asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the document "Effects on the Personal Social Services" published by the Association of Directors of Social Services; and if he will make a statement.

I have read the document with interest. I sympathise with the anxieties expressed by the association, but its document was, in my view, too general in presentation to provide a useful assessment of changes in spending patterns. However, it makes a helpful contribution to the current debate about personal social services.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of the Government's expenditure cuts, and the consequent pressures on local authorities, there have been threats recently concerning ambulance services taking people to workshops for the infirm, and transporting the disabled and arthritic? The Minister's constituency is in the same borough as mine. Would it not be the decent thing for him to resign? He would thus do the people a good service.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, I share a director of social services with him, and I have made inquiries about the problems that he has raised. I understand that the loan of vehicles to voluntary organisations has ceased because of maintenance difficulties and because of the need to reduce expenditure. However, I am informed that an alternative scheme is to be considered by the authority in June.

To be more serious about this important matter, would my hon. Friend agree that the cut in real terms is 6·7 per cent., which is harsher than for all other public services? Is he aware that my local authority has already trimmed its administrative manpower, and therefore the cuts will fall on much needed personal social services? That can only mean greater cost to the Health Service through longer stays in hospital, especially for geriatric and psychiatric patients.

The figure to which my hon. Friend refers is contained in paragraph 12 of the White Paper. The figures are necessarily tentative, because it is for each individual local authority to decide the eventual distribution of savings in the light of local needs and conditions. There is no reason for a local authority to cut personal social services by 6·7 per cent. if it can meet its overall target, set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in some other way. It is for each local authority to determine how best to deploy its resources to meet the needs of its area, and we hope that it would have regard to the most needy.

We now know what local authorities are doing. Is the Minister aware that the figures published by the Association of Directors of Social Services last week show that 90 per cent. of all local authorities have cut back on residential care, and a third have cut back on home helps, on meals on wheels services, on aid for the handicapped, and on social support for the needy in the community? That has happened after several years of advance, and more cuts are planned next year. Is this not a shameful situation?

The survey also shows that some social services departments have not made any cuts, and that the local authorities have still met their overall targets.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will hold discussions with disablement organisations with a view to producing a consultative document on a disablement costs allowance.

I am well aware of the views of the disablement organisations and will continue to listen with care to any proposals that they put forward. However, the present is not the time to issue a consultative document on new benefits for disabled people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system of disablement benefits represents a rag-bag of conflicting contributory and non-contributory benefits? I take into account the economic constraints of the moment, but would it not be advisable to set out a ladder of objectives towards achieving a more reasonable system of benefits?

I agree with the expression "rag-bag". It is a confused and illogical system. It is our long-term objective to work towards a general disablement income. It would be wrong to raise false hopes by indicating that we can do so within the next few years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a study would reveal the plight of the severely visually handicapped, who are required to pay extraordinary costs for extremely expensive visual aids merely to enable them to get around? Is it not about time that something was taken from the Revenue to assist the visually handicapped overcome a great difficulty?

Those who are visually handicapped have a particularly strong case. Undoubtedly there are extra financial burdens arising from blindness or part blindness. I wish that we could do something for them. We cannot afford to do so at present any more than the previous Administration were able to afford to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much it would cost to allow private patients who need drugs to obtain them on the same basis as they are obtained by National Health Service patients.

Because the Department does not maintain records of the numbers of private patients, I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific figure. In any event, with so many competing claims for scarce NHS resources at this time, the Government do not feel that they can give a high priority to this particular proposal, although they have carefully considered it on several occasions.

As the private patient pays as much to the National Health Service as does the National Health Service patient, is it not only fair that he should be able to obtain his drugs on the same basis?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's feeling. The total drug bill in England in 1979, excluding hospital pharmaceutical services, was almost £740 million. The bulk of that sum was incurred on prescriptions written by general practitioners and dispensed by general practice pharmacists. The average total cost per person was over £16. I cannot believe it prudent to entertain a proposal to increase that already enormous sum, especially when it would mean removing resources from areas of greater priority.

