asked the Minister of Overseas Development what will be the gross and estimated net cost of the British Overseas Aid and Development Programme in 1970–71 and 1971–72; and what will be its estimated effect on the balance of payments.

The planned programme for 1970–71 remains £235 million gross, and repayments of £28·million are due. Within this total the special aid to Malaysia and Singapore is likely to include some defence aid. We are not yet in a position to give figures for 1971–72.

Would my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary accept congratulations from those interested in aid and development on their appointment, and will they be prepared for the pressure which will certainly come in achieving a fulfilment of the targets we know they individually subscribe to? Would my right hon. Friend agree that the result of the international aid and development programme is highly positive in terms of our balance of payments? Is it not high time that the British people were told in categorical terms that our future well-being depends on the expansion and continuation of this programme?

I and my hon. Friend are grateful for the good wishes of my hon. Friend. We shall both welcome his pressure. In looking forward to the future there can be nothing but long-term advantage to us in doing the maximum to promote development, simply in terms of the increase in world trade which then has its effect on us.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether credits for arms sales abroad will in future be included as part of the British Overseas Aid and Development Programme.

They have never formed part of the official aid programme, and they no longer count as private flows against the U.N.C.T.A.D. 1 per cent. target.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, within the international classification, these credits have been included and that it is most unfortunate that they should be counted towards fulfilment of aid targets?

I agree. My hon. Friend had a Question down on this subject in July. He will be glad to know that it is as a result of a recent agreement of members of D.A.C. since then, that new arrangements have been made and they will no longer count as part of the programme.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the extent of the aggregate private investment, bilateral portfolio investment, multilateral portfolio investment and export credit contribution to the aid figure of $845 million for the United Kingdom during 1968 and tabulated in her Department's Aid for Development fact sheet in July. 1969.

$326 million is the latest estimate, bringing the total down to $754 million.

Do not these figures show quite clearly that free enterprise can play a major rôle in advancing the capital requirements of developing countries? In those circumstances, is it not highly regrettable that Governments such as those of India and Zambia show such hostility to United Kingdom private investments?

The Government have always encouraged private investment as being complementary to the official aid programme, and that will continue to be our policy.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans she has for ensuring that the proposals of the Pearson Report on aid to under-developed countries are implemented by Her Majesty's Government; and if she will make a statement on plans for the next five years.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development by what year the official British Government aid budget will reach 0·7 per cent. of gross national product recommended in the report of the Pearson Commission.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development in view of the fall in the proportion of the gross national product provided for official overseas aid from 0·53 in 1964 to 0·42 in 1968, what steps the Government will take to reach the targets for official aid set by the Pearson Commission.

The publication of the Pearson Report was immediately welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Report's recommendations are addressed to developed and developing countries and to all organisations concerned with development. They are now under study here. We fully accept the need to continue the collective development effort, and we intend to play our part in this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the welcome given by the Government to the Pearson Commission's Report is very gratifying? Is she further aware that the Government ought to match that with specific figures and targets? Will she give an assurance that she will take fully into account, as a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party, the conference decision on this matter which was, near enough, the recommendation of the Pearson Commission?

I can assure my hon. Friend that it is clear to me that we must now make a fresh assessment of the contribution Britain can make to the world programme of aid and development in the 1970s. We have had quite a good record in the past. With the new challenges presented to us on many fronts in everyday life, I myself regard it as essential that we considerably improve our performance in real terms in the 1970s.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is an area in which it is appropriate to speak of the moral obligations of countries like Britain? Could she tell us something of her philosophy towards the question of overseas aid?

If I can condense it in the course of answering a supplementary question, the moral commitment of any developed nation is probably the greatest commitment which it has in any field.

While welcoming the Minister's appointment, may I ask whether she would be more specific about the proportion of our gross national product which the Government are prepared to devote next year to official development aid in view of the gradual decline of the proportion of the gross national product in recent years?

We have the Pearson Report before us, and we have the new U.N.C.T.A.D. target to consider and the Second Development Decade coming up. Clearly all these maters must be considered quite urgently by the Government, but the assessment is bound to take a little time.

May I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Lady on her appointment and of saying at the same time that the House genuinely regrets the departure of her predecessor who always treated us with the utmost courtesy and frankness? Since the Prime Minister has described the Pearson Report as one of the most important documents of the twentieth century, and since the Government's contribution to aid has fallen far short of expectations given us in 1964–65, will the right hon. Lady translate what she has just said into effective action? Can she give an assurance that the study will be completed before Christmas and that an announcement of the Government's intentions on this subject will be made before Christmas?

