asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to extend to men entitled to pension under the National Insurance system the option to retire at the age of 60 years with appropriate modification of the rate of benefit.

No, Sir.

Would not this be the ideal solution for occupational pensioners withdrawing from employment at 60?

I think that it would be wrong in principle to have a different age of retirement for people according to different professions. At this stage to take any action which would encourage people who normally stay at work until 65 to retire much earlier would not be in the country's economic interests.

Will my hon. Friend consider having the same age of retirement for men and women, at 65, in view of the fact that the expectation of life of us all is increasing, and also that women live longer than men?

I greatly admire my hon. Friend's approach. In the discussions which followed the publication of the White Paper on the new scheme a number of women's organisations recommended that there should be this common age. I think we must recognise that there would have been a great deal of opposition to this. There is also the social consideration, that usually a woman is some years younger than her husband, and there is a case for having at least a slightly younger age for women.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the annual cost to employers in the private sector of granting preservation of pension rights to employees changing jobs before retiring age; and what estimate he has made of the additional cost of granting transferability.

For the private sector, the annual cost of giving effect to the pension preservation requirements of Clause 109 of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill is estimated at upwards of £10 million ultimately. Had it been practicable to require transferability the additional annual cost in the private sector might have been of the order of £25 million assuming that employees continued to have the option of withdrawing their contributions on leaving.

Is it still Government policy to introduce transferability of pension rights?

It is the Government's policy to promote and encourage increasingly the transferability of pension rights but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, as a result of a great deal of study and discussions of this subject we reached the conclusion that to require it by legislation would mean imposing a large number of restrictions upon occupational pension schemes, the sort of restrictions which we would not be prepared to impose at this stage.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that steps to encourage preservation or transferability would be supported from this side of the House?

I greatly welcome that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a good deal of pressure in the Standing Committee that we should go as far as we can in promoting transferability, and also in making as much progress as we can on preservation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what machinery he envisages under his Green Paper proposals for communication between area health authorities and his Department.

Area health authorities would have direct communication with the Department and its regional offices.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered fully the difficulties of having 90 area health authorities reporting primarily to his Department? Will not this mean, for the hospital service anyway, that the present regional hospital boards, consisting of non-officials, will largely be replaced in their responsibility by regional officers of the Department, consisting entirely of officials?

If that were to happen, it would not satisfy me. I have considered the problem of 90 boards. All I add is that at present I deal with 625 authorities, and 90 is something of an improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for ensuring that revised hospital development plans made by existing regional hospital boards will take into account the views of the new health authorities proposed under his Green Paper.

It will be for the area health authorities, when they are set up, to form a view on development plans prepared for their hospitals by the regional hospital boards.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that no plan should be taken so far that it will be made difficult for the new area authorities, which will have to work primarily within the new local government boundaries, to provide adequate hospital facilities?

There is always a transition period of this sort. It is difficult problem. I do not want to stop the present regional hospital boards from carrying out all forms of reorganisation in view of the coming reforms of the Health Service. On the other hand, I want them to bear in mind what will happen in four or five years, and we are trying to obtain an amicable understanding of that in the regional hospital boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take steps to increase the scale of supplementary benefits.

My right hon. Friend has no statement to make on this matter.

In view of the expressed opinion of some of the hon. Gentleman's advisers that under Labour the poor have become relatively poorer, and in view of the present wage explosion, can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention to see that those who live on benefits, and thus cannot strike for more pay, will be kept in line with those who can, and do?

Let me first make it clear that I do not accept the view that the poor are getting relatively poorer. I remind the hon. Gentleman that since 1965 this Government have increased every year the level, first, of National Assistance and, second, of supplementary benefits. The Government are considering whether action needs to be taken this year.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost of living has risen by 2 per cent. since last November alone? It is incontestable that the poor are getting poorer under the present arrangements. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that the date for increasing supplementary benefit will be brought forward, instead of waiting for the usual rise which will come next autumn?

Those on supplementary benefits are very much better off than they were when the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power. In spite of increases in prices since November last, the value of the supplementary benefit, in real terms, is about 19 per cent. above what it was in 1964. I assure the hon. Gentleman that whatever the position may have been when his Government were in power, this Government will ensure that those who are poor are properly protected.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the number of single women who are entitled to supplementary benefit who have not applied for it.

None, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this category of single women and deserted wives is the most likely to be uncertain of the facilities available and, therefore, perhaps needs special attention?

We are most anxious that all those who are in difficulties should know of the availability of the services of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It is true that when a survey was made in 1965 it was clear that a substantial number of single women were not claiming. Since the introduction of supplementary benefits and rate rebates, the number has probably decreased, but we are anxious to make the information available.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will introduce a programme of mass immunisation against German measles.