Is the Minister aware that the question of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) is outrageous? Is he seriously asking for the provision of drugs by the NHS to the private sector when the private sector makes no contribution to the training of nurses or doctors and exploits NHS equipment? Will the hon. Gentleman bear that very much in mind?

I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is displaying his ignorance, because only this morning in the Committee considering the Health Service Bill I gave a list of the various private institutions that undertake training for nurses.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now able to give a date for the publication of the White Paper on the elderly.

Work is proceeding, but it is too soon for me to give a publication date.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, because of the serious shortage of local authority provision, many elderly people are living at risk in hostels and lodging houses throughout the country? Does he accept that existing legislations is confusing and weak? Does he agree that the need for the publication of the White Paper is urgent? Does he further agree that the need for implementation of any recommendations that emerge from a debate on the White Paper is even more urgent?

Yes, indeed. The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised is the subject of an Adjournment debate next week. It is the responsibility of the Home Office. However, I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the need to implement measures as quickly as possible.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the White Paper will include a section dealing with the problems of the elderly who live in residential homes? Is he aware that 85 per cent. of them are over 75 years of age? They are a vulnerable section of the community and real action is needed quickly.

I confirm that there will be a chapter on housing in the White Paper. I hope that we shall be able to come forward with some positive suggestions to meet the problems that my hon. Friend has described.

Is the Minister aware that there are over 60,000 old people living in private old people's homes? Those who live in hostels and boarding houses are, perhaps, in greater danger. They are vulnerable. The legislation is extremely weak. May we have an assurance that the Minister will act quickly on any recommendations to tighten legislation governing old people's homes, to protect vulnerable, old people?

The implementation of fire regulations is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and not that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what representations he has received regarding the Flowers report and the report of the London Health Planning Consortium.

I have received comments on these reports from a variety of sources. But I have made it clear that the Flowers report is a matter for the University of London and that I will not intervene in the issues raised by the report of the London Health Planning Consortium during the process of consultation which is now under way.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the two reports concern only teaching services and acute services in the London area. Will he give an undertaking that he will study, or have studied in detail, other aspects of the Health Service in London before any final decision is made about the future of the Health Service in the metropolis?

Yes, of course. We wish to examine the whole of the Health Service in London. For that reason we have extended the remit of the London Health Planning Consortium to consider primary health care.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Health Planning Consortium has proposed the closure of the radiotherapy department at St. William's hospital, Rochester? Is he further aware that the proposal is causing grave disquiet in the area? Will he give an undertaking that he will soon be able to say that this closure will not take place?

I can understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is an issue that we shall consider carefully.

Does the Minister accept that it will be intolerable if the Flowers report is implemented by the university in isolation from any influence of his Department? If we close 34 London medical schools and keep only six, the inevitable consequences upon allied health care and provision will have an effect on every patient in the London area. It will be especially intolerable if Westminster hospital is closed to hon. Members.

I regret that the hon. Gentleman is constantly being alarmist. We are dealing only with the recommendations of the Flowers committee, which is a working party of the university. We must wait to hear what the university feels about the recommendations. We are setting up urgently a London advisory group to co-ordinate the recommendations that are put to us.

Will my hon. Friend take note that there will be great hostility from all parts of the House if centres of medical excellence, such as the teaching facility at the Westminster hospital, are closed?

I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about any proposal affecting our great London teaching centres. I can assure him that we shall consider any such proposal with great care.

Does the London Health Planning Consortium's report and the Flowers committee report have any advice to give to the hon. Gentleman on what to do about the Merton, Wandsworth and Sutton area health authority, which I gather is over £4½ million overspent? Does not that put it in the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham class? What will he do about it? Would not he be wise to ease the strain under which the London health service is working by setting up an inquiry into the London health service as recommended by the report of the Royal Commission?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that in our view an inquiry would be a recipe for further delay. The issues are now well known and most of them have been extensively studied. We do not believe that another inquiry is needed. We need action to overcome the problems—and that is something that our predecessors never undertook.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost in the financial year 1980–81 of increasing child benefit by £2 per week from 1 October.