The proportion of the gross national product will have to be considered in relation to our future estimates of the gross national product, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are not published. But the figures for expenditure in 1971–72, which is one of the matters about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, will be in the White Paper in December.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she has reached any preliminary conclusions regarding the scheme of the Pearson Commission on international development for untying aid with a zero balance of payments effect.

The Commission did not itself quite propose such a scheme. Its recommendations on this point call for further study in consultation with other aid providing countries and we shall certainly be glad to consider this more carefully.

Would the right hon. Lady agree that the Government's performance in the aid programme is rather worse than it looks in the sense that the nominal value of aid far exceeds the real value because of tying arrangements? Therefore, will she give particular attention to this matter? She said just now that the Government do not forecast the gross national product. Why does she think that?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes assumptions in relation to the rate of growth which he foresees ahead, but it is not the practice to publish estimates of the gross national product for the years ahead. We are anxious to move in the context of international discussions on the Pearson proposals and we shall want to continue to work towards the direction recommended; but it must be done in the international context.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development in which of the years 1965 to 1968, inclusive, there was a drop in disbursements of official aid net of interest payments and amortization, in official aid expressed as a percentage of the gross national product, and in the real value of official aid expressed in terms of 1965 prices.

The figures for 1967 and 1968 declined in all these respects from those for 1966.

Is not this a most savage indictment of the Government's policy? Who was responsible for advising the Prime Minister to make his boastful speech at Polesden Lacey on 14th September in which he said that aid had never ben cut when in fact it has?

I am sorry to have to engage the hon. Gentleman in rather fierce argument across the Floor of the House at such an early stage, but it was never cut. What happened in 1966 was that there was a lowering of the rate of growth in the planned programme. Hon. Members know perfectly well the difference between a cut in a programme and a lessening of the rate of growth in a growing programme. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman to consider how good the record has been in terms of the balance of payments problem which we have had to deal with and which we are now on the way to solving.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development by how much she estimates the percentge of British gross National product devoted to official aid will decline in the calendar years 1969 and 1970, respecively.

Percentage figures are not available but gross disbursements of economic aid are expected to amount to £214·4 million in 1969 and £224·3 million in 1970. This compares with £202·8 million outturn in 1968.

Is the right hon. Lady aware—let us get this clear from the start—that net aid as a percentage of the gross national product has declined steadily since 1964 and that the figures which she has given, even if fully achieved, would at best keep aid as a percentage of the gross national product at the same level at last year? Is she further aware that if, as usual, disbursements fall short of the published ceilings, official aid will probably fall short of 0·4 per cent. of the gross national product for the first time since 1958? Is that why the right hon. Lady predecessor resigned?

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he hopes that we can do better on aid in the 1970s than we have done in the last five years, I will wholly agree with him and I shall look forward to his assistance in reaching a better target. But if he is saying that we should have done better in the last five years, despite the balance of payments problem which we have had to deal with, then I shall have to take him to task.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the hypocritical noises of the Opposition are coming from a party which is constantly advocating decreases in public expenditure?

Indeed—and at the same time making taxation proposals which run completely counter to all their other proposals.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the continuing delays in the transmission to pensions in Great Britain of pensions paid by the Nigerian Government to bank accounts in Nigeria, what representations she proposes to make on behalf of the pensioners.

We have already approached the Nigerian authorities, through the British High Commission in Lagos, about a number of pensioners of whose difficulties I am aware.

But when may we expect some reassurance to those pensioners whose payments are being grossly delayed?

I shall be very glad to consider any cases of hardship which the hon. Gentleman cares to take up with me. But he can be reassured that any pensioner can apply at any time to receive payment through the Nigerian High Commission in London, which would cut out all the delay and exchange control problems.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will take steps designed to improve negotiating procedures for the replenishment of the International Development Association.

The President of the Association, Mr. McNamara, has already made proposals designed to ensure that the next replenishment can be settled in enough time to allow the Association to enter new commitments from the middle of 1971, and we support these proposals.

Could the right hon. Lady say what she thinks is the absolute deadline for replenishment? Does she intend to urge that the next programme will cover five years rather than the very short period which was covered on the previous occasion?

