asked the Minister of Social Security what is now the value in terms of Canadian and Australian currencies, respectively, of the war pensions paid to a British war pensioner resident in Canada and Australia on the assumption that he is married with two children and 100 per cent. disabled; and what is the pension paid in these countries to their own war pensioners in similar circumstances.

On the assumptions made in the Question, a private who did rot qualify for any supplementary allowances would get just over 23 dollars a week in Canada and 18 dollars 96 cents a week in Australia. I understand that in similar circumstances these countries would pay their own pensioners about 92 dollars and 18 dollars 80 cents respectively. There has always been a wide disparity between pensions paid to Canadian war pensioners and British war pensioners resident in Canada.

In view of the long-standing disparity to which the hon. Member has referred and the special problems of war pensioners, arising from the high cost of living, particularly in Canada, will not he at least restore to British war pensioners in these countries the 14 per cent. cut that they suffered as a result of devaluation last November?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but the real value of British war pensions have increased somewhat since 1963, even taking into account devaluation. As I told the right hon. Gentleman in a recent Adjournment debate, as far as it is humanly possible where any of our war pensioners are suffering hardship we are introducing procedures to meet it.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether, in view of the fact that war disability pensions payable to disabled former members of the Brigade of Gurkhas resident in Nepal have had their pensions maintained at an increased cost in sterling, she will reconsider her decision not to take parallel action in respect of those British war pensioners resident overseas for whom she is responsible.

No, Sir. Neither British nor Gurkha disability pensions have been changed in terms of the currencies in which they are expressed. In fact, the sterling cost of Gurkhas disability pensions is now less than before our devaluation.

Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Defence have increased the sterling provision in respect of each Gurkha war disability pension in order to retain its rupee value? Does not the hon. Member think it a little shocking that a social service Department should take less care of people for whom they are responsible than does the Secretary of State for Defence?

I do not think that we take less care of pensioners than does anyone else. I answered the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has for closing local offices of her Department in small country towns; and whether she will take into account the importance of a local office to those living in rural areas.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 7th March to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I can assure him that account will be taken of the needs of those living in rural areas.—[Vol. 760, c. 158–9.]

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the great concern that exists in the South-West because the Government appear to give so little attention to the interests of country people? The British Legion in particular is very disturbed at these rumours.

There are no absolute proposals at the moment for anything in the region of the hon. Member's constituency. I can give him an assurance that we take the utmost account of two factors—first, that the great mass of our arrangements are now done by post and, secondly, that there is frequently a need for a caller office whatever kind of reorganisation we make, and this need is given a very high priority.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the larger towns also being allowed to keep their offices, especially in view of the fact that the amalgamation of the Rugby office with the Coventry office has been a total disaster?

I am sorry to hear that. My hon. Friend must tell me more about it. I emphasise that two factors are involved—first, reorganisation of what might be called the backroom work and, secondly, the need to ensure that we supply whatever is needed by way of caller facilities for the public. When we reorganise the backroom work it does not necessarily follow that there is any deprivation whatever to the public in terms of caller facilities.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on her plans for a general entitlement campaign to ensure that low-income families are aware of the various forms of help available to them.

A number of forms of publicity are being prepared. In particular, we are hoping to send these families a leaflet listing all the benefits which are available and telling them where to go for help.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that mounting pressures on low income families and also the low uptake of benefits in some areas make this campaign very urgent? Can she give the House an assurance that this leaflet will be backed up by adequate Press and television publicity to urge people to take advantage of it?

Yes, I have that very much in mind. I envisage that the leaflet will be backed up by Press, television and radio. I am anxious to get the leaflet absolutely right. It is important that it should be completely understandable by people and be very clear in the advice it gives them. I envisage that in the early summer—in early June—we should be able to get this going.

asked the Minister of Social Security by how much the purchasing power of the retirement pension has decreased to date since it was last raised.

Just over 2 per cent., as measured by the rise in the Index of Retail Prices; it is now worth about 18 per cent. more in real terms than in October, 1964.

Does the Minister realise that the standard of living of pensioners is being affected by devaluation probably more than that of anyone else in the community? Cannot he ensure that the Government save a little of the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to pay for the increase in the number of civil servants since 1964?

The hon. Gentleman should realise that we are now keeping the number of civil servants down in proportion. What he never seems to realise, and what keeps coming up again and again, is that, when we last increased the pension six months ago, we made it 20 per cent. higher than it was when we took office in 1964.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will take steps to help those retirement pensioners above the supplementary benefit level against the effects of devaluation.