We hope to be in a position to make a statement on this question shortly.

Can the Minister tell us the number of children born deaf or blind or deformed as a result of their mothers' contracting German measles in early pregnancy? Will he also confirm that mass immunisation would wipe out German measles in a generation? Having regard to the recent American experience in this regard, will the Minister also devote his attention to the possibilities of tax evasion in this respect?

My information is that approximately 200 babies are born in this country with congenital abnormalities because their mothers had German measles early in their pregnancies. I agree that a vaccination campaign would enable us to reduce significantly the toll of this disease, but it may be that a selective campaign—concentrating, per- haps, on adolescent girls—would be more effective, in the short term, than a mass one. I have no knowledge of the tax evasion side of the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of trainee nurses who failed to complete their training during the last financial year; and what proportion this was of those who qualified.

10,162 in 1968–69 This figure is 52 per cent. of the number who qualified in that year and represents a wastage rate of about a third of those entering training in the year.

In future, will the Minister read the newspapers so that he knows what happens in space? That is another question. Is it not time to adopt a new approach to the training and career possibilities of people in the nursing profession? The Minister's figures will surely bear out the fact that there has been a lamentable drop-out in the early stages of training.

Not all those who drop out are necessarily wasted to society. Some transfer to pupil training. My view is that a nurse's training provides a girl with knowledge and information that will be of help to her as a mother and a citizen even if she does not complete her course. I am conscious of the need to look into this problem in much more detail than has been done in the past. We have set up a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Briggs to do exactly that.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House what the trend in wastage has been over the years and what the effect has been of the increase in the cost of living in for nurses whenever they have received a wage increase? Surely this must have a deterrent effect. Will my hon. Friend consider that aspect of the problem?

There has not been any significant change in the proportion of girls dropping out of courses during training. As for the question of the cost of living in, the majority of nurses in this country now live out, and we must bear in mind the interests of those who live out as well as those who live in.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many dentists, within the past 12 months, have informed his Department that they are unable to accept new patients, apart from children, on the National Health Service.

Dentists practising in the general dental services are not required to keep my Department informed of their practice arrangements, nor do they have lists of patients for whose dental care they have a continuing responsibility.

Since about 86 per cent. of all dentists are covered by the National Health Service, will not my hon. Friend probe this matter a little further? I recognise that he does not keep records, but there is a strong feeling that some erosion is taking place in the National Health Service because some dentists cannot accept new patients and are giving priority to children.

I remind my hon. Friend that the position of dentists is different from that of doctors under the National Health Service. Dentists do not have lists as doctors do, and do not, therefore, have a continuing relationship with their patients. I agree that problems arise in certain areas. They arise in some areas because of a shortage of dentists and in others because dentists are not prepared to accept all the patients who come to them for National Health Service treatment. We are watching the situation closely.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take steps to revoke the rule that mentally-handicapped unemployed persons must pay 15s. 9d. per week for an insurance stamp.

Non-employed persons need not contribute if their income is not more than £312 a year. Above this level non-employed people are required to pay contributions, and it would not be right to select from among them groups or individuals for special exception from this liability.

Apart from the doubtful morality of the general principle of the Minister's Answer, is not he aware that some parents, after considerable sacrifice, much worry and careful calculation, leave sufficient money for their mentally-handicapped children to be cared for after they are gone? Do not rules of this kind completely wreck such calculations? Are the people who are ministering to these mentally-handicapped persons supposed to go to the Ministry of Health and Social Security and ask for a supplementary allowance of 15s. 9d. a week to cover the cost of the stamp?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. She has written to me about a specific case. The new national superannuation and social insurance scheme at present before the House exempts non-employed persons from such payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now consider introducing a scheme whereby elderly persons living alone may be assisted with the installation cost of a telephone.

Help is already given to supplementary pensioners who are unable to pay for a telephone from their own resources when the Supplementary Benefits Commission is satisfied that one is essential. That is because the pensioner is living alone and, because he must rely entirely on the telephone to ask friends and relatives for help, would be dangerously isolated without one.

Will the Minister make this principle far better known? For many people the telephone is a lifeline, and with the new increased charges coming along many of them will have to have their telephones removed unless something is done.

I agree with the hon. Lady that where a telephone is essential for people in this situation everything should be done to help them. In fact, the Supplementary Benefits Commission is prepared to look very sympathetically at anyone in this situation, and will meet the new telephone charges where it is appropriate to do so.

Since the Minister's right hon. Friend was responsible for the rate rebate scheme, will not he seriously consider a wider system of assistance for those elderly people on small incomes who need a telephone? Why not have a telephone rebate scheme arising from the latest increase?

The General policy of the Government is to provide improved and increased cash benefits for people so that they shall be able to exercise their own choice and use their discretion as to the kind of services they need.