In the region of £560 million, that is about £280 million per £1 increase in 1980–81.

Is the hon. Lady aware that an increase of that order will be the minimum required to offset the galloping inflation that has occurred since the Government took office? Does she agree that £560 million spent on this purpose would be a superb investment in the health and welfare of our children?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reply in detail to his question. We know that the benefit is much appreciated. He has over-exaggerated the extent of inflation in saying that a £2 increase is necessary.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the level of child support had increased in line with pensions since 1955, the present child benefit would be substantially higher than £6 a week?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister confirm that the Conservative Party made a clear commitment at the last general election to maintain the value of that allowance? May we expect that commitment to be fully upheld within the next few days?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot reply in detail. Our commitment to the family is no less than it has been at any previous time. The hon. Gentleman must await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the Minister aware that we are interested in her response to the child benefit question, made in the presence of her right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Is she aware that it will require an increase of £1½20 to maintain the allowance at the current rate of inflation? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not announce an increase of £1½20 tomorrow, will she resign?

I do not think that the last question is one that I am required to answer at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that my right hon. Friend heard what has been said both today and on many previous occasions in the past. All representations have been carefully noted.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the extent of social security abuse.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in the Official Report how his Department arrived at the figure of £200 million per annum for social security abuse.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what methods he used to calculate his recent estimate of the cost of social security abuse.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has now made a more exact assessment of the anticipated saving of employing extra Civil Service staff in detecting social security fraud.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made in the prevention of abuse of social security payments; and what is the latest estimate of the cost of such fraudulent practices.

The nature of most social security fraud and abuse is such that we can know only about cases which are detected. However, new records have been introduced which should, over the next few months, provide fuller and more accurate estimates of the amount of benefit saved through the work of our fraud and abuse specialists. I shall make a further statement to the House when a sufficient number of these returns have been received and analysed to enable me to draw worthwhile conclusions.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first the hon. Members whose questions are grouped with this question.

How does the Minister square his recent statement that he expects to gain £50 million out of the alleged £200 million which is lost in the social security abuse to which he referred? How did he arrive at that figure? Will he confirm the leaked report from his Department that his officials rang around the large department stores and asked for their estimate of theft? Was that how he conjured up the figure of £200 million?

There is no need to ring around department stores to know that they, and other large commercial organisations, assume a loss through fraud of 1 or 2 per cent. in their operations. Applying that to the DHSS, with its expenditure of £20 billion a year, leads to an estimated figure of £200 million. Through this operation we are attempting to save this year at least £50 million. If Opposition Members think that that cannot be achieved, they had better stand up and state their case because their constituents will not believe them.

Is it not a fact that the figures bandied around lately are sheer bogus figures? Is it not disgraceful that figures produced by a great Department of State should owe more to the experience of "Marks and Sparks" with shoplifters than to decent inquiry undertaken by the Department? Is it not true that far more money is involved in justified claims not taken up than there is in social security fraud?

If the hon. Gentleman will go into the DHSS office in his constituency—I extend the same advice to all Opposition Members—and talk to the officers working on fraud and abuse cases, he will find that they are very busy and that they are saving a great deal of public money. However, they are working at nowhere near the point of diminishing returns. There is a great deal more to be saved. The experience of the next 12 months will prove that.

Will the Minister call on his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of employing extra staff to deal with tax fraud and evasion rather than employing them in an increasingly counter-productive effort to hound social security beneficiaries for a return which must be far smaller than that which would result from strict inquiries into tax fraud and evasion?

I, and every Member of the Government, would be against fraud and abuse in any sector of our public life. I would have expected Opposition Members to take the same attitude. The attitude that they are taking at present, and have been taking in recent weeks, suggests that they are on the side of the scrounger and against the honest taxpayer.