The proposals of Mr. McNamara are that there should be agreement, if possible, by the end of June, 1970, so that the necessary legislation can be introduced and enacted by the end of June, 1971. The first payments would then become payable in November, 1971. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the difficulty on the last occasion was caused by delays in legislation. We shall certainly seek to fulfil the McNamara proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the result of his negotiations on the subject of abatement with the representatives of the pensions funds in connection with his proposed legislation.

I hope to make a statement and lay a White Paper on this subject early next month.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that a scheme of the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme is very difficult to reconcile with healthy and expanding occupational schemes? Would he give an assurance that if this turns out to be the case he will amend his scheme so as to secure that occupational schemes are not prejudiced?

It is true that the conversations which I have had with the representatives of the occupational schemes have taken longer than I expected, hence the delay in the statement. But I see no reason to believe that we shall not come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Would my right hon. Friend say a word or two about the N.A.L.G.O. campaign in this respect, which seems to be based upon a variegated assortment of misunderstandings and misconceptions?

I would not contradict a word of what my hon. Friend said, but there is a later Question referring to this matter.

Does the Minister realise that it would be very foolhardy to proceed with a line of policy which has had very substantial criticism from the representatives of over 12 million pensioners and members of pensions schemes in this country?

The striking thing is that the scheme has emerged with extraordinarily little criticisms. The only discussion has centred on the precise terms of abatement and not on the nature of the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether in his costing of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Plan outlined in Command Paper No. 3883 he has taken into account the cost of paying increased pensions to existing pensioners; and what he estimates this cost would be in 1972, 1982, and 1992.

It is not possible to estimate the cost of future increases. Command Paper No. 3883 proposes that increases in excess of inflation proofing should be a matter for the Government of the day. The estimates in the White Paper are, however, based on constant earnings and, therefore, give a realistic indication of the relative progress of income and outgo if benefits moved in line with earnings.

In the light of that reply, does not the statement by the Secretary of State on 23rd July, in which he estimated the cost of an alternative scheme put up by the National Association of Pension Funds, seem to the Minister to be somewhat misleading, if not perhaps untruthful? In the light of an earlier reply by the Secretary of State this afternoon, may I assure the Minister that for many of us on this side the fractional adjustments in abatement conditions are for from being the only controversial feature of the pension plan and that he may expect strenuous opposition to the plan as a whole?

In reply to the last point, we look forward to a highly intelligent debate on the scheme as a whole. What my right hon. Friend was saying was that most of the attention of the public has been concentrated on these aspects—namely, the terms of abatement. When my right hon. Friend was involved in a discussion with the National Association of Pension Funds, he said how difficult it was to make projections into the future, but he said that if certain assumptions could be made certain figures could be produced. What one cannot at the moment say is what those assumptions would be.

Does the Minister of State recollect that the White Paper already makes clear that an increase in contributions will amount to over 30s. for many women, to nearly £1 for many men and to an average of 5s.? Is it not clear that these very high figures are already inadequate?

No, that is by no means true. The White Paper also made clear that in the case of low-paid workers, on present rates they would pay less rather than more and that in 1972 we will have to compare the level of contributions with what would in any event have been a necessary increase in contributions in order simply to maintain our present scheme to cover the vastly increased number of pensioners as well as to increase the level of pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he has given to the representations of the National Association of Local Government Officers about the effect on the pensions provisions of local government officers of his proposed pensions scheme.

I have assured them that fears that the Government have designs on their occupational pension funds are totally devoid of foundation. I have reminded them that the new State scheme is designed to work in partnership with occupational pension schemes; and I have pointed out the valuable extra benefit cover the new State scheme will bring for the Association's members and their families, and the easement of the contribution burden on the lower paid among them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance, however, that it is not his intention to cut back or to diminish in any way the pensions or pension rights enjoyed as a condition of their employment by local government officers under their present scheme?

Yes, I think I can say that we are not concerned to cut them back in any way. We are putting into force a new pensions scheme, which is for the first time an adequate earnings-related scheme. Such a scheme when in force will require adaptation by the other schemes which are in force—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the right hon. Gentleman has known about it all the way through. What we are now discussing is the degree of partial contracting out which we can allow which will reduce the necessity for adaptation.

Is my right hon. Friend actually in negotiation with unions such as N.A.L.G.O., or is it a matter of the union making representations and of him replying by letter? Will he assure us that he is actually talking with N.A.L.G.O. in detail about these modifications?