We have clearly indicated how we propose to protect the most vulnerable against the effects of devaluation, and in relation to old people in our society, we shall be increasing supplementary benefits in the autumn.

But despite what he says, does the hon. Gentleman realise that many elderly people, especially those over 70, have to go without their daily help because of the increase in the price of this service?

The daily help is another matter, but we have made it perfectly clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the most vulnerable in our society—those on supplementary benefits—will be protected by an increase in the autumn.

asked the Minister of Social Security what her inquiry into fuel costs relating to retirement pensioners has shown.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on the results of her inquiry into the effect of fuel costs on the standard o living of pensioners.

By arrangement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, an inquiry is being made into the comparative costs of different methods of space heating for elderly people. I shall study the results when I have them.

Has my right hon. Friend's Department given any consideration to the question of surplus coal stocks? Should not some consideration be given, as a matter of social policy, to reducing those stocks to benefit some old-age pensioners?

I answered a Question about this some weeks ago. This problem is really a matter for the Minister of Power but, in relation to Scotland, the problem often is that the surplus fuels are not those which are suitable for domestic use.

In view of the fact that a number of old-age pensioners in Birmingham have been under the mistaken impression that they could send their fuel bills to the Ministry for payment, when my right hon. Friend completes her inquiry will she see that they are in no doubt about their rights, since this burdensome misconception is unfortunate?

A number of cases in various parts of the country have been reported to my Ministry and appropriate action has been taken. As a result of discussions within my Ministry, I am concerned to ask this open-ended question and to see what the inquiry shows. This is a matter of asking the right questions and not prejudging what the answers will be. I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to agree with that approach.

Will the right hon. Lady ensure that, among the right questions, the whole matter of regional differentiation will be kept in mind, particularly the difference in costs of fuel in different areas and the different need for fuel according to climate?

Some of these are particularly matters for the Minister of Power. I am concerned to discover and establish scientifically the effect of living in different environments and of the different kinds of freedom or restriction of choice of fuel upon the costs faced by old people.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main reasons for this problem is that the general element of 5s. allowed in supplementary benefits is far too low? Would she consider stepping this up to a more realistic level, which would help the old folks considerably in winter?

The whole question of what is a realistic level is bound to depend on the kind of choice available to old people and particularly to the kind of limitation of choice which they face when they are, perhaps, rehoused by a local authority, and the kind of house which uses a particular kind of fuel. These are the sorts of questions which led me to initiate the inquiry.

asked the Minister of Social Security what administrative machinery will be set up in her Department to deal with matters arising from prescription charges.

asked the Minister of Social Security what arrangements will be made, when prescription charges are introduced, to help people on supplementary benefit and low incomes to meet the charges.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether all those in receipt of supplementary benefit will have to pay the prescription charges and then obtain a refund.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether people receiving supplementary benefit will have to call at her Department's local offices to obtain help with the cost of prescriptions.

asked the Minister of Social Security by what means people under 65 years of age in receipt of supplementary pension or allowance will be able to obtain from her Department help with the payment of prescription charges.

I am glad to say that it is proposed that the Regulations which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be laying before the House after completion of discussions with the professions concerned should provide that most persons receiving supplementary benefits, and those who are living below supplementary benefit level or at about that level who are in work, can be issued with certificates by my Department authorising them and their dependants to claim exemption from the charge, instead of claiming refunds for each prescription. Similar arrangements will apply to war pensioners in respect of charges incurred for treatment of their accepted war disablement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the criticisms of prescription charges is administrative costs? Would she comment on the administrative costs of this scheme?

The fact that we have now been able to provide for exemptions rather than refunds for broadly the hardship categories will, of course, mean that the administrative costs for my Department are much smaller. This, however—I must tell the House this frankly—has not been my prime consideration: my main object has been to ensure that people on extremely low incomes do not have to apply continually for refunds but can get an exemption from the charges.

First, will the scheme for exemptions from prescription charges come in simultaneously with the introduction of the charges? Second, will women retirement pensioners between 60 and 65 be exempt from the charges?

The answer to the first part of that supplementary is that, in a number of cases among the categories which I have mentioned today, the exemptions will come into operation as soon as the prescription charges do. There will inevitably be some cases—for example, the family in work—where we shall have to wait for the first application for a refund in order to provide the exemption. Secondly, in relation to supplementary benefits, there will inevitably be a little time—a month or two—during which we will work through all the cases on supplementary benefit. But the main answer is yes, subject to these qualifications. The answer to the second part of the question is that it will depend, of course, on whether or not the woman comes within the categories which I have already mentioned—whether she is on supplementary benefit or not.