Is the Minister aware that I was approached last weekend by an employee of the DHSS who indicated that pressure was being brought to bear on DHSS employees to produce the answers that the right hon. Gentleman wants on this matter? Will he say whether he approves of the suggestion made by one of his hon. Friends recently that neighbours should snoop on their neighbours to find out whether there is abuse? Is not that absolutely disgraceful?

On the first point, the overwhelming majority of the staff of the DHSS share the same opinion as the majority of the general public, namely, they want to see those who are trying to cheat the system identified and prevented from doing so.

As for snooping on neighbours, I have made it clear on many occasions in recent weeks that I am not appealing for that. Some information has always reached the DHSS from members of the public. Some of it is genuine, and some of it is malicious gossip. That information is, and always has been, followed up. I am not in any sense asking for snooping. I have announced that the Department would do a more effective job on its own account by carrying out its duty to root out fraud and abuse.

While warmly welcoming the appointment of additional inspectors to detect fraud in the social security system—which is at least as much supported by genuine social security claimants as by anybody else—will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to repeat that he has given instructions to the additional inspectors to move gently and slowly with those who are likely to be genuine social security claimants before attempting to detect the perpetrators of fraud?

The guidance that has been sent to officers carrying out this work is that we want an efficient and effective campaign against fraud and abuse, without in any sense acting in a manner which would be offensive to the vast majority of claimants who are honest, and who are making claims to which they are entitled.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those guilty of social security fraud are also working in the black economy, evading tax at the same time as they are defrauding the social security system?

One of the common examples of fraud concerns those who are drawing benefit and working at the same time without declaring it. Almost inevitably, that means tax avoidance at the same time.

Is the Minister aware that it is absolutely ludicrous to compare the DHSS with firms such as Marks and Spencer? Will he confirm that after his original statement, he sent out circular 26/ 80, telling staff to take it easy and not to offend people? When will he give the first evidence to the House of the savings that he has indicated he will make?

I can only repeat the answer that I gave a few minutes ago on the question of the circular sent to staff. That text was approved before I made my public announcement about the extra officers. There has been no change of policy.

The comparison with Marks and Spencer was made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), not by me. Any large organisation finds that there is a loss of that order. If Opposition Members are saying that the loss in terms of the DHSS is less than 1 per cent. it would be an extraordinary argument, and I would like to hear the reasons for saying so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that every honest person must wish him success in his drive to root out abuse? Does he agree also that the hest way to tackle social security abuse is to reduce the very large number of people who find themselves in circumstances where they have to apply for supplementary benefit?

As it is generally the cost of housing which forces people to apply for supplementary benefit, will he make a study of ways in which we can rationalise the subsidy system for housing so that that element at least is taken out of the qualification for supplementary benefit?

I think that goes a little wide of the original question, but we all want to see improvements in the Welfare State as and when the country earns the resources with which to carry them out. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome which he gave originally, because I am sure that he spoke for the great majority of his constituents, and the great majority of Labour Member's constituents, who will support what we are doing because they know that it is their money which is being lost as a result of fraud and abuse.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing, for the financial years 1978–79 and 1979–80, the amount of fees collected from private patients in National Health Service establishments, the amount of these payments which are regarded as arrears and the amount which has been written off as bad debts.

For the year 1978–79. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 28 January. The estimated figure for 1979–80 is £34 million.

Does not the Minister agree that bad debts from defaulting private patients in England and Wales now total between £250,000 and £500,000 a year, and that the accumulated debts over the last six years are now approaching £1 million? As the Government are so concerned about curbing public expenditure, can the Minister tell me what they propose to do to reduce that burden on the NHS? For example, will they consider levying the charge against the consultants who irresponsibly admit these people to private beds?