I seem to have talked to a great many N.A.L.G.O. branches throughout the country during the last few months but we have, between us, had three meetings with representatives of the N.A.L.G.O. executive. My main discussions have had to take place on a larger scale with the T.U.C., the C.B.I., the National Association of Pension Funds, the Life Offices and such big groups, because one cannot talk to every one of the 65,000 pension schemes concerned.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what a very disturbing answer he has given to my right hon. Friend? The question asked, if I may repeat it, was: can he give an assurance that the pension rights of members of the N.A.L.G.O. scheme will not be cut back or diminished in any way?

I was asked whether I would cut them back, and I said that would not cut them back. [Interruption.] If I am asked whether or not, when the new scheme is in effect and the new terms of abatement are worked out, every one of the 65,000 schemes will remain totally unadapted, the answer is "No." Clearly, most of them will have to adapt to the new circumstances. The question I was asked was precisely how they will adapt.

Will the right hon. Gentleman then say how many people who are members of these schemes at present are likely to find their pension rights cut back?

None of this can be discussed sensibly until we announce the new ratio between pension abatement and contribution abatement. When that has been seen, each scheme can judge what is involved and what contribution it will pay. It can then decide how to adapt to our scheme. It is clear that a number of schemes will not adapt at all but will be on top of our scheme. A number of schemes may even decide that ours is good enough and they will give up. In my view, the vast majority will adapt themselves to our scheme and together provide greatly improved benefits for their members.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to revise his pension proposals, in view of the substantial criticisms sent to him by organisations representing large numbers of members of occupational and public services pension schemes.

I do not accept the implication in the Question and I would ask the hon. Member to await the presentation of the Bill early in the new Session.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that earlier he failed to give an assurance that the pension rights of members of occupational pension schemes will not be eroded by the new State scheme and that his answer will cause profound disquiet amongst a large number of people who are members of such schemes and could do real damage to savings?

That would depend on whether they had read the White Paper. I said that every scheme would have to consider how best to adapt itself to the Government's scheme. That adaptation would not include existing pension rights, which in no respectable occupational scheme can be eroded. What we are considering here is the future, not existing pension rights.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the members of occupational schemes are entitled to see that their interests are safeguraded? At the same time, would he underline that the fundamental feature of this scheme is to provide reasonable security of pensions for millions of people who will not be entitled to them unless the scheme becomes an Act?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. Not only we on this side, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should consider it a duty to strike a fair balance between the needs of those in occupational pension schemes and those in the Government's scheme. Inevitably, that balance will be based on very complicated calculations and assessments.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now publish the results of his investigation into the large increases in the financial year 1968–69 in the cost of sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.

So far as sickness benefit is concerned, the hon. Member will no doubt understand that a careful study of the many factors involved must take time; and it is too early to make a statement. Unemployment benefit is a rather different question and was dealt with in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question of 7th July.—[Vol. 786, c. 922–31.]

The Minister is being very coy about this investigation. Could he tell the House whether the investigations made so far and of which he has reports have revealed that there is any grave amount of abuse of social security benefits in these two fields?

I have no reason to believe that there is any grave degree of abuse. It would not, however, be right to start making generalised assumptions until we have the whole survey. Many questions are involved, including questions of sickness in a particular year, questions of epidemics and so on. I assure the hon. Member that the survey is being carried out and that at a certain stage we will fully inform the House of our conclusions.

It is not clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that the reason we are paying out more is that the Government introduced better benefits, both in unemployment and sickness? Is it not also clear that if we followed the policies of hon. Members opposite, there would be cuts in public expenditure which lead to cuts in these benefits, which help the ordinary people?

I very much agree with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend at the conclusion of his question. There are, of course, a number of reasons for the increase in cost; as my hon. Friend has said, the amount of benefit is higher. It is also true, however, that there is a greater degree of long-term sickness among people who a generation ago might well have died but who, as a result of the Health Service, are continuing to live. That is a very important part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was paid out in total and per head by way of supplementary benefits to those on strike and those thrown out of work in the recent South Wales blast-furnacemen's strike.

About 3,300 supplementary benefit payments totalling approximately £22,300 were made to the dependants of strikers in the South Wales blast-furnacemen's dispute, an average payment of £6 15s. In addition, just under 50 payments totalling £107 were made to relieve urgent need among single strikers. 97 payments totalling about £330 were made during the dispute to men and their families laid off by the Steel Company of Wales as a result of the strike.

Does not this emphasise how tremendously expensive are these strikes to the national Exchequer? This is in addition to the port strike, where hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid out, and the Vauxhall, Ellesmere Port, strike where, equally, hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid out to people on strike and to those who were affected, with apparently no regard to whether refunds were coming back.