In her original reply, my right hon. Friend talked about "most of those" on supplementary benefits. Could she give us the percentage and say why all on supplementary benefits cannot be treated in this way?

The only exception—I cannot give a percentage, because it fluctuates—will be, clearly, someone who is on supplementary benefit for a very short period. A transient case, perhaps, who receives benefit this week but not next week or the week after is out of that range, and it would be impracticable to give him an exemption. It is only the short-term and transient cases which will not be included.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will seek to introduce arrangements whereby a man on reaching retirement can opt to forego his state retirement pension payable under the National Insurance scheme on the understanding that this pension can be paid with any necessary adjustments to his wife, in addition to her normal widow's pension, if she becomes widowed.

Such a personal option would involve additional administrative costs and complexities which could not be justified for individuals already more favourably placed than the general body of retirement pensioners.

But would not the hon. Gentleman be a little more constructive about this proposition? Would he not see that this is considered in the general review which is supposed to be taking place, since it would bring into the scheme a desirable element of flexibility?

No, I cannot agree, because the only people who could take advantage of such a scheme are those with considerable resources in addition to the National Insurance retirement pension, and perhaps not all of them would want to allocate their pension in this way.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider taking steps to remedy the anomaly whereby employers pay full insurance contributions for part-time workers.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) on 4th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 23.]

But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a great disincentive, as is the Selective Employment Tax, to those who might otherwise employ part-time workers? This particularly applies to the elderly. Will he not consider this matter again?

No, Sir. We do not think that it would be a disincentive. In fact, if we shifted the contribution to the employer, it could discourage him from employing part-time workers.

Will my hon. Friend consider a review of the part-time workers in newsagents, for example, in which trade the hours fall just above the 21 hours a week, which very much affects the payment for S.E.T. purposes in particular? Could he reconsider the period fixed for employment?

If my hon. Friend wishes to put a Question about particular types of employment, I will do my best to answer it.

asked the Minister of Social Security what studies have been made as to the desirability of compiling a comprehensive register of all those of pensionable age and over.

This has been considered, but is not thought to be a viable way of ensuring that entitlement to benefits is fully known, since it could not be based on any compulsory requirements to register.

Does not the Minister agree that a register of this kind would make it easier to analyse the problems suffered by these people, and particularly those above supplementary benefit level? How many old-age non-pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefits have had their books stamped "over pensionable age"?

I cannot give, off-hand, the figures which the hon. Member requested in his second supplementary question. The problem about a register which would give us the information which we require is that it would have to be a compulsory register, and keeping it up to date would be a continuous process. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Member's suggestion, but he will appreciate that we do not want a compulsory register.

asked the Minister of Social Security what estimates she has made of the effect of the Government's measures during the last year on the standard of living of retirement non-pensioners.

The effect has been to safeguard the position of those whose resources are insufficient for their requirements. In 1967 the Index of Retail Prices rose by 2½ per cent. Supplementary pensions were increased by about 6 per cent. last autumn.

Does the Minister accept that "retirement" is a relative term? Is it not a fact that these old-age non-pensioners above supplementary benefit level have had their standard of living severely curtailed in the last year and are likely to suffer a further 5 per cent. reduction in their standard of living next year?

I appreciate that the hon. Member is concerned about non-pensioners, a subject which we debated recently. I am as concerned about them as he is. He will appreciate that about 70,000 of them are in receipt of supplementary pensions. We should be delighted to receive applications from all those likely to benefit.

asked the Minister of Social Security when the last increase in the National Insurance contribution was made without an increase in benefit.

This has not happened previously under the present National Insurance scheme, but since enactment of the National Insurance Act, 1959 there has been provision for increasing contributions at five-yearly intervals with no accompanying benefit increases.

On a slightly different but related point, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is perhaps rather harsh to cut the first three days' unemployment sickness benefit at a time when increased contributions will be made? Am I right in assuming that she will alter this proposal in Committee on the Bill?

I believe that the hon. Member was not present in the House last week when I said something on this subject. I advise him, as I advised those in the House, to await the Committee stage of the Bill.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will list the number of means tests at present operating in the social security field.

Tests of means for social security benefits are operated by my Department for supplementary benefits—including repayments of National Health Service charges—under the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and for accommodation and pocket money provided under the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947. In addition, resources are taken into account in considering claims for certain war pensions dependants' benefits.

Will the right hon. Lady consider consulting her colleagues, some of whom operate a large number of means tests of various kinds, to see whether some simplification could be achieved by greater co-ordination between Departments?