Will the Minister consider particularly the problems of disabled people for whom these increased telephone charges would mean real difficulty? The telephone is often their great link with the outside world, and those who are just above the supplementary benefits level may find the increase hard to bear.

A retirement pensioner who does not qualify for supplementary benefit may be able to receive help in relation to installation charges if a telephone is considered essential and if his resources are not sufficient. As for the general point, Section 45 of the Health Service and Public Health Act, which comes into force on 1st September, gives local authorities general powers of help for the elderly. I shall be issuing guidance on this matter in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to encourage the formation of a centre for advice on and assessment of aids for the disabled.

I am considering the possibility of setting up such a centre.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there are many excellent aids in this country of which the disabled are completely unaware? If such a centre were set up it could be used as a national exhibition. Will he circularise all the known dis- abled with a catalogue of what aids are available?

I do not entirely accept what the hon. Member says, but I agree that there is a need to make more widely known information about aids for the disabled, and in order to assist hon. Members I am hoping that my Department will be able to hold an exhibition of aids for the disabled in the Palace of Westminster during the summer months.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the inquiry into vehicles for the disabled to be completed.

The inquiry concerns a number of important questions that will require careful consideration and I cannot say at present when it will be completed.

Can the Minister assure us that when the inquiry is completed he will bring forward in the House some really good proposals for expanding the category of people entitled to four-wheeled vehicles, as a result of the inquiry?

The hon. Member would not expect me to commit myself as to what my reaction might be when I have completed my study of a report that I have not examined.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now permit the operation of vasectomy to be freely available under the National Health Service as a safe means of contraception.

I am at present unable to add to my reply to my hon. Friend of 29th January. When our consultations with the medical profession are complete I will write to my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 794, c. 398.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the very progressive Family Planning Association in the West Midlands is running a clinic in West Bromwich where nine cases of this kind are dealt with every week on an out-patient basis? Is he further aware that this is much simpler and less expensive than sterilizing women? Will he hasten his inquiry and give us a reply as soon as possible—a favourable one, I hope?

I know of the clinic in West Bromwich. I agree with much that my hon. Friends says. My concern is that we should, if possible, make this provision within the limits of the National Health Service. I hope to be able to make a definitive answer to the House in the fairly near future.

What representations have been received from people who have conscientious objections to their rates and taxes being used in this way, and what reply has been made to such representations?

To my knowledge, there have been no objections on these grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he now proposes to take on the recommendations of the Todd Report.

Action is being taken to increase the annual entry of pre-clinical students to our medical schools to 3,700 by 1975 in accordance with the statement I made on 14th April, 1969. I am awaiting the final views of the profession on the main recommendations about postgraduate medical education.—{Vol. 781, c. 806–10.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the implications in this report for the recently qualified student and his possible status? Would he give an assurance that he will consult either the students' organisations or at least young doctors before taking further action on this report?

I am aware that there is deep controversy inside the medical profession on this issue. I hope that the controversy will be resolved by the medical profession.

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the general practitioners and/or the medical students' associations, particularly on the effect of the Todd recommendations on the length of training and earnings during training?

I am in consultation with the medical profession on these issues, although not specifically with any organisation of junior doctors.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on the basis of what statistics he estimates that abortions frustrated 20,000 illegitimate births last year; and, having regard to deaths during abortion operations, whether he will introduce amending legislation to provide improved safeguards.

My estimate was based on the number of abortions notified in England and Wales in 1969 in respect of unmarried women. I am watching the position closely, but I should regard legislation at this stage as premature.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement on 9th March in response to my question gave widespread offence to people who object to his excessive permissiveness in this field? In considering amending legislation, will be take into account a large minority opinion which is greatly opposed to his own personal views?

I should not have thought that anybody who studied my reply to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question could have misunderstood it, except wilfully, as certain people did. There was nothing permissive about what I said. I pointed out that those who dismissed the Abortion Act altogether neglected the social values in it. I have also stressed that family planning is the proper solution and that abortion should be only a last resort.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account, as I hope he will, the fact that most people in this country accept that his statement, to which he has referred, summed up the attitude about the sum of human unhappiness which has been prevented?

I am very appreciative of the way in which my hon. Friend has put it, because it is exactly the right way to put it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportions of abortions performed in 1969 under the Abortion Act on Sheffield women have been in National Health Service hospitals, private homes in Sheffield, and private homes in London; and what are the corresponding figures for Leeds and Liverpool.

Complete figures for 1969 are not yet available. I will, with permission, circulate figures for 1968 in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While I appreciate the terms of my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him to confirm that there are wide disparities between, say, London and Newcastle, on the one hand, and Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool, on the other hand, in that the number of terminations in the last three areas is far less than, for example, in Newcastle? Having confirmed that, would he not also confirm the view of the working party which sat under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that certain gynaecologists in certain areas, such as Sheffield, Liverpool and others, are not working in the spirit of the 1967 Act? Does he not agree, therefore, that it is time to set up separate clinics for abortion in those areas?