Of course strikes are expensive to the nation as a whole, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that, compared with supplementary benefits of £22,300, on a conservative estimate the workers themselves lost about £165,000 in wages, and roughly 50 per cent. of the strikers in this long dispute, which went on for almost two months, made no claim for supplementary benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in making payments by way of supplementary benefits to those on strike, any account is taken of income tax refunds to strikers which are being received at the same time.

Yes, Sir. Income tax refunds received by strikers are taken into account in assessing the supplementary benefit entitlement of their dependants to the extent that these refunds, together with any other personal income which the striker may have, exceed the amount of the striker's own personal requirements by supplementary benefit standards.

As we have just heard in the previous reply, an average of about £6 was paid out in supplementary benefits to strikers and those affected by the strike. Is not it true that in a great many strikes no regard has been had to whether strikers were getting refunds and that, for instance, refunds of up to £20 are payable to people affected by strikes who are also getting supplementary benefits?

No, it is not true, as I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. In any case, the procedure which he is now questioning is one that has been carried out for the last 20 years by successive Administrations, including the one which the hon. Gentleman supported.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional steps he is taking to check abuses of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme.

Various methods are employed to check abuse of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme and they have been extended and intensified over the last year or so. The Commission and I are satisfied that generally speaking these measures are working well. I am, however, still discussing with the Commission whether there are any additional measures which would be appropriate, effective and practicable.

I welcome that rather vague reply, so far as it goes, but have not recent Press articles by an official of the Supplementary Benefits Commission revealed a most alarming degree of fraud and deception? Is the Minister satisfied that the steps he now contemplates will be rigorous enough to discover and to stamp out these abuses, which are of concern to the great majority of ordinary, decent, hard-working people?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if he is referring to the article in the Spectator, it did not indicate the extent of the abuse. It merely illustrated the abuses which we all know. The difficult question is the extent of the abuse and how much effect we have against it. We have done a lot. To take one figure, on enforcement of maintenance allowances our rate of recovery is £6 million as compared with £5 million last year. In the four-week control of single men under 45, last year we were successful in seeing that 80,000 went back to work. These are solid achievements.

Is not the principal abuse of the scheme the inadequacy of the claims made, in that far too many people are ignorant of what they are entitled to? Should not an attempt be made to inform people of their entitlement under the scheme?

I should not have thought that the cause of abuse was properly analysed in that way. It may well be said that more people should know accurately what they are entitled to, and we are publishing more information on that subject next spring. I think that the abuse, which is serious and which is very limited, is done by people who know only too well what they are entitled to and who try to get something more. That, of course, we want to eradicate.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to amend the law so that capital resources of less than £325 are not taken into account when reasonable household removal expenses are incurred by an aged widow who is rehoused because of infirmity by a local authority.

No, Sir. Under the Ministry of Social Security Act it is specifically left to the Supplementary Benefits Commission to decide what account should be taken of resources disregarded for purposes of weekly benefit when calculating exceptional lump sum payments—such as removal expenses. Their normal practice is to ensure that the claimant is left with £100 capital intact but they consider it reasonable to expect people with more capital than this to meet non-recurring needs out of it.

Is the Minister aware that the old-age pensioner of 74, who lives by herself, who has been rehoused because of her infirmity and who has capital of only £247, is now having to pay removal expenses of £15? Is this the sort of generosity we in this age can offer? Can we not do something to assist her?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has written about this particular case. It raises problems and we are looking at the matter. The Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission will reply to my hon. Friend. But I must point out that this is a matter which is at the discretion of the Commission and cannot simply be decided by reference to Acts of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the administrative machinery within the children's allowance arrangements to ensure that such allowances are transferred to the children's appointed guardians arising from court decisions and so advised to the Department by children's or probation officers.

A parent who complies with the appropriate maintenance and other conditions is entitled to family allowances. Any other person having care of the children can qualify for these allowances only if the parents are not entitled to them.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of a guardian of four children, a case which was fully reported upon in March by a probation officer, and also referred to in a letter which I wrote in May, in which in July the Ministry decided that the guardian who maintains the four children is not entitled to the children's allowance for three of the children?

This again is a particular case raised by my hon. Friend. It is being looked at and I will give it my sympathetic consideration. The terms of the Family Allowancs Act lay down that, unless certain conditions apply, the money should be available for the parents, but where those conditions do not apply then the family allowances are made available to the family looking after the children concerned.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to date of payments of supplementary benefit made to the families of dustmen on strike; and what has been the average payment per family.