I am tremendously aware of the need for some simplification, but the hon. Member realises that one of the problems is that a number of different means tests are operated by local authorities in relation to their own functions. It is a very wide problem, but I am much concerned with the need, if we can, to achieve some simplification.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether the recommendations of her Department's pamphlet, "Administration of the Wage Stop", have now been fully implemented.

Last month the recommendations relating to the use of standard local authority wage rates, and more favourable treatment of expenses, were brought into effect. This change benefited about 14,000 claimants. The other recommendations, which demand examination of the individual circumstances of those who are wage stopped are now being introduced as rapidly as each separate case can be reviewed.

Would the right hon. Lady indicate whether the whole of this provision will be carried out administratively or whether a regulation on the matter will be laid which we can debate?

This is purely an administrative matter for the Supplementary Benefits Commission, just as the report was from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If the hon. Member has any particular points in mind, he is free to write to me or to the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission about them.

My right hon. Friend says that 14,000 will benefit. How many are in Scotland?

A fair proportion. I do not have the figure, but the correct proportion are from Scotland. A number of people in Scotland have benefited particularly from the new assessment in relation to the rates of manual labourers, and the other recommendations, which depend upon the individual assessment of each case, will equally benefit a number in Scotland, particularly among the disabled, because in Scotland we tend to have quite a proportion of disabled persons.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will now end the present ruling which prevents a widow with children whose husband died without paying at least 156 insurance contributions from getting any widow's benefit.

Contribution conditions are necessary in an insurance scheme and the rule that 156 contributions shall have been paid has been a common condition for prolonged sickness benefit, retirement pension and widow's benefit since 1948. This rule, is of course, being looked at in relation to our proposals for a wage-related scheme.

If what I am asking cannot be given in full, will the Minister seriously consider allowing these unfortunate widows to aggregate, with their late husband's contributions, any contribution which they themselves made before they were married, thus preserving the insurance principle but at least giving some of the widows some relief?

I take the point, but, as I said, the provision to be made for women is being studied in the context of work on our wage-related pension scheme.

Will the Minister take very seriously the specific point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)? Does he not agree that it is a very hard anomaly that, irrespective of the date of marriage or of age, some widows receive no pension whereas other widows receive a pension? May we have an assurance that that will be dealt with in the White Paper in the autumn?

I said that I took particular notice of the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). Everything which was said by the noble Lord is being considered as part of our review at the moment.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on the progress made to protect the poorer sections of the community from the worst effects of devaluation; and what further steps she proposes to take.

A Bill now before the House proposes a further increase of 3s. a week in family allowances from October, in addition to the increase this month. Supplementary benefit will also be increased in the autumn and, as my hon. Friend will know, it is proposed that the income limits for full rate rebates are to be raised with effect from the autumn.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country will be grateful for that attempt to protect the poorer sections of the community? Is it true, as the Press reported this morning, that the Government are refusing to help to finance the project survey into national poverty? If that is the case, it is an absolutely outrageous decision.

My hon. Friend should not judge from the rather one-sided reports in The Guardian this morning of what our intentions are. This matter is under consideration. My concern—and this will arise on a later Question—is to analyse in some depth and detail the particular circumstances which we need to take into account if we are to end poverty. I am much more concerned about knowing which line of action would be best to meet—for example, the problems of fatherless families or separated wives or partly disabled—than about any generalities, which could not assist us directly in policy-making.

While appreciating the increase in family allowances, may I ask whether there is any chance at all that the supplementary allowances will be increased before the autumn, in view of our great anxiety about the way in which so many poor people are having a very hard time?

We have to make a balanced judgment on this matter. We have to take into account the fact that the increase last autumn left people in a much better position than they had ever been in before and that it was able to take into account a price rise which was expected. Next autumn will probably be about the right time to take account of those price rises which the last increase was not able to meet.

Does that mean that older people living on small fixed incomes who do not receive social security benefits or rebates will not be sheltered from the effects of devaluation?

The circumstances affecting those who are entitled to supplementary benefits are continually changing. It may be that people living on small fixed incomes will find, when we increase the supplementary benefit rates in the autumn, that some of them will then become entitled to them. They should not hesitate in the autumn, when the increases are made, to apply if they have any reason to suppose that they may be entitled to them.

asked the Minister of Social Security if, in view of the reduced value of the £ sterling overseas and the consequent effect on the standard of living of State old-age pensioners living overseas, she will introduce legislation which will assist them by starting the practice of granting to them increases awarded to old-age pensioners resident in this country.