My hon. Friend had better await the figures for 1969, which are not yet available. It is wrong to judge by the figures for 1968. My answer to the last part of the question is, "No". I have said previously that I think that the establishment of separate abortion clinics within the National Health Service is a step which no doctor or nurse would recommend.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that every gynaecologist has a conscientious right not to participate in abortion operations to which he conscientiously objects?

I do not think that anything I have said today, or anything I have ever said on the subject, contradicted the general principle of the Act. It is also true that the marked disparity between the figures for different hospitals gives rise to great difficulties to the staff in the hospitals which are doing their share against those which are not.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases, where and when, of anthrax, afflicting humans were notified to him since the beginning of 1969; whether these arose from imports of bonemeal from countries where anthrax is endemic; and what assurances he gave in mid-March, 1970 to striking transport workers in this connection.

As the answer is a long one, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In all, five cases were notified and all have recovered satisfactorily.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the recovery of human beings from anthrax is fortuitous and that this is a very grave notifiable disease? Is he aware of the widespread anxiety arising from the cases at Henley-on-Thames, Redbridge and elsewhere, all of which were traceable to the importation of unsterilised bonemeal from countries where anthrax is endemic among animals? Would he arrange for such importation to be wholly banned?

I accept that anthrax is a potentially grave disease. I do not think that the patients' recovery was fortuitous; it was due to the medical care which they received. In three of the five cases which occurred over a two-year period there was a proven link with bonemeal or bone imported from countries where anthrax is endemic. In the two other cases the source of the infection could not be determined.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what authority questions are included in the Census Returns relating to intimate personal matters of sexual behaviour.

Authority for the particulars to be stated in the Census returns is the Census Order, 1970, which was made on 24th March.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread, although possibly erroneous, impression that questions of this sort will be asked in the social service survey? Does he agree that, if that were so, it would be an unwarrantable infringement of privacy and should be referred to the Kenneth Younger Committee?

The hon. Member's supplementary question bears very little relation to his original Question. I think that any misgivings which there may be—and I have no great evidence of them—are completely misconceived.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study he had made of the evidence supplied to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire of the sale of carcinogenic ortho-tolidine to the general public for use by diabetics in glucose test; if he will take steps to ensure that all carcinogenic substances have to be clearly labelled so as to warn the public of the dangers; and if he will make a statement.

My inquiries into the matters raised by my hon. Friend are not yet complete and I will write to him.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a need for scientific tests to ensure that these test-strips do not cause any danger to the diabetics who use them or their families or the public in general after their disposal? If there is even the slighest possibility of danger, these test-strips should carry clear warning notices.

It is because I want to look further into the questions raised by my hon. Friend in his original letter and his supplementary question that I am checking on the accuracy of the information given to him and asking for further inquiries to be made. However, I do not think that we should get this problem out of proportion. The risks, at most, are exceedingly minimal.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will commission an investigation into the problems arising within his sphere of responsibility of those who move to the seaside areas for the purpose of retirement.

The National Corporation for the Care of Old People has commissioned a study of the migration of elderly people to certain retirement areas. I think it wise to wait for the report on this, which is expected later this year, before considering the need for any further inquiry.

Is the Minister aware that most of the people concerned live on very modest fixed incomes which are being rapidly eroded by rising prices, which, in turn, casts an extra burden on the local health and welfare services?

I accept that there are special problems in some retirement areas because of the concentration and abnormal proportion of old people in the community. We take this matter seriously into account when allocating resources and producing our lists of authorisations for health and welfare expenditure throughout the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake an investigation into the relative cost of providing free contraceptive advice and supplies under the National Health Service for a woman patient during her child-bearing years, the cost to all the social services, including child-birth in a maternity hospital, maternity allowance, family allowance and other payments to the mother, and the charge on the education service to school-leaving age of one, two and three children, respectively.

I am considering the extent to which selected local studies might provide information about the costs and benefits of preventing unwanted births; but I have no doubt that maximum expansion of family planning services is desirable.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that it costs about £200 for every confinement in hospital and that further enormous sums are spent on caring for unwanted children afterwards? Will he hasten his inquiry so that he may finally, for good and all, scotch the argument put forward by the Neanderthal men on the other side of the House who are continually sniping at family planning through the local authorities and the National Health Service?

My hon. Friend has a greater belief in the power of figures to quell irrationality than I have. I doubt whether any figures would quell the emotional storms on the other side of the House.

