an end is for the remaining"Y"list children to be compensated in the same way as the others have been compensated?

There have been further representations, as I think my hon. Friend knows. I will not go further in making a statement about those on the"Y"list at the present stage. I will write to my hon. Friend and give him a reply.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision to refer the order relating to the housewives' disability pension to the National Insurance Advisory Committee has been welcomed by some of the organisations representing the disabled? But why on earth did he need two and a half months, until the very last minute, before making that decision?

I think it is true that the decision has been welcomed, because, as a result of NIAC considering this question, it will be able to look at a very wide number of representations, not only from people within the House but from those concerned with equal opportunities. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, on reflection, it would have been wiser if we had decided to refer the matter to NIAC in September rather than now.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the development of any replacement for the trike? I know that he is very concerned about this. Will he accept that the Motability scheme is no substitute for a proper system of suitable vehicles for disabled persons?

My hon. Friend will recognise, of course, that those with three-wheelers will be able to use those vehicles, including some replacement, for a number of years to come. I gave an assurance—it has been repeated often by my hon. Friend—that we would certainly not be leaving such people without a vehicle of some sort or another. He will know that a good deal of research is being done by the Motor Industry Research Association. We are looking very closely at what is being done on the Continent. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking at these things in order that we can fulfill the pledge that we made to this House and to disabled people.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to have completed the phasing-in of mobility allowance for men up to the age of 65 years.

It is still our intention to complete the phasing-in of the mobility allowance scheme by the end of 1979, even though we shall now be giving the allowance to an estimated 20,000 extra women aged between 60 and 65.

Now that the phasing-in will be completed within approximately 12 months, can the Minister give any indication of the possibility of extending mobility allowance to those over 65 years, in view of the fact that there is no criterion attached to the scheme that a person is employable or not, and that there are many more people over 65 years who have problems with mobility than those under 65 years?

We recognise the importance of mobility to elderly disabled people, but it is estimated that an additional 500,000 could qualify, at an added cost of £260 million a year, if there were no upper age limit. There are infinite claims and finite resources. We shall build as quickly as we can on what we have achieved so far.

I recognise the great work that my hon. Friend has done for old people, but may I ask him to use his best efforts to ensure that the time will not be far off when the mobility allowance will be available to everyone, irrespective of his or her age, no matter how old he or she may be? I can assure him, now that I am getting towards my seventieth year, that old people need far more than young people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that under the provisions of the Bill now before the House we are providing the mobility allowance for disabled women between 60 and 65. At the same time, we are allowing elderly people to keep the allowance up to 75. There is very much more to do and I shall certainly want to see further progress as soon as resources allow.

Will the Minister ensure that those who are in work, and who are considering surrendering their trike in order to obtain a mobility allowance and then a car through the Motability scheme, are made aware of the very long period during which they may be without any vehicle at all? Has he any guidance for those people?

The aim will be to ensure that there is no hiatus. Motability is being as helpful as possible. I have tried to spread information about the new scheme and what it provides as widely as I can. I shall go on informing people of the options available to them. At the same time, I shall try to avoid any possibility of disabled people being left without transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on industrial relations in the National Health Service.

I do not think I can usefully add to what I said in the debate on the Address on 2nd November and in replies to Questions from the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) and Eastleigh (Mr. Price) on 7th November.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now initiate discussions with the Health Service unions about the possibility of their members renouncing the right to strike in exchange for some form of index linking of their pay? Will he also take this opportunity to make clear that the right of industrial action does not extend to the right to take selective industrial action without loss of pay?

Having put forward proposals for dealing with local disputes, which are now being considered by the Whitley Council, as a result of discussions with the Health Service unions and the leaders of the medical and nursing professions—proposals which have so far been warmly welcomed—I am shortly to have discussions with the leaders of the unions and of professions about ways in which we can minimise the danger of industrial action as a result of disputes related to pay and working conditions.

What progress has my right hon. Friend made in his study of the very modest claim of the nurses for a 15 per cent. increase in their pay? Before he completes those studies, will he recognise that if he regards this as an exceptional case it will receive the unanimous support of the British people and a large section of this House?

I know that there is enormous support in this House for the work done by nurses, and a great appreciation of their dedication and commitment. Nevertheless, I will not be drawn into making comments about a pay claim which has been submitted and which is being considered by my colleagues and me.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Birmingham ambulance drivers' dispute still continues despite the intervention of his Ministry? Will he make a statement today about what he intends to do to bring this dispute to an early conclusion, because it is causing a great deal of concern to many people in the medical world and elsewhere in Birmingham?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others will be delighted to know that the men have returned to work today. There was roughly a five-hour negotiation last night, and as a result of further meetings this morning it was decided that work could be resumed.