Up to Tuesday, 14th October—the latest date for which figures are available—951 payments totalling nearly £4,800, an average of just over £5, had been made for the dependants of strikers.

Is it not adding insult to injury to expect citizens who have been gravely inconvenienced by the strike to have to subsidise its prolongation? In view of the accumulating evidence of the abuse of the supplementary benefits system, is it not time that the whole principle of paying supplementary benefits to the families of men on strike was reviewed?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, even in the days of the old Poor Law, the wives and families of strikers were given assistance. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that the way to deal with strikes of this kind is to get at workers by depriving their wives and families of benefits, I utterly reject that philosophy.

Is it the intention of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that strikers and their families should starve to death? Is not my hon. Friend sick and tired of constant Tory baiting of people who are not rich?

My hon. Friend is right, because that is precisely what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.

Since supplementary benefits are not paid under the P.A.Y.E. code, will the Minister arrange that these benefits are caught up and charged to income tax so that they pay tax on them?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in reply to an earlier Question, has stated that there is a partial regard of income tax refunds which strikers receive. Concerning the making of arrangements for recovery of supplementary benefits, the administrative costs of doing so would be disproportionate to the amount received, particularly because there would no doubt have to be provision for abandoning recovery where hardship might otherwise occur.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent the introduction of prescription charges has brought about a decline in the number of prescriptions combined with an increase in the cost; and what is his estimate of the administrative cost of the reintroduction to date.

From 1st July, 1968, to 31st May, 1969, the number of prescriptions dispensed by chemists in England was 9 per cent. less than in the corresponding period 12 months earlier. During the same period, total cost increased by about ½ per cent. compared with increases of 9 per cent. and 5 per cent. in the corresponding periods in 1966 and 1967. Introductory administrative costs for the 12 months ended 30th June, 1969, are estimated at about £610,000 and a further £790,000 was spent on extra payments to chemists.

Does not everything that my hon. Friend has said illustrate that the scheme has been a total failure and should be dropped, not merely from the point of view that it is totally undesirable as far as the electorate is concerned, as my hon. Friend himself in a previous incarnation pointed out before his conversion and appearance on the Front Bench, on which I congratulate him? Incidentally, will my hon. Friend also reply to the question in the sense that it was regarded at one time as of sufficient importance to bring about the resignation of members of the Government?

When considering the figures which I have given for the administration and reintroduction of the scheme, one has to bear in mind the amount of money which has been raised. The total saving is of the order of £25 million, of which £16 million or £17 million represents actual income from the charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a large Government grant available to the Family Planning Association, with a view to extending advice on contraception more widely throughout all sections of the community.

As I told the House in reply to a Question from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) on 19th May last, I have, with the hon. Member's object in mind, made a grant of £20,000 a year for five years to the Association for the training of doctors and others.—[Vol. 784, c. 30–1.]

I do not call that a very large grant. On the principle of prevention being better than cure, would it not be wise and, indeed, less expensive to spend more money in giving advice on contraception with a view to spending less money on abortions?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that it is a substantial grant. Twenty thousand pounds a year for five years to a relatively small organisation is something which it could reasonably spend in largely and rapidly expanding its training system. I agree in principle with what the hon. Member has said.

Why not make the Family Planning Act mandatory instead of discretionary.

That is something which, clearly, I should very much like to do, but it is no good making the Act mandatory upon local authorities unless one simultaneously supplies them with sufficient money to implement it. I will not conceal from the hon. Member that the present state of the rate support grant would make it somewhat difficult to bring it into effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will announce the composition of the Medicines Commission.

I hope to be able to do so shortly.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it has taken an extraordinarily long time to set up the Commission—I think, over a year? Can he say how soon it will be in operation, when the expert committees will be appointed and when we can expect the regulations arising out of the Act?

I would accept the adjective "extraordinary". It is extraordinary, but there has been an extraordinarily complicated series of consultations. I did not know that one had to consult so many people about one committee. However, the consultations have been completed. I think that I shall be able to issue some of the invitations in the next week or two and that in late November or early December we will be able to have the first meeting of the Commission. It has, however, taken an unconscionably long time to get it done.

Can the Secretary of State give any information about the regulations under the Act, to which my hon. Friend referred?

If I can be given a specific Question, I can answer it.

My hon. Friend asked whether the Secretary of State had any idea when the regulations under the Act would be forthcoming.