We think that the present arrangements are satisfactory. Bad debts from private patients are included in the total of all sums that are written off as bad debts. The total of bad debts from all sources, except road traffic accident claims, for the year 1978–79 was £302,112. We cannot identify how much of that sum relates specifically to bad debts arising from private patients.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House when and if he expects to make a statement on the abuse of the NHS by foreigners? Is that likely to happen before Easter? Does that by any chance include anyone coming from the Eastern bloc, say, Russia.

We have reciprocal arrangements with a number of different countries. My hon. Friend referred to Russia. As a part of the Government's response to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, we have postponed the fifth joint medical committee which was due to have met in London earlier this month to review the reciprocal agreements. We are also carefully vetting all Russian visitors to the United Kingdom under the agreement, and we shall reject any proposals for visits by Ministers or VIPs. We were involved—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's reply is an abuse of Question Time, and I ask you to assert your authority on behalf of the House.

I have no responsibility for ministerial replies, but they should not be too long.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision is being made for ophthalmic services in the new Warrington general hospital.

An ophthalmic unit of 15 beds has been built as part of the first phase of the redevelopment of Warrington general hospital, but it has not yet been commissioned.

Is the Minister aware that the area health authority does not propose to open the ophthalmic unit because of shortage of funds? Does he not agree that to provide this desperately needed unit—which has been established by many thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money—and not to open it, because of a shortage of cash is lunatic economics? Is he aware that the people in the Greater Warrington area are appalled at the suggestion that this much-needed ophthalmic unit should not open?

The Cheshire area health authority estimates that it will cost an additional £200,000 per annum to run the unit, as it will be a new service in Warrington, and the cash limits for 1979–80, which were set by our predecessors, were plainly inadequate. On taking office, we were faced with massive commitments on NHS pay which were not matched by the finance to meet them. However, when the cash limit for 1980–81 is known, the Cheshire area health authority will be able to decide what priority to give to funding the development to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the further evidence of rising transport costs, he will now reconsider his decision not to extend the mobility allowance to registered blind persons.

While we have the greatest sympathy for blind people and the problems they face, there are no resources at present to finance new benefits or extend the scope of existing ones.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we were to apply the same rules to registered blind people that we apply to the generality of the recipients of mobility allowance, it would cost only £20 million, which is within the errors of accounting even within my right hon. Friend's Department, let alone the whole of Government expenditure?

The figure of £20 million is about right, if the allowance were applied only to blind people up to the age of 65. If it were applied to blind people of all ages, it would go up to as much as £65 million a year. As my hon. Friend will know, we have extended the mobility allowance in recent months to people between the ages of 60 and 65. However, the financial restraints that we now face will not permit an increase either in the number of categories of people covered or the ages covered in the foreseeable future.

Is the Minister aware that there are cases where mobility allowance has been paid and then with- drawn because the person has gone blind? Is not that a despicable practice?

The allowance is paid in circumstances where someone is unable to walk or virtually unable to walk. Therefore, I am surprised at the scenario which the hon. Gentleman has set out. Perhaps he will write to me about the case that he has in mind.

Is not it intolerable that the only section of the disabled which does not receive mobility allowance is the blind, who probably face the greatest difficulty? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who are partially sighted, with very low acuity, get about only with a great deal of difficulty, especially in the conurbations? Will not he yield to the pressure from all parts of the House in the last four years—as evidenced, for example, in the early-day motions that have been signed by hundreds of hon. Members—and soften his heart to blind people?

I should very much like to be able to move on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman was not quite correct in the opening part of his supplementary question. Mobility allowance is not awarded to categories of disabled people according to the nature of their disablement. It is available to people who are unable to walk, or who are virtually unable to walk, no matter what the cause.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will strengthen the wording of paragraph 37 of the code of practice for the transplantation of human organs, in relation to the anonymity of donors.

I am sure that the whole House shares my hon. Friend's concern at the distress caused to a family in his constituency. I note that when my hon. Friend introduced his Bill, he told the House that he had complained to the Press Council. I am sure that this is the right method of pursuing the matter. The code of practice has only recently been issued, and we need to see how effective it is. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am ready to consider amending the wording if necessary.