While declaring my interest at once as vice-president of the Worcester branch of the Family Planning Council, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take fully into account, in consultation with the medical profession, the fact that abortion is an excessively expensive operation and that family control and family planning are infinitely preferable and far cheaper to the public purse—which is the objective of all my Questions on this subject?

Yes, Sir. The hon. Member, who perhaps does not listen as attentively to hon. Members on this side of the House as he does to his hon. Friends, may be surprised to hear that on this matter he is in complete agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short).

Good God!

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing the constant attendance allowance for very severely disabled people proposed in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill in April, 1970.

It is estimated that when the attendance allowance is introduced the annual cost will be of the order of £10 million.

As this allowance has generally been welcomed on all sides of the House, will it be possible to make it effective before the date at present proposed—April, 1972?

I agree that this proposal has been warmly welcomed and that this allowance will be a great step forward. As I said in Standing Committee, we shall have to announce the day on which it can be introduced. It is possible to have a different appointed day from that of the scheme as a whole. But no one will expect us to take a decision until the Bill is on the Statute Book—and that is what we want to bring about.

As the cost is very small, as there is universal agreement in the House that this step is desirable, and as it is clear that the main Bill dealing with pensions will not come into operation until 1973, will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider bringing this provision into operation straight away?

It is interesting to hear hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench arguing that £10 million is a sum which does not matter. But that was an aside. I remind hon. Members that there are other problems. There will have to be a substantial period for us to examine those who will make their claims. We have to establish an attendance allowance board and permit it to work out its procedures. We cannot rush into this decision. We are looking into it carefully to see which date can be announced for the introduction of the allowance. We are very sympathetic with the views of the disabled and of those who care for them, and we want to bring the provision in as quickly as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing the improvement in young widows' pensions proposed in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill in April 1970.

It is estimated that when the improvements in widows' pensions relating to the age 50 and three-year marriage rules are introduced the annual cost will be of the order of £13 million.

Assuming that the Bill becomes law, will the hon. Member give an assurance that the widely welcomed provisions to help widows will be effective before 1972 or 1973?

One cannot expect them to be brought in before the scheme states. The hon. Member will understand that when this new procedure applies it will cover about 100,000 existing widows who have been denied any widows' pension because they were between the ages of 40 and 50 when widowed. That will itself involve a substantial cost, in sweeping in those who have been excluded by previous regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take fresh steps to deal with the difficulty of finding hospital beds for patients urgently needing them, as evidenced in the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Salford, East.

I have no evidence of any general difficulty in getting urgent cases admitted to hospital but if my hon. Friend will provide further details of any individual cases I will gladly look into them.

Yes, I will. Will my hon. Friend consider improving central emergency bed services where they exist and setting them up where they do not exist? Secondly, is he aware that many G.P.s are finding difficulty in even getting emergency cases into emergency central bureaux?

The emergency bed services provide a very useful function, particularly in the densely-populated areas. I understand that there is one working in the Manchester and Salford area. My hon. Friend speaks of the difficulties which doctors have in getting urgent cases admitted. As I have said, if my hon. Friend has any instances in mind I shall be glad to hear of them. My information is that, generally speaking, the urgent cases are admitted into hospital fairly quickly. It is interesting to note that over the last ten years, when our population has increased by 7 per cent., the number of in-patients we have been able to treat in the hospitals has increased by 30 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost to the national insurance funds in a full year of giving credits for flat rate contributions to all occupational pensioners deprived of entitlement to unemployment benefit by his forthcoming Order.

The income forgone might be about £500,000 a year.

Does it follow from that answer that there is no financial objection to amending the Order now before Parliament so as to minimise the hardships which will be caused if these people are deprived both of benefits and of credits for contribution?

It is always interesting to hear right hon. and hon. Gentleman from the Opposition urging that we should have a larger allocation of public expenditure. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this provision does not concern those occupational pensioners who are below the age of 60 or who do not have a pension of £25 a week or more. There is, therefore, no question of hardship. But the right hon. Gentleman may care to catch Mr. Speaker's eye when the Order is debated.

Will my hon. Friend give an estimate of the savings to the National Insurance Fund in respect of the payment of unemployment benefit to many people whose pensions are far greater than the average earnings?

I am grateful to the hon. Member. Our estimate is that about £3 million will be saved for the National Insurance Fund by this very wise measure.

While I recognise that some changes are needed, may I ask the Minister whether he realises that there is very strong opposition to the introduction of an occupational pension means test?

There have been representations, but the hon. Member is aware that the Government have gone a very long way to meet the representations which were originally made following the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. We have greatly softened the effect of these proposals, and most of the organisations which then made representations have welcomed the steps taken by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has now received urging him to defer the operation of the pensions and contributions provisions of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill beyond April 1972; and what reply he has sent to these representations.