No, Sir. Retirement pensions are payable in sterling, even where the pensioners are living abroad. We see no reason to change this long established practice or the terms under which pensions are paid to persons living abroad.

Would my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to look at this matter again? Is it not true that by living abroad these old-age pensioners are considerably lightening the burden on our social services? Should not we return to them a small part of the saving that they are making to us, and would not the adoption of the suggestion in my Question do this?

The present rule has applied since the inception of the present scheme. The British social security system is based on, and is related to, the conditions which apply in this country; and we feel that we must continue with the present practice.

In exceptional cases where pensioners must live abroad, perhaps for health reasons—for example, if they cannot stand our climate—would my hon. Friend reconsider the position?

That would be a difficult thing to do.

Why?

One would become involved in the problem of establishing the facts. If public money is being spent we must ensure that it is spent in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. If a person claimed that, for health reasons, he had to live abroad, we would need to set up machinery to confirm his claim.

asked the Minister of Social Security in view of the Government's policy of allowing increases in rents, rates, fares and prices, which fall heavily upon those in receipt of social security benefits and supplementary allowances, whether she will now review these payments and issue further advice and publicity to explain to recipients how they can claim supplementary benefits to offset any reduction of their living standards.

The rates of supplementary benefit are to be increased in the autumn. Supplementary benefit assessments take account of increases in rent and rates. We shall continue to explain as widely as we can, the conditions for supplementary benefits and how people can claim them. National Insurance benefits in general continue to be worth considerably more than under any previous Administration.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that poorer families are often not seen because they cannot afford to go out, that they often cannot afford to buy blankets for their beds or eggs for their children? As people living on £10 to £12 a week are finding it difficult to keep their heads above water—and I have used some admirable words which were uttered by my right hon. Friend in her speech last Friday—will she now agree to do something to see that these people are looked after?

My hon. Friend is correct to quote what I said on Friday. I also said it in the House on Tuesday, although am not sure that my hon. Friend was in his place to hear me on that occasion. He will, I am sure, agree that it is absolutely essential that the public in general should understand, as I believe the House does, that family allowances, and the increases in them which will take place this month and again in October, are the means directly of assisting the very families I was mentioning. For example, a man with three children living on £12 a week will be 8½ per cent. better off as a result of these increases in family allowances.

Eight-and-a-half per cent.?

If the hon. Member for Kidderminster wishes to challenge my figures, he should get to his feet and do so.

I am not the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I am the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. Does not the right hon. Lady realise that she has stated four times this afternoon that the increases announced last autumn will more than compensate these unfortunate old people? Is she aware that that is an absolute myth in view of the tremendous increases which are following devaluation, the further increases that are taking place in the cost of living following the Budget, and the many more increases which are to come? Is it not about time that she brought her ideas up to date?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting his constituency. I would be more impressed with his argument if he had ever at any time during the period when the Conservative Party was in power urged an increase in family allowances. The increases which started in October were the first for about 10 years. A further increase will follow closely on its heels and, whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees, it will mean a substantial improvement in the standard of living of the very poor family in this country.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will seek to make available allowances for constant attendance and other benefits, as large as those payable under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, to all disabled people who are not at present eligible to receive benefit under existing schemes.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she expects to receive a report on the Government survey on the number of disabled people; and what action she intends to take to help the disabled in the near future.

I am anxious to find some way of helping people who are very severely disabled, irrespective of the cause of disablement, and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that some results from the Government's survey of use to my Department can be expected in probably about 18 months. The provisions of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, however, serve special purposes and could not be extended to all disablement irrespective of its cause.

Would it be possible to extend some benefit—for example, to disabled housewives, who at present receive none—ahead of the results of the review, which may not be known for another 18 months?

Our planning in this matter will go concurrently with the research that is being carried out. We will need the results of the research, in that they will establish the incidence of disability among groups of people like housewives, before we can completely finalise our plans.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that we have waited a very long time indeed for this social security review? Can she say at this stage whether she accepts as a principle that all forms of disability should be treated alike, whether caused through industrial injury, long-term chronic sickness or resulting from any other natural cause?

It depends entirely on what the noble Lord means by "treated alike". There are very good reasons why the industrial injury which is encountered during work should receive a special kind of approach. At the same time, I believe that the real gap at the moment is in provision to meet chronic sickness or chronic handicap arising not through work, and particularly among housewives or congenitally handicapped children who grow up to be adults. Thus, in saying that I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord that they should be treated alike, I wholly agree that we need provision to meet the other contingencies which we are so far not meeting.

