asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the estimated deficit on the National Insurance Scheme, assuming no changes in benefits or contributions, in the calendar year 1971.

The present estimate is that the income of the National Insurance Fund would exceed outgo by about £30 million in 1971.

In view of the fact that, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree, there will be very large sums to be raised in order to meet the urgent need for a substantial increase in old-age pensions in the autumn, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this will be necessary through earnings-related contributions? Also, would he regard it as just that any earnings-related contributions should be associated with earnings-related benefits?

Those questions go far beyond that on the Order Paper, but certainly the balance of contributions is now swinging towards earnings-related, as brought in by the last Government.

Is it not time for the Government to recognise that the National Insurance system based on flat-rate contributions must soon come to an end?

We already have a contributions system based only partly on flat rate.

Will the computer complex at Newcastle be ready in April, 1973, in order to introduce earnings-related contributions?

The hon. Gentleman should put down a Question about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the total expenditure on the National Health Service was spent on hospitals, general practice and community health services, respectively, in 1970–71; and whether he intends to alter these proportions in 1971–72 or 1972–73.

Briefly, expenditure on hospitals will increase from 60·5 per cent. of the total expenditure on the health and welfare programme in 1