Will the Secretary of State now confirm that, contrary to press reports at the time, his Department has no evidence that any patients in National Health Service hospitals died as a result of the hospital engineers' dispute?

I was satisfied that patients' lives were endangered by this dispute. However, there are no arrangements for recording industrial action as a cause of death and I certainly do not propose to institute records of this kind.

You mean you are going to let the Tories go on telling lies about it.

Order. I could not help hearing that remark. I believe that the hon. Gentleman used the word"lies ". I think that he asked the Minister whether he was telling lies again, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.

I did not say that, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, I would be pleased if he would rise and say so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said nothing of the sort. I said nothing remotely resembling what you thought that I said.

I am very relieved to have that assurance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what steps he is taking to deal with the threatened 40 per cent. pay claim by the National Union of Public Employees? Is he aware that it is planning a strike for January?

A pay claim has already been submitted, not only by NUPE but by other unions concerned with the ancillary services for the National Health Service. These matters are being properly considered within the Whitley Council. I shall not make any further comment at this stage, but, of course, the claim which has been submitted is a difficult one to tackle. However, I can assure the House that the Government will stand by their commitment to their pay policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he remains satisfied with the general level of social services as operated by local authorities.

I shall not be satisfied with the level of provision of the social services until we can meet all demands made upon them. There is, however, a continuing, though moderate, rate of growth.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that he remains dissatisfied with the present position. However, is he aware that many local authority social services are not meeting the needs of pensioners and sick people? Does he not agree that much of this is a result of public expenditure cuts? When will we see his Department fighting for the reinstatement of those cuts in order that local authorities can meet the urgent needs of these people?

It must be recognised—I am certain that my hon. Friend does recognise—that there is a tremendous disparity between the performance of one local authority and another. It is absolutely right that from time to time my hon. Friends should take the opportunity to point out this fact.

As to growth, if we take into consideration the joint finance money provided by health authorities, we now have a growth rate of about 4 per cent. This additional expenditure is needed partly to keep pace with demographic changes. It means that there is about a 2 per cent. real growth rate for an improvement in the service, particularly in relation to elderly people and children.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some social services operated by local authorities are not functioning at present because of industrial disputes? Is he further aware that some hospitals are either unaware of this fact or ignoring it and discharging sick people into impossible home conditions? Will he please look into that situation and act to overcome it?

The time at which a patient should be discharged is, of course, a matter for the hospitals themselves to consider. Of course, the performance of social service departments is a matter which should be taken into consideration. The fact that some of the social workers are taking industrial action is disturbing. I have made clear on a number of occasions how much I regret that social workers should put their clients at risk, as I believe they have done, in this way. I have urged them to find a negotiated solution through the proper channels. I think that that is the right way.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the inadequacy of the hospital service is one of the major causes of concern and is resulting in many people who ought to be in geriatric hospitals being in residential homes, thus placing an unreasonable burden on the social services?

There is no doubt at all that the Health Service, including hospitals, as well as local authorities, could do much more if there were more resources. There is no question at all that the restraint upon resources has imposed a limitation on growth. That is one reason why in certain parts of the country, including that from which my hon. Friend comes, we have been able, as a result of redistribution of resources, to produce a faster rate of growth in those areas which traditionally over the years have been deprived. I am certain that that principle is absolutely right.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the allegation of some area health authorities that a good portion of their difficulties is caused by the totally inadequate efforts made by the local county councils to provide social services?

This is absolutely true. We constantly seek to get joint planning between health authorities and local authorities, but in order to get an agreement one has to have a partnership which must involve active participation by both sides. That is why I said earlier that all of us have an obligation to ensure that in the areas in which we have a concern, pressure is brought to bear upon local authorities properly to fulfil their responsibilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is still his policy to allot half of the seats on pension fund boards to trade unionists.

The Government's policy on member participation in the management of occupational pension schemes has not changed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that policy has been consistently opposed by an overwhelming majority of public opinion in a number of public opinion surveys, and that it is both presumptuous and illiberal for trade unionists to assume that they can be the only channel of representation in these matters?

I refute what the hon. Gentleman has said. When I visited firms and discussed this matter with trustees, trade unions and employers, I found that there was a wide measure of support. The Government see no reason to reverse their policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if seats on the board were allocated in relation to the occupation of those who contribute, trade unionists would be entitled to more representation than is recommended at present?