Since the Minister accepts that we may have to wait another 18 months for this report, cannot something be done for these disabled people in the meantime, remembering that many of them have been badly hit by price increases and that the Prime Minister promised that the weakest members of the community would be helped following increases in the cost of living through devaluation and other measures?

I wish to make it clear, since this may be a difficult point to understand, that the real gap in our knowledge—having accepted and agreed that there was a legitimate cause for concern here and since we did not have any facts—concerns the incidence of disability of differing degrees in the community outside the industrially and war injured. Before we can, for example, cost a scheme in accurate terms, we must know the incidence. However, that does not mean that nothing will be said on this issue in the White Paper which will be forthcoming before the end of the year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is of the utmost importance and urgency that she accepts the principle of the Question, which itself would go a long way towards doing something for the group of people involved? Would she agree that if former Tory Administrations had accepted this principle, the problem would now be easier to solve?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the urgency of this matter. I would only disagree with him to the extent of saying that the general public expect much more of us than they do of Tory Administrations.

asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she intends to take to protect families with one child living at or below supplementary benefit level from the increases in prices following devaluation.

Where the family is receiving or entitled to receive supplementary benefit, it will, in general, be helped by the increases we propose to make in the autumn. Some of the others will stand to benefit from the changes in the rate rebate scheme which are also proposed for the autumn.

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that one-child families living at or below the supplementary benefit level have at least as much right to assistance as have Income Tax payers with one child, and will he not move as fast as possible towards a negative income tax scheme?

In our recent debate my right hon. Friend expressed great sympathy for these one-child families who are living in poverty. The hon. Gentleman knows my attitude to the scheme to which he refers, as I have expressed it clearly on about three occasions.

Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the position of the one-child family? There is quite a degree of poverty amongst such families with low incomes. In many cases, one child is far more expensive to bring into the world than a second or third child, or subsequent children.

We appreciate that it is a problem, but the family allowance scheme has always excluded the first child. Where there is more than one child, we can assist the family by increasing family allowances. About 3 million children would be brought into the family allowance scheme if we included the one-child family, which makes it pretty difficult.

asked the Minister of Social Security what research is being carried out at present within her Department; and what plans she has for more research in the future.

My Department is continuously engaged in the examination and interpretation of statistical material available to the Ministry, and the development of techniques for obtaining analysing other relevant information.

As a result of the news last Friday, can we now be sure that all research being done in the right hon. Lady's Ministry will be very closely coordinated with that being done in the Ministry of Health?

Indeed, this will be so. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the degree of co-ordination there is already in planning the survey of the disabled. I am quite convinced that we can all gain from even further co-ordination.

As the Government have now accepted the suggestion they have repeatedly rejected in the past of amalgamating the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security, will they now accept this recommendation, which also we have repeatedly made, of greatly strengthening the research department of her Ministry?

I have anticipated the noble Lord's pressure for increased research facilities, because I have been strengthening the research facilities of my Department. If the noble Lord looks at the proposals now made by the Government for the amalgamation of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security, he will find that these proposals are rather different from those put forward by the Conservative Party, which spread a great deal wider, and more unfortunately.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider taking steps to increase the additional pension earned by staying on at work after pensionable age.

Increments to the flat rate retirement pension were improved as recently as last October, when the maximum addition which can be earned was increased from 21s. to 29s. a week.

Is the Minister aware that this is not actuarially fair, and that, as the trend seems to be for people to retire earlier, if he wants to encourage people to stay on after retirement age more incentives must be provided?

No, Sir. The opportunity to earn increments has never been one of the major factors in influencing people to defer retirement until after retiring age, and the financial attractions of earnings and the ability to continue to work are, in our view, much more important.

asked the Lord President of the Council if, when powdered milk is used in tea and coffee in the Refreshment Rooms of the House of Commons, he will display warning notices to that effect.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will cease serving powdered milk in the refreshment rooms of the House.

I have been asked to reply.

I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate that statement. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his reply also means that a slur that was being cast on many of the cows in this country will now be removed?

I cannot accept that remark. No slur has been cast. Powdered milk was introduced as an economy, but it did not appear to be popular and it has been rescinded.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no Parliamentary Questions have ever been followed by such speedy action in this House?

May I ask whether powdered milk will be provided in tea and coffee in Annie's Bar?

I require notice of that question.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, for an experimental period until the end of the current Session, he will move to amend Standing Orders to enable certain morning Sittings of the House to be devoted exclusivly to Questions on matters relating to Foreign Affairs, Labour, Board of Trade, and Scotland.