When the regulations come into effect will depend partly upon how speedily the Commission gets going, but I hope that immediately we get the Commission actually functioning, we will get the regulations as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations have taken place between his Department and the dental profession regarding the payment of a weighting allowance for general practitioners in the Greater London Area.

None recently.

Although the Minister is not at the moment directly involved, does not he agree that, in view of the exceptionally heavy expenses which are incurred by dentists in the London area, there is a very strong case for the payment of a special allowance along the lines of that paid to civil servants and members of other professions who work in London as opposed to other parts of the country?

As almost half the general dental practitioners in England and Wales practise in London and the home counties, I cannot believe that many find it financially disadvantageous to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give an assurance that it is his policy that those who suffer from dental decay are to be treated as separate and individual patients and not by the administration of sodium fluoride to the entire community.

Adjustment of the natural fluoride content of water to the recommended level of 1 part per million is a safe and effective way of reducing the incidence of dental decay and I strongly support it. Treatment is a different matter and my policy there is to ensure that individuals who suffer from dental decay should be able to obtain under the National Health Service whatever dental treatment may be necessary to restore dental health.

Could my right hon. Friend tell me the purpose of compelling those who have no teeth and those who have dentures to drink fluoridated water in order to save the teeth of the younger generation, who can be dealt with in other ways?

Contrary to what my hon. Friend has said, I feel that the two minorities he has mentioned should suffer a little—if it is suffering—for the sake of the overwhelming majority and enable us all to have the privilege of those who live in The Hartlepools and Colchester where the level in the drinking water is at the correct amount.

Since conscientious objection to vaccination has been respected, should individuals be subjected unwillingly to this form of compulsory medication?

This is an argument one hears, but there is no medication whatever in ensuring that the water supply of the rest of the country is of the same mixture as in The Hartlepools and Colchester. I cannot believe this to be medication, as it would save hundreds of thousands of cases of dental decay. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will assist me in that cause.

Would my right hon. Friend make it clear to hon. Members with no teeth that they are already drinking fluoride in their water?

Shame.

This is a question simply of adding a little more where water is deficient in fluoride. Would the Minister also make it clear that many other things are already being added to their water which they do not know about?

I do not want to go into this matter in detail, but I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is only a matter of getting exactly the right amount of fluoride, neither too much nor too little.

Since there is a good deal of controversy and feeling about this matter, can the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that he still intends to leave the decision to local authorities?

We have now published a report which contains an overwhelming case for fluoridation. I said that I hoped local authorities would take action, but it is disconcerting to see how a very small group can deliberately spread misinformation and lies to deter an important social reform.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take to relieve overcrowding at Chelmsley and Coleshill Hall hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

As a first step, arrangements have been made for immediate erection at Coleshill Hall Hospital of a demountable ward unit with space for 30 patients, and a number of other schemes for providing more space quickly at these hospitals are being considered by the hospital management committee, the regional hospital board and my Department.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the patients and staff at Coleshill. Hall are appreciative of the swift action which has been taken since his visit, but would he also agree that none of us can be satisfied until the grim conditions of both these hospitals are fully and effectively dealt with?

I would entirely agree. Of course, it should not be assumed that every time I visit a hospital a 30-bed unit will be provided. Here was a very unusual case. Staff morale was excellent and staffing was adequate. Overcrowding was the sole real problem. The giving of a ward enabled one to get flexibility for the upgrading of other wards. That was the reason why I gave the ward.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to increase the staffs of accident units in hospitals and to improve the position of nurses and junior hospital doctors in order to speed up treatment of urgent cases in understaffed hospitals.

Advice has been given to hospital authorities on the staffing of accident and emergency departments. Concentration of services into major centres will help to improve staffing where deficiencies exist.

Is the Minister aware that the treatment of urgent injury cases often is delayed for a considerable time because of the shortage of staff? This applies in the Manchester area in particular. I should like to thank the Minister for looking into this matter after the rather negative reply which was received some months ago. Would he see that more staff are allocated to these very important units?

Yes, Sir. I am particularly aware of the pressure on junior staff and the danger of their being moved from duties which may be urgent. I must do something about the matter, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to my attention.

Is the Minister aware that hospitals on the periphery are finding it very hard to get staff and that this is resulting in some wards having to be closed? What does he intend to do to help such hospitals to get more staff?

That may well happen, but it still remains true that this year the number of staff in hospitals is greater than ever before, and of course the quality of service is constantly rising.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware that the difficulties in the reception and treatment of subnormal patients in East Hertfordshire have been aggravated by the suspension of admissions to South Ockendon Hospital; and what compensatory provision or improvements he proposes to make.