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. In the light of recent events, does he recognise that the present code of practice is couched in very casual terms? Will he help me to ensure that possibly something stronger is written into the Health Services Bill which is now before the House?

I can understand my hon. Friend's point of view, and I shall certainly have a look at the wording to see whether it needs strengthening.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that there is adequate provision of community-based alternatives to residential care for juvenile offenders.

I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) on 18 March.

Does not the Minister agree that far too many juvenile offenders are at present in residential care and that that situation is likely to persist while local authority expenditure on things such as intermediate treatment is only 6 per cent. of the total spent on community homes? Will he encourage more local authorities to switch resources from community homes to community-based projects?

On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I agree that there are too many children in institutions. But the number is falling. There were 6,800 children in community homes of education in 1976. That had fallen by 700 to 6,100 in 1978. On the last point, our public expenditure White Paper has asked local authorities to give priority, as far as possible, to expenditure on services for children concerned with the prevention and treatment of delinquency and intermediate treatmenl. Community-based alternatives are an integral part of this.

Will the Minister make sure that fostering facilities such as the Kent fostering scheme are expanded in other areas?

am interested in what is happening in Kent over fostering. I am anxious to encourage other local authorities to follow this encouraging in intiative.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the Government's plans to reduce supplementary benefit to families of persons on strike.

Shortly, Sir.

How many thousands of extra civil servants will be required to administer this proposal? How will union members and non-union members be differentiated? What is the formula proposed to cater for unofficial and official strikes?

Each of those questions will be answered by the statement when it is made. It will be made shortly.

Can my right hon. Friend say what would happen if the wife and children were left destitute because the striking husband did a hunk? What would the Minister do then?

If a wife and children had been deserted by a husband, who is legally responsible for the maintenance of the family, that family would have a claim, in any event, on supplementary benefit. That has nothing to do with the question of trade disputes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that, on visiting my local office, I discovered that only a third of strikers in my constituency draw social security benefits? Will he ponder on that statement and ensure that there are no further attempts at blackmailing strikers to go back to work when there is no justifiable case for doing so?

The proportion of strikers' families in the steel strike drawing supplementary benefit is much larger than usual because, of all the unions involved in the strike, only the two general workers unions have been paying strike pay. The cost to the taxpayer so far is about £8 million.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that our proposals may have the effect of encouraging people to join trade unions in order to enjoy the benefit of support during a strike? It may have the effect of encouraging the unions themselves to concentrate on their legitimate role of trying to improve working conditions and wages and to give up their improper role of attempting to be a political party.

I think that our proposals, when they are made known, will be seen to have many healthy effects, including those enumerated by my hon. Friend.

If a striker is arrested while on strike, for any offence, and then serves a term of imprisonment, will his family be treated in the same way as other prisoners' families?

We shall be concerned in the imminent announcement, with the effect of a trade dispute, not the effect of a criminal act.

In how many other countries of the EEC is social security benefit, or its equivalent, paid to the families of people on strike?

Some countries make some kind of payment on a means-tested basis, more often from local authority funds than from national funds. None subsidises strikes in the same way or to the same extent as the British taxpayer under our present arrangements.

Will the Minister say what is the difference between someone on strike and someone who has committed a crime? Why should their families be treated differently over the payment of supplementary benefit?

Because the Govern-take the view as, I am sure, does the majority of the public, that if people go on strike, either they, as individuals, or their trade union, ought to make financial provision for the needs of their families.

In view of the fact that 81 per cent. of all strikes—official and unofficial—during the lifetime of the Labour Government were settled within 12 working days and therefore no social security benefit was payable to strikers' families, and in view of the additional staff that the right hon. Gentleman will have to appoint, does he not think that the scheme will work at a loss?

No, Sir. I think it will save public money. It will also direct the attention of the unions to the fact that they have a traditional and historic duty, which many have recognised and others have not, to help maintain the families of their members during an industrial dispute.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is attending the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Later she will be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Will my right hon. Friend, some time today, study some of the speeches, made at the weekend? Does he agree with the Home Secretary that this is no time for faint hearts? Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said that this Government will not be deflected from their strategy to curb inflation, on which they were elected last May?