Five organisations have made such representations. I have noted these, and in certain instances have asked for further particulars.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that to seek to introduce these highly complicated provisions less than two years from now would cause great confusion? Would not the right hon. Gentleman save everybody a great deal of trouble by accepting the inevitable now by announcing postponement?

In view of my answer to the right hon. Gentleman, he will realise that it would be uncivil of me, having asked the organisations for further information and having received some information from two of them and not from the others, to make up my mind before all have replied, giving me adequate information.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why an apprentice earning less than £4 a week can now be classified under his regulations as being self-employed and responsible for payment of his or her full National Insurance contributions; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this anomaly.

All insured persons who ordinarily earn £4 or less per week have ceased to be treated as employed persons for national insurance purposes, although they continue to be covered for industrial injury benefit. To have a special provision for apprentices would cause administrative difficulties.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that working-class parents are heavily penalised by these regulations and that the case which I put before him, of an apprentice earning considerably less than £4 a week having to pay about £1 a week for his bus fares into the town of Dumbarton, is grossly unfair? Will he look at the matter again in view of the unsatisfactory situation which is arising?

Most people affected by this have greatly welcomed the decision taken by the Government, which has relieved them of the obligation to pay the National Insurance stamp if their earnings are less than £4. This has been particularly welcomed by part-timers and mentally and physically handicapped people. It is true, however, that for a small number—I emphasise that it is a very small number—of apprentices who receive this concession there are some problems; and I assure my hon. Friend that I will certainly look at the representations which he has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to enable children under 10 years of age, in the same way as children over 10 years of age and adults, to have free National Health Service spectacle lenses, irrespective of the type of National Health Service frame they choose; and if he will make a statement.

Frames in the children's standard range are designed to withstand hard wear from young children, and I do not consider it unreasonable that children under 10 should be exempt from the statutory lens charge only when a frame from this range is being used. Adults pay this charge whatever the frame.

Would my hon. Friend accept that I have received representations from a number of parents and opticians who have expressed dissatisfaction with the position for the under 10s? Would he also accept that the present state of affairs almost amounts to a form of discrimination against the under 10s?

No. I do not think there is any question of discrimination here, although I accept that there is a difficult problem in that some children may perhaps treat their frames even more roughly than the average child of under 10 years old. It is interesting to note, nevertheless, that 71 per cent. of children provided with lenses have either a National Health Service frame or use the lenses in existing frames. This is a much higher proportion than applies to adults. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases which he cares to draw to my attention, I will be pleased to look into them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of recent developments, he will now make a statement of policy of Her Majesty's Government on the working of the Abortion Act.

I see no need for such a statement at present.

Since even the sponsors of the Abortion Act have put forward proposals for remedying abuses resulting from it, is there not an overwhelming case for having an independent and impartial inquiry? If there is nothing to hide, why resist this suggestion?

I have replied more than once to similar questions. The real question is how long we should allow the Abortion Act to run before we have gathered sufficient experience to see whether or not it needs amending. It is not my view at present that it has run for long enough. Indeed, consider today. I am just at the end of the second year of running the licence system for private nursing homes. The hon. Gentleman must await our decision on this and see what happens.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are getting tired of this continual sniping at the Abortion Act, which many of us regard as a very important social measure? Is he aware of the considerable correlation between the rate of illegitimacy and criminality and that in so far as there are more abortions and, therefore, fewer unwanted births, the rate of crime may be reduced?

I would not like to give a judgment on the latter part of that supplementary question for fear that I would get into statistical trouble. As to the first part, I agree with my hon. Friend provided that we understand that we are a country which has very inadequate family planning. I would not like it to be thought that abortion is any substitute for adequate family planning.

Hamilton asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he has taken or intends to take to prevent abuses arising from the operation of the Abortion Act.

I have written to private nursing homes approved under the Act asking for certain assurances which I require before considering re-approval, and I am also making more detailed inquiries of a small number of approved places which have been the subject of complaints.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the abuses which undoubtedly occur arise principally from the desire for maximising profit by a disreputable section of the medical profession? Would he agree, however, that there are abuses on the other side; notably the case which I have drawn to his attention, of a lady who was refused an abortion, as a result of which she had a mongoloid child? What investigation has he undertaken into that particular case?

There are two parts to my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The first concerns abuses in the private sector and the second concerns abuses in the public sector. In connection with the private sector, I agree that the major factor is an attempt to have a very large number of cases done at a single hospital with perhaps a possible absence of notification and also, perhaps, with overcrowding. In regard to the public sector, I have nothing to state.

In view of the Minister's remarks a few moments ago about the "conscience clause", followed immediately by his misgivings, as he put it, about the number of abortions being carried out in certain areas, could we have a categoric assurance, that the "conscience clause" is not to be removed from the Act?

I can give that assurance. It is an essential part of the Act.

Good.