I have been asked to reply.

In view of that reply, I almost forbear congratulating my right hon. Friend. Does he recognise that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about the lack of opportunity hon. Members have of getting Answers from particular Departments? Would he consider setting up a small sub-committee of back bench Members, who are most interested in these matters, so that we might get some better distribution of Ministerial opportunities for answering Parliamentary Questions?

I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that in his supplementary question he has gone wider than the original Question. I will take note of what he has said; perhaps he and I can have a word together.

I should like to be the first on this side to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming the Leader of the House. Will he realise that after many months of painful experimentation, every quarter of the House realises that morning Sittings were a total and complete flop—[Interruption.] Oh, yes; and does he realise that the principal absentees were the members of his own party? Will he therefore set his heart against any resumption of this totally inadequate device?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his supplementary question. I must be the servant of the House. I will take note of what the hon. Member says. I recognise that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its Report on times of Sittings of the House, did not suggest that Questions should be dealt with in morning Sittings. I must take note of that, but I must also, as is right, assess the feeling of the House.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works for what reason inquiries are being made in Finland by his Department with regard to obtaining suitable timber for the construction of accommodation for horses at the new Knightsbridge Barracks; what circumstances have arisen to make it impossible to accommodate British Army horses by using indigenous materials; and whether the matter will now be reviewed.

No such inquiries are being made. When the contract was let, timber from Baltic resources, among others, was specified because no suitable home grown timber was available. I am aware that home grown soft wood is now becoming available in small quantities, and I am asking my professional officers to consider in what circumstances its quantity, quality and price would make it suitable for future projects.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that all specifications put out to tender by his Ministry will in future require, as a priority, the employment of home-produced materials, especially timber, having regard to the fact that timber is the largest single commodity import of the United Kingdom, costing us more than £200 million per annum?

The hon. Gentleman has been very good in pursuing this question, which I fully support in principle. He will know of the various professions involved. Our architects already know, through Parliamentary Answers to Questions, that, as Minister, I believe that the intention should be to prescribe that only British materials are used where possible.

Will the Minister say who advised him that home-grown timber was not suitable for horse boxes?

I can only say that I have professional advisers. I understand that these horses are very fond of British wood, and chew it up.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what has been the capital cost of the new bar provided in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

Only just over £3,000, which I regard as excellent value for a splendid job, done by my Department.

At a time when the whole Government's efforts are devoted towards reducing consumer expenditure, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is the right time for this provision? Could not the same very laudable end be achieved—namely, easier access by hon. Members to Press men and vice versa—by opening the present Strangers' Bar to the Press?

I have great regard for the hon. Member and I did not know that he was quite so reactionary. This was requested by the Lobby correspondents and agreed to by the Catering Committee, and it is only replacing that which used to be in the Palace of Westminster. I think a very good job has been done.

It may be that the construction of the new bar does credit to my right hon. Friend's Department, but was it really necessary to spend this money at a time like this in order to provide another drinking establishment for Lobby correspondents? Is it not true that the Press has a bar and, indeed, members of the press have several facilities which enable them to consume alcoholic liquor if they wish? Why provide the Lobby correspondents and the Press with an additional bar? Is this what the Government mean by "Parliamentary reform"?

I do not want to get involved with my right hon. Friend on the virtues or non-virtues of alcohol. We have replaced that which used to be provided many years ago. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend complained about the bar when it was here before. We have now brought back that which used to be here, and I think it is a very useful change.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lobby correspondents have been doing their work under almost impossible conditions for many months and that this addition to the present facilities is the least we should do for them?

When the country is being asked to save and expenditure is being discouraged, is it wise to make this capital expenditure?

The actual total amount involved was £3,000. This Bar was furnished by my Department. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen it, but I believe we have value for money and I think it is a service to the House.

While accepting that this is value for money, will my right hon. Friend convey to the Catering Committee that for a long time many hon. Members have been trying to get teapots provided in the Strangers' Cafeteria not only for the use of strangers but for hon. Members?

Order. This is a long way from Annie's Bar. We must get on.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had in connection with the General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries merger on the effects of the reorganisation of the industry on the development areas; and what are the employment prospects for men and women in Hartlepool at the present Associated Electrical Industries factory.