Yes. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We always did warn that there was no instant cure and that it would not be possible to revive overnight an economy that has, for several years, been over-taxed, overspent, over-borrowed, over-governed and over-manned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he is studying speeches, reflect on the speeches made last night in the debate on the convergence document in relation to the European Community, particularly the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in which he alluded to a further document from the Community and did not present that document to the House? Is he aware that the press is inundated with extracts from the document and the Community has specifically rejected the gloss put on the document by Her Majesty's Government?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's speech. The document concerned is in the Vote Office.

May I first express my pleasure at seeing my right hon. Friend in this position, on a temporary basis? Is he aware of the reason for the postponement of the EEC summit meeting? Will he consider advising our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not to attend another summit meeting until our budgetary contributions are ironed out satisfactorily in a fair and proper way?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal reference. We understand that the summit meeting has been deferred because of the obligations of the current President of the EEC. We appreciate his difficulties but we have made clear that we expect an early date for a re-arranged summit meeting. My hon. Friend will. I think, agree that it is essential that the crucially important problem that we are putting to the summit meeting should be dealt with by Heads of Government.

Does the right hon Gentleman understand that his reply about the document that was placed in the Vote Office today at 2.30 pm is unsatisfactory to the House? Can he explain why the document was not laid before the debate yesterday? The document had apparently been hanging around in Brussels and elsewhere since about 20 March. Why did the Financial Secretary not produce the document in the debate and say there was some mystery about it? When will there be another debate to enable hon. Members to discuss the full document and to allow the House to examine it?

I understand that the document arrived from the Commission only at the end of last week, just before the weekend. It has been placed in the Vote Office today.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for the 25 March.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrinchant and Sale (Mr. Montgomery).

Perhaps next time Milton Friedman himself will stand in for the Prime Minister. Do not the opinion polls and the latest by-election results show quite clearly that there is the utmost hostility to the economic policies mainly associated with the Secretary of State for Industry and the Prime Minister, who are leading Britain back into the mass misery and unemployment of the 1930s?

If the hon. Member supports the alternative policies he should note that they led to the Labour Party being defeated heartily in the last general election.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent TUC report indicated that the trade unions spend an average of 88p per member on strike pay and an average of £9½72 per member on administration? Does this not support the Government's contention that the trade unions should be more responsible for their members' welfare in times of strike?

My hon. Friend is quite right. We do not want the number of strikes to increase so that the unions have more money to spend on them, but we think that it is only fair that when strikes are called the unions should bear more of the costs than they do now.

On this happy day when a new archbishop is being enthroned in Canterbury, will the right hon. Gentleman take time to express the House's outrage at the assassination of Archbishop Romero in San Salvador today?

Yes, we certainly deplore the news of the assassination of Archbishop Romero.

Will my right hon. Friend invite the Prime Minister, during her busy schedule, to contemplate the disarray of the West in the aftermath of Afghanistan? If NATO cannot find a common position on the Olympic Games and if the European Community cannot make common cause of lamb and fish, how can we expect the Soviet Union to take seriously our intention to unite to prevent further aggression?

My right hon. Friend has played her part very vigorously in trying, with other Heads of Government, to reach common ground in constructive and positive ways. Compared with what might have been the reaction a little whle ago on both sides of the Atlantic, there are encouraging trends.

asked the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Scotland.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend has no intention of doing so.

Does not the Secretary of State think that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be dismissed on the ground that he has stolen £2½6 million from the children of Scotland? Does he realise that the Secretary of State for Scotland reduced the funding for education in Scotland in anticipation of the anti-rural bus law which the Government could not even persuade the other place to accept? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State either makes good the missing money for education or resigns?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is perfectly able to defend himself against that totally unjustified and extravagantly put charge.