What I am saying is that inevitably the operation of the clause creates serious problems of regional inequality and that these problems bear more heavily on the hospitals which are doing their share as against those which are not. That is the result of the working of the "conscience clause". The conscientious should, I think, take notice of the consequences of their actions.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is from those areas where the consultants are not carrying out the spirit of the Act that the customers for the private clinics come? Is he aware that it is those women who are compelled to come to London and seek private terminations at high fees? Does he not think that it would be a good idea if he were to set up an inspectorate of the private nursing homes that are to be re-licensed at the end of this month and cross them off the list if they are contravening good medical practice?

On the point about the inspectorate, I have made arrangements now to have inspections, not regular ones because they are not vital, but inspections at any moment without warning. I have written to each of the homes requiring them to give me an assurance that such officers will be accepted into the home. As for the other part of the question, I find it difficult to be as categoric as my hon. Friend. She is interpreting the spirit of the Act wrongly. She spoke of doctors who are not operating according to the spirit of the Act; but the Act lays it down that they are free, for conscience reasons, not to operate.

They should pass their patients on.

While accepting fully the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman on this point, would he also understand that there are people behind him, including the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), who are campaigning to get rid of the "conscience clause"? Will he made it clear that he will resist her pressures?

There are people campaigning both ways.

Hear, hear.

There are people still campaigning to get rid of the Act altogether.

Not me.

The Act can be operated only if we abide by the "conscience clause", because that is the essential basis on which agreement was reached with the medical profession. That is the assurance I gave in my original answer.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, since there are very few concessions which he can make to the anti-abortion lobby which will satisfy it, there is no intention of hounding doctors who are performing a service which is necessary to the community?

It is not really a question of hounding. The problem is that the doctors and the nurses in a gynaeco-logical department often find it distasteful to have the whole balance of the work upset because they must take over abortion work of which they feel others should take a fair share. That causes difficulties in many of our hospitals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department towards the matter of illegitimate children.

As for the rest of the community, the policy is to provide or secure the provision of the appropriate health and social security services.

In view of the somewhat insensitive remarks which the Secretary of State made in this House on 9th March and which, whether or not he realises it, caused great offence and distress to many thousands of illegitimate citizens, may I ask him to make it clear whether it is the policy of the Government to promote abortions in order to avoid illegitimacy? That is the point.

To the question in that precise form, my answer is, "No", and the answer I gave to the supplementary question gives no basis for concluding what the hon. Gentleman has concluded. As for the question of offence, what the hon. Gentleman has said is a deliberate perversion of what I said in a public speech and is highly discreditable.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future provision of maternity beds for the area of which Wellingborough is a part; whether he is satisfied that the present approved plans are adequate to deal with the anticipated rise in population; and if he will make a statement.

Present plans include a new 104-bed maternity unit at Kettering in the mid-1970's. The existing general practitioner units at Park Hospital, Wellingborough, and at Corby would continue. This proposed provision should be adequate for the rise in population in the area which is at present foreseen.

I am grateful for that answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern that is felt by local con- sultants regarding the shortage of specialist maternity beds? In these circumstances, will be grant the extra 24 beds which have been requested for St. Mary's, Kettering?

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me on the detailed points he has made because it would not be fair to him or his constituents for me to give an off-the-cuff answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why his leaflet for the Graduated National Insurance Contribution (GR 20A) states that after this issue the general issue of statements will be suspended, due to decimalisation and other considerations.

The issue of periodic statements to those who would normally receive them between 1969 and 1972 has been advanced to 1969 and 1970 to enable my Department's computer facilities to cope with the reprogramming necessary for decimalisation and the proposed new National Superannuation and Social Insurance Scheme. Final statements of account under the present scheme will be issued as soon as possible after the scheme ends.

From the communications point of view, the ambiguity in that statement is such as to cause parents to turn grey. Would my hon. Friend agree that as a policy decision this must mean a less effective service for the consumer—and here I am referring not to his statement but to what appeared in the circular?

The reason why the phrase "other considerations" was used was that at the time when the leaflet, GR 20A, was drafted, the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, 1969 had not been presented to Parliament. Secondly, it is the case that people who retired during this period will receive a final statement of their position under the graduated pension scheme and others may request a statement if they wish to have one. So far as the remainder are concerned, their accounts are being sent out in 1969 or 1970 rather than issue being staggered over a number of years.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his attention has been drawn to the Institute of Economic Affairs' publication, "Social Benefits and Tax Rates", by Professor A. R. Prest, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what conclusions he has drawn on the possible effects of taxation on social benefits.

I have read with interest this pamphlet, which is mainly concerned with the effect of increases in income on entitlement to social benefits. We are aware of the problem to which the pamphlet draws attention, although we doubt whether the effects are in practice as extensive as the pamphlet suggests. We are, however, studying the situation closely.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this has been a very valuable study, which has shown that the effective rates of marginal tax on essential benefits can in some circumstances exceed 100 per cent.? As further study is being given to the problem, will he report when this study has been completed?

Yes, Sir. I will not say that it was easy to understand but once I got a glimmer of what an implicit marginal tax rate was I began to realise the great significance of it, even to people with low incomes receiving social services. Very few of them, possibly, understand this. If they did the Chancellor might have much greater problems. This disturbs me greatly as the Social Services Minister, and I am studying it very closely.

While agreeing about the great value of the report, may I ask, on the subject of financing the social services, whether the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the additional £50 million which will be raised by increasing the employers' contribution to the Health Service will be used to finance abolition of the prescription charge, which will also cost exactly £50 million?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a foretaste of his speech on Wednesday.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to the families of persons involved in the Scottish transport strikes in recent weeks; and what has been the additional cost to his Department involved in administering the provision of such benefits.

While the recent Scottish transport strikes lasted, 6,805 payments of supplementary benefit totalling £41,216 were made to the dependants of persons involved. A further 2,775 payments totalling £16,192 were made to the men involved after the strikes had ended to tide them over until they received wages. The total administration and staff costs involved in making all these payments are estimated to be £3,400.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the length of the bus strike a great many of the bus crews found alternative employment? Is it not a bit tough on Scottish commuters that they should be required to contribute towards the £60,000 paid not merely to prolong a strike but to inflict permanent damage on the service upon which they depend?

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that people were in alternative employment and received supplementary benefit——

I did not say that.

—I would want him to bring evidence of such cases before me. What has to be said is that strikers are paid supplementary benefit not for themselves at all but for their wives and children. It is a long-standing practice and when one realises that the average supplementary benefit payment to a striker is about £6 a week it can be seen that it is very small compared with the wages lost by the striker. It is clear that even with supplementary benefits strikers suffer very great financial loss as a result of being on strike.

Is my hon. Friend aware that every hon. Member on this side of the House, and the Scottish people, will object very much to the inference contained in this Question that the party opposite wants to starve strikers and their families into submission?

Rubbish.

The hon. Gentleman says "rubbish", but it has certainly been the contention implicit in all the Questions that the hon. Gentleman has been asking recently. It is a long-standing practice in this country, under successive Governments for over 60 years, that the children and wives of strikers should be entitled to supplementary benefit. Originally it was poor law, then national assistance and now supplementary benefit. Nothing has changed.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total cost of sight-testing and optical appliances per annum, to the nearest convenient date; how much of this came from public funds; and how much was contributed by individuals.

Information in the form requested is not available. The gross cost of the General Ophthalmic Services in England and Wales in the financial year ended 31st March, 1969 was £22·5 million, of which £8·4 million was met by charges to patients.

While I accept that there are other sectors of the Health Service which have, rightly, a greater claim upon our resources than this, my information, which I should like the hon. Gentleman to confirm, is that about two-thirds of the total cost is met by individual patients out of their own pockets. Is this not a very high proportion indeed for what is claimed to be a free health service?

I think that the hon. Member is misinformed. Of the total of £22½ million that the service costs, charges to patients comprise approximately £7½ million for lenses and £900,000 for frames.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will introduce legislation to clarify the powers of his proposed area health authorities in the field of family planning; and if he will make a statement.

Family planning is one of the personal health services which it is intended will become the responsibility of the new area health authorities.

In welcoming this step, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify whether he proposes to make this a mandatory duty of such authorities, with appropriate financial provision? How does he envisage the future rôle of the Family Planning Association in the new spectrum?

I shall be discussing the future of the Family Planning Association with the association very soon. The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes".

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the most valuable work in the family planning sphere, as I sought to demonstrate to him earlier by a reference to Worcester, where I am a vice-president of this organisation——

Hear, hear.

—is done by voluntary bodies, and that bureaucratic interference will not improve the quality of the service?

I am afraid that that is not the view of the people in the Family Planning Association whom I have met and who are now asking for bureaucratic interference, by me.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will carry out an investigation into the private prescribing of contraceptive pills by general practitioners, with a view to taking steps to improve present procedures following the establishment of area health authorities with responsibility for family planning.

Information about all forms of family planning, including the prescription of oral contraceptives by general practitioners, is already being sought as part of a comprehensive study being undertaken on my behalf by the Government Social Survey.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance of identifying women whose health might be at risk from the side-effects of a particular form of contraceptive treatment, the time is coming when encouragement might be given to the Royal College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, or even the General Medical Council, to produce an authoritative statement which would assist diagnosis and prescription, and help to dispel the clouds of misinformation which have recently descended upon general practitioners?

That is another question, but I will discuss it with them.