Yes, Sir. Immediate steps to relieve pressure at the hospital include the addition of a ward unit and improved staffing. Additional beds and day facilities for subnormal patients will be provided elsewhere and the discharge of some patients to local authority care is being considered.

While I do not want in any way to aggravate the problems of South Ockendon Hospital, a hospital which I hold in high regard, would the Minister not accept that he must either make it possible for there to be a resumption of the full flow of subnormal patients to this hospital, or make some other adequate alternative arrangements so that these distressing cases which are constantly being brought to my notice and to the notice of others may be properly, sympathetically, and helpfully dealt with?

We ought to get the problem in perspective. Since we have been examining the matter carefully, the Board has now identified 127 patients at South Ockendon most of whom do not appear to need hospital care and who should be under the care of local authorities outside. A few of these have been moved already. The main job is to get local authorities to build hostels and to get staff to look after those patients properly so that urgent cases can take their place. This is a major problem of integrating the service to which we are giving attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional money has now been allocated to mental subnormality hospitals; and what steps are being taken to improve conditions for the staff.

About £1 million in the current year. A considerable part of this sum and of future additional expenditure will be spent on improvements which will benefit staff, such as relief of overcrowding, ancillary help and staff accommodation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that additional allocation will be warmly welcomed? At the same time, will he pay special attention to the staff in these hospitals who are giving devoted service in very difficult conditions?

I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I wish that more people outside this House, in commenting on these hospitals, would recognise the dedication and devotion of the staff.

Will my right hon. Friend also look at the management of the Service so that assessment facilities in hospitals for children can be improved? The point was made in a recent report that only 4 per cent. of 3,000 children had been assessed in the previous 12 months. Would he look also at the possibility of giving urgent aid to those hospitals which have more than 60 people in wards?

Yes. I am afraid that there are a great many subnormal hospitals where there are over 60 people in wards. We are looking closely at management and also at the membership of hospital management committees.

asked the Attorney-General whether his consent has to be obtained before civil servants threaten or institute legal proceedings for libel or slander against Members of this honourable House in matters arising out of or in the course of their employment as civil servants.

No, Sir.

On a point of order. Is not Question No. 35 purely hypothetical? Should it appear on the Order Paper at all?

I will not rule upon whether a Question is hypothetical.

Would not the learned Solicitor-General think it wise if such a procedure were to apply, since there is a very narrow line in this respect in regard to the activities of hon. Members of this House in the course of their duties, and particularly those hon. Members who do not have legal training and who therefore are unable to stand up to any such threats which they might receive?

In a case where it was alleged that an hon. Member of this House had defamed a civil servant, the matter normally would be referred to his departmental legal advisers and, if necessary, they would consult the Law Officers. I do not feel disposed to go beyond that.

Will my hon. and learned Friend clear up this matter—for me, at any rate, if not for others? Does that mean that a civil servant can sue an hon. Member for libel over any statement made in this Chamber? Surely that is a matter of privilege,

A statement made in this Chamber is a matter of privilege. Generally speaking, it must be fully recognised that a civil servant is entitled to his remedy in the courts in the same way as an ordinary individual.

asked the Attorney-General what is the machinery for consultation between his Department and solicitors attached to other Government departments on the form of letters written in on legal matters in connection with the affairs of that department and addressed to the citizens involved.

The form of letters between Departments and members of the public on legal subjects is a matter for the Departments concerned and their legal advisers. It is open to the Departments to consult the Law Officers in cases of difficulty as they arise.

Nevertheless, would the hon. and learned Gentleman not feel disposed to send for the kind of letter which the solicitor for the Land Commission is addressing to small levy payers who are not exempted by the last Finance Bill—and, by definition, therefore are small people? In the view of many people, the letters contain threats which are quite improper as applied to the small person in the various constituencies.

I think that it should be a matter for the legal advisers of Departments to determine cases in which it is thought desirable to consult with the Law Officers. I do not respond very favourably to the thought that the Law Officers should send for such letters.

Having regard to what my hon. Friend has just said, would it not be advisable for the Law Officers to look at the correspondence themselves?

I am ready to consider this, certainly, and to look at the letters to which the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has referred. However, I am answering a Question about departmental practice, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that, on the whole, the existing practice works very well and that these matters are usually properly and satisfactorily initiated by the legal officers in the Departments.