Will my right hon. Friend recall that the Secretary of State for Scotland provided £10 per pupil more this year than last year? Will he assure the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the fullest support and confidence of all Scottish Conservative Members?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will read that comment with appreciation.

If the Secretary of State for Scotland is able to defend himself, why does he always depend on United Kingdom Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to make statements on his behalf? Since the election on 3 May, the Secretary of State for Scotland has never once made a statement on his own behalf. He has hidden behind either the Secretary of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If he is surplus to requirements, why not sack him?

I am sure that that is another extravagant allegation.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that few things could be worse for Scotland than the prospect of an Assembly with economic powers, as envisaged in the resolution passed by the Scottish Labour Party at its recent conference? Is it not just as well that Scottish Labour Members will have no chance of persuading their English colleagues to agree to such a course?

I am sure that the contrast between the Labour Government's performance on Scotland and the irresponsible proposals put forward now will be clear to the people of Scotland.

Does the Secretary of State for Scotland not have a bit of a cheek in advising local authorities in Scotland to adopt a policy of good housekeeping? Is he aware that the very high interest rates now being charged mean that the Grampian regional council, for example, will have to find an extra £4 million simply to service its debts?

High interest rates are not welcomed by anybody anywhere, but they are part of the necessary process of abating inflation and the people of Scotland would be far worse off if inflation were not abated than they are with the temporary high level of interest rates.

asked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with the progress of the Government's legislative programme as announced in the Gracious Speech.

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that reasonable progress is being made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not amazed by that statement, in view of the disastrous effects over the last 12 months resulting from the legislative programme? Has not the time now come to abandon the theory underlying the legislative programme in the last Queen's Speech, and particularly to abandon the idea that men can be starved back to work by refusing them social security benefits? Is not this the time to reconsider the Government's whole attil ude towards creating employment?

The hon. Member has brought together three different strands. The answer to his general question is "No". We believe that our policy is the only policy that can achieve the underlying purposes of both sides of the House, namely, a higher standard of living, more employment and better public benefits from the social services. We do not believe that it is right at present for the trade unions to count on the taxpayers to support the families of their strikers. We believe that the vast majority of people in this country agree with what we propose to do.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major planks in the Gracious Speech was the objective of a genuine reduction in public expenditure? Will he agree that, in order to achieve this objective, we must reduce substantially our net contribution to the EEC budget? Will he give an assurance that, unless we can achieve that objective, we shall review our present position, bearing in mind that our membership of Europe prevents us from taking decisions that are in the best interests of the United Kingdom?.

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is an unqualified "Yes". On the second part we very much hope that the Heads of Government will understand the equity and force of our claim.

Will the Minister accept that in the Employment Bill currently before the House there is a clause which requires an 80 per cent. vote for a closed shop? Has the Minister seen the Bill that I introduced to the House—which was not opposed by anyone—which requires that persons living in the area of the proposed cruise missile sites should have the opportunity to vote 80 per cent. in favour of the missiles before they are installed? Do the Government intend to apply the same principle and allow that Bill to go through as part of our legislative programme?

No. It has always been the practice of Governments of both parties that defence decisions should be taken by the Government of the day, even though the Labour Government occasion- ally hid crucial decisions from the people of this country.

Referring to the Government's programme in relation to the EEC budget, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, in spite of the ivory tower which he normally inhabits, that last night the House was subjected to what can only be described as a very deceitful, and indeed cowardly, course of action? Is he aware that this document was wholly relevant to last night's debate, was about the extent to which this country will continue to pay into the EEC, should have been laid before the House but was deliberately withheld with the result that the vote last night was cast upon totally inadequate evidence? Will he make sure that his hon. Friend comes to the House and makes a forthright statement about this matter.

First, the document itself is a useful contribution and can form the basis of Ministers' discussion. Secondly, I take seriously what the right hon. Gentleman says; but I also believe completely in the integrity of my hon. Friend who is, on all occasions, a vivid and vigorous speaker.