A number of discussions with the General Electric Company about the effects of reorganisation following the merger have taken place. G.E.C. is well aware of the advantages, both to the company and to the nation, of maintaining and expanding their establishments in the development areas. As part of the rationalisation of its telecommunications activities I understand that it is intended to increase the work load at A.E.I. Hartlepool. This should ensure a continuing and substantial level of employment at this factory.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer will be particularly welcomed in the North-East but, arising from the information he has now given to the House, is he further aware that this is the first indication for many workers in Hartlepools that there will definitely be an increased work load, and there is considerable anxiety about present promises of reducing work loads? Will he therefore encourage the organisation of G.E.C. and A.E.I. to consult more with the unions so that confidence can be restored?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouragement. We always encourage firms to consult with the unions in these matters.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had on the proposed closure of the Furness shipyard; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend had discussions with the yard's owners, the national and local leaders of the unions, the Shipbuilding Industry Board and other shipbuilding organisations. As a result, he decided to arrange for a rapid economic appraisal to be made to see whether any way could be found to put the yard on a long-term viable basis.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I, as a Member in that area, am particularly grateful for his personal assistance in this matter, but nevertheless there is a shortage of time? Is he aware that in this yard, which is the most modern in Europe, the rundown in manpower is at such a rate that if the decision is not made to keep it open, time will run out for us?

The working party which has been set up to examine this question has been working urgently and we look forward to receiving its report soon.

asked the Minister of Technology what he is doing to synchronise the pension schemes of those in his establishments employed by the Atomic Energy Authority and the Science Research Council, respectively.

If my hon. Friend has in mind the terms of the proposed transfer of astrophysics staff at Culham from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Science Research Council in April, 1969, I can say that it is the intention that these staff should remain on A.E.A. conditions of service and be retained in the A.E.A. superannuation scheme. Legislation will be needed for this purpose, but I cannot say at this time what form it will take.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in view of the circumstances, there is a certain urgency about this matter?

The urgency is to ensure that proper pensions provisions are made. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no lack of care taken to ensure that there is no injustice to individuals.

asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the number of those workers, who, apart from their extra earnings from working overtime in their regular jobs, would be classified by his Department as low-paid.

No estimate can be given. One reason for this is that, as the National Board for Prices and Incomes have pointed out, it is not possible to lay down a figure in cash terms to distinguish low-paid workers from their fellows. The other is that the necessary statistical information is not at present available.

Does not my hon. Friend think it about time that it was available? Does he not agree that the implication of the Ministry's approach to municipal busmen is that the men, by having to work a 56-hour week, disqualify themselves from generous treatment by the Prices and Incomes Board?

For the information to become available it would be necessary to add considerably to staff. Hon. Members who ask for detailed information of this kind ought to be aware of that. As to the busmen, since this is now a matter of negotiation, I think I had better make no further comment.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will undertake an inquiry to establish what proportion of those workers who are classified by his Department as low-paid have supplementary sources of income from part-time jobs undertaken outside their normal working hours.

No, Sir.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a very relevant point in relation to that made in the earlier Question? If the busmen made up their 56 hours by window cleaning they would qualify for generous treatment by the P.I.B.

My hon. Friend may not be aware, but the family expenses survey will this year for the first time make it possible to provide estimates of the earnings of individuals in different income groups from subsidiary occupations.

To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government, by what percentage the price of houses is estimated to have increased between the second half of 1966 and the corresponding period for 1967; and what is the expected rise during the current year.

No. 63 to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Where is he?

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory situation—

Order. A point of order—Mr. Biffen.

On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? What now happens to my Question No. 63? Is the whole business of the House to be held in suspense until such time as a Minister arrives?

Or until the Leader of the House answers it.

The Minister is not present as we did not anticipate that this Question would be reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] We are sending for him.

Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that Ministers should not anticipate; they should be here?

As my Question No. 64 deals with mortgage interest, to be discussed tomorrow, which will affect millions of householders in this country, have I protection against a delay which will stop my Question being answered as otherwise it would be?

I cannot move from Question No. 63 to Question No. 64 which is in exactly the same position.

Further to that point of order. In these circumstances, is it not the custom to proceed through the other Minister's Questions and to revert to this at a later stage? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

As the country is now being administered by the Mark II Government, would the new Leader of the House like to make a statement about how this matter can be rectified?

I will certainly see that this never happens again. I have already sent for the Ministers concerned. If it is half-past three by the time they arrive, I will see them privately.

Would it not be possible for the Patronage Secretary tional Commission cannot be much longer to read the Answer, in place of the Minister concerned?

The point of order is an important one. For the information of the House, I have been reminded that, per Standing Order No. 8(3):

"No questions shall be taken after half-past three of the clock, except questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the Minister to whom they are addressed…"

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you now like to get an apology from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) who, when I suggested this, said that it was not the case?