I agree that the 50–50 representation that is recommended is a modest proposal.

Everybody would applaud the idea of member representation on the management bodies of pension schemes, but does the Minister agree that it is the exclusive nomination by trade unions which arouses so much opposition from so many different quarters? May I appeal to the Minister to recognise this opposition and to abandon this foolish proposal? Will he now restore the bipartisan policy on pensions?

The Government have not changed their views about member participation. We feel that the running of pension schemes can best be achieved by giving certain rights to recognised, independent trade unions. We are confident that these rights will be exercised responsibly.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of patients awaiting operations under each category in the hospitals covered by the Macclesfield health district of the Cheshire area health authority.

On 30th September 1978 there were 2,503 patients awaiting admission to Macclesfield hospitals for surgery. I will, with permission circulate in the Official Report the detailed information requested by the hon. Member.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the situation is totally unsatisfactory? The situation is unsatisfactory in Macclesfield,

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what representations he has received on the subject of hospital services in Romford.

If the hon. Member tables a Question asking for that information I shall provide it. I do not regard the situation in Macclesfield as satisfactory. Waiting lists are increasing. Action has been taken by the regional and area health authorities to bring a new operating theatre into use, to bring a new surgical ward with 28 beds into operation next May, and to introduce a new obstetrics unit which is to be completed in 1981. In addition, the first phase of the Macclesfield nucleus hospital will be completed in 1984. This leaves a gap for immediate short-term palliation of the situation. I shall consult the area health authorities to see what they intend to do about it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in Macclesfield reinforces the need for machinery to exchange information between regions—not only within the regions—about the availability of spare beds for really urgent and distressing cases?

Since my hon. Friend has his arm in a sling his point will have special relevance. If I can get the exchange of information within regions working properly that will be a tremendous step forward.

I have received letters from my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) and for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) about the Barking and Havering area health authority's proposals for the future use of Victoria hospital, Romford.

Will the Minister accept my assurance that, if the Barking and Havering area health authority persists in its plans for Victoria hospital, the growing pile of protests on my desk will be transferred quickly to his? Can the Minister do nothing to discourage authorities which, in the name of rationalisation, are prepared to destroy community assets such as this excellent cottage hospital?

I am not prepared to comment on an individual case which might eventually come to me for decision. I would not wish to prejudice any decision by remarks this afternoon. If the matter can be settled locally it will not come to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of child minders in England and Wales.

At present there are estimated to be approximately 33,000 registered childminders in England and Wales.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the growth of child minding services and other substitute services weakens the link between the mother and her child? Will he make it Government policy to strengthen the family unit by giving tax and financial incentives to allow mothers to stay at home intead of forcing them to go out to work?

Of course, I want to strengthen the family links. Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that good child minders who are properly supported and assisted can perform a useful function for mothers who feel that it is in their interests and in the interests of their family to go to work on a part or full-time basis. A good child minder often can provide a better, closer and more personal service than that provided by day nurseries.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 5th December.

In my right hon. Friend's absence, I have been asked to reply.

Today my right hon. Friend is attending a meeting of the European Council in Brussels.

In view of the importance of the Prime Minister's engagements today, will the Lord President talk to him about the possibility of making a ministerial broadcast when he returns from the summit meeting?

I shall certainly discuss that possibility with my right hon. Friend. I cannot say whether it will be possible to do so today. I dare say that my right hon. Friend will be making a statement to the House tomorrow.

Does the Leader of the House appreciate that when the Prime Minister returns from Brussels, he might have to impose sanctions against British Leyland as he has against Fords? Will he therefore explain from whom the Government intend to buy their cars in the coming year?

Before the hon. Member or anybody else jumps to accept what was said by the Leader of the Opposition last week he should await the discussions that are still proceeding with British Leyland. We believe that the offer that has been made is within the guidelines for a settlement. If Opposition Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, would study the facts instead of jumping to conclusions, they would reach the same conclusion as I.

Will my right hon. Friend contact the Prime Minister and ask him to refute suggestions in the press that, to obtain a good deal on the European monetary system, the Government are prepared to abandon the fishing industry?

My right hon. Friend has already repudiated such suggestions. As he has indicated, he does not expect the question of fisheries to be raised at this meeting.

Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Prime Minister the difficult case which involved Mr. Joe Thompson of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, since that has arisen largely out of Government legislation? Will the Leader of the House point out to the Prime Minister that during the Committee stage of the Bill the Opposition fought hard for an independent tribunal which could examine such cases? Such a tribunal would prevent from being aroused the type of passions which were aroused in this case and which can only bring trade unions and the country into contempt.

I am prepared to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister. But it would not be right for any Minister at the Dispatch Box to pass an off-the-cuff judgment on a particular case or individual. That is particularly so when it is evident from the supplementary question by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that he has taken seriously the report on the subject in The Daily Telegraph today, which is misleading.

By what the Leader of the House has just said, does he seek to justify depriving a man of his livelihood now for something that happened 13 years ago?

I said nothing of the sort. I said that I did not think that it was right to pass judgment on an individual case until the facts have been established. I said that some hon. Members and some people in the country might have been misled by the report in The Daily Telegraph today which is grossly misleading, particularly about the independent review body to which the right hon. Member referred. The case has not been referred to that body. The matter is still possibly a matter of internal procedure within the union. For all those reasons, the House should not pass judgment.

Will my right hon. Friend consult the Prime Minister about the prospective siting of the research and development INMOS facility at Bristol and give an undertaking that the Government will publish the criteria on which the decision was based?

I cannot give an undertaking to publish all the criteria, but I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and others. I agree that this subject raises important questions and is not an easy matter to decide. It is not necessarily advantageous for one region or another that we should publish all the criteria in such cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Prime Minister to make a recommendation to the agricultural wages board on the award that it has to make on Thursday? Does he accept the view of his hon. Friends and many of my hon. Friends that the wages of agricultural workers are lamentably low? In view of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers' claim for a 125 per cent. increase, does the right hon. Gentleman seriously expect them to settle within the Government's 5 per cent. limit?

I am gratified to hear, in whatever circumstances, representatives of the landlords' party supporting improvements in the wages of farmworkers. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should intervene in the way that has been suggested, but during the past three or four years, despite all the difficulties, the comparative position of farm workers has improved and I certainly hope that it will do so further in the years to come.

asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Transport.

I have been asked to reply. No.

Is the Lord President aware of the seriously detrimental effect on rural areas of the proposed abolition of the road fund licence and its replacement by an extra charge on petrol? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the great worry in rural areas, where a car is not a luxury but a necessity because of the absence of rail and bus services? If the road fund licence is to be abolished, will the Government consider the substitution of general taxation to make up the revenue?

All these matters were carefully considered before the announcement was made and there will be considerable time for discussion in the House in the weeks, months and years that lie ahead before the proposition is put into practice. All those considerations can be brought to bear. There is no question of the Government rushing it through. There will be plenty of time for discussion.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the concern expressed by Plaid Cymru about the potential job loss in my constituency caused by the proposed abolition of the road fund licence and that Plaid Cymru has conveniently forgotten that the Swansea centre is a United Kingdom facility which would not be there if we had a separate Wales?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be of benefit for Wales in future, as it has been in the past, that the policy of diversion which the Government have pursued should be continued. We intend that it should be pursued further.

Since the Government are not arranging to dismiss the Secretary of State for Transport, may I make a more modest request? May we have the consultative document debated fairly soon, so that all the discussions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred do not proceed on the wrong lines?

I shall be glad to have a discussion in the House fairly soon. I repeat, because of the misapprehensions that have been spread in some quarters, that the House will, of course, have the fullest possible opportunity to debate the matter and look at the detailed measure that will be required to make the change.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the measure proposed by the Secretary of State for Transport will be generally welcomed throughout the country as a fair measure which will make sure that the licence dodgers pay their fair share for road usage?

One of the considerations in the matter is that about £50 million of revenue is lost under the present arrangements. Any Government are bound to take that into account, along with many other considerations. We have also considered the effect on rural areas because that is our duty as well.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5th December.

I have been asked to reply.

If the Lord President has not already done so, will he look at reports in today's Scottish press of the concern among trade unionists in the whisky industry in Scotland about the continuing exports of malt whisky? In view of the failure yesterday of the NEDO to reach agreement on the question of voluntary restrictions on the export of malt whisky, will the Government step in to look at the international agreements that allow not only the continuation, but the expansion, of this industry, irrespective of the jobs involved in the bottling, packaging and printing industries in Scotland?

I am aware of the concern that has been expressed, some of which has been reported in the newspapers. The Government welcome the general analysis of the industry's problems which the group has undertaken in the NEDO report. We shall be studying the recommendations carefully. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not possible for the Government to make a final judgment today. She and everyone else who wishes all considerations to be taken into account would not wish us to do that.

Has my right hon. Friend had any telephone conversations with the Prime Minister about the report that has come out of the Heads of Government meeting that the salary of the so-called MPs in the European Assembly will be based on the national rate for the job? Is he aware that such an arrangement would be regarded by Government Back Benchers as a very good thing but that the salaries ought to be paid by national Governments so that the British taxpayer will not have to make a contribution towards German Members and others who will be getting two or three times the salary of British Members of the Assembly?

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will put the same question to the Prime Minister when he returns, though I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement on that subject tomorrow. It just shows how difficult it is to satisfy everybody.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that removal vans have been extremely busy in Edinburgh today? The old St. Andrew's House has been virtually emptied into New St. Andrew's House, which is being emptied into another new St. Andrew's House, and the Inland Revenue departments are also being moved—all to accommodate the 1,000 civil servants and 150 Assemblymen who may be given a job if there is a"Yes"in the referendum, which I very much doubt. How can the Lord President justify that public expenditure long before the referendum and before he can be sure what the result will be?

The hon. Gentleman should not take his prospective defeat in the referendum so sourly. He should understand that the Government must make preparations. If we did not, there would be legitimate criticisms in other respects. Let us see who wins. It depends on what the people of Scotland say whether they get their Assembly. Most of us have absolute confidence that they will say"Yes"with a resounding voice and that all the preparations we have made will be fully justified.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the general arrangements regarding salaries for Members of a directly elected European Assembly will be welcomed? Has there been any agreement on expenses for such matters as subsistence, travel, research and office expenses for Assembly Members?

I do not think that agreement has been reached on any aspect yet. Discussions on these matters have been taking place. I know that many of my hon. Friends and many other hon. Members are more immediately concerned about salaries in this House.—[HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."]—I am glad to hear that hon. Members agree. I thought that that would command some applause. That is one reason why we are referring the matter to the Boyle committee as we promised in our debate a few months ago.

Reverting to the case of the dismissed trade unionist, Mr. Thompson, while I fully accept the Lord President's view that he ought not to make a statement until the facts are established, may I ask him to give a firm undertaking that, when he has established the facts, he will make a statement to the House in the context of possible revised legislation on the closed shop, having regard to the brutalities that are now commonly occurring?

The hon. Member has completely misconceived the situation. The closed shop under which this person was originally excluded was created even before the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I believe that trade unionists, like everyone else, should use their powers in a liberal and proper manner. However, to a considerable degree the whole atmosphere in these matters was soured by what was done under the Industrial Relations Act. I do not believe and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) can confirm this—that there is any proposal now for legislation by his party to ban the closed shop under its aborted proposals.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a major national scandal if the research and development facilities of the new NEB-created microprocessor industry were to be located in Bristol? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the expectations and promises that were made that those facilities would be located in an area of high unemployment—in an assisted area—will be fulfilled?

I do not think that the use of the word"scandal"in such a context is the right way to approach the matter. Many considerations have to be taken into account. Of course, those who come from areas of high unemployment, such as my hon. Friend and myself, believe that they have a strong claim, but there are other aspects to be taken into account.

Is the Leader of the House aware that we do not think that it is acceptable that the only right of appeal is to a TUC-nominated body, which is, in a sense, judge and jury in its own case? Is he further aware that there always ought to be a right of appeal to a totally independent court or tribunal? Nothing else would suffice to allay widespread public anxiety.

It is absolutely wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to describe the independent review body as judge and jury in its own case. That is a completely false account of the position. Moreover, that suggestion is shown to be false by the references that have been made to that body already. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman originally believed what was in The Daily Telegraph. I am glad that he now has that correct, and I hope that the House will reserve judgment until it knows the facts before passing any further comment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having been able to give you notice of it. When I came into the House at 3 pm, I noticed that there were National Union of Journalists pickets outside the House, presumably seeking to prevent journalists and other members of the media from reporting our proceedings. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot give an answer today, but is this practice not an infringement of the rights of a free Parliament to have its report made public throughout the country? Is it justifiable for the House of Commons to be picketed, I think for the first time, in connection with the reporting of its proceedings to the people outside?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who have met the pickets find that they have been behaving exactly as they have been instructed, without placards, and quite peacefully. Will you confirm that it is the right of pickets to picket this place in exactly the same way as anywhere else?

No.

Order. I shall not give the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) an answer today, but I can tell the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that it is nobody's right to try to hold up the work of the High Court of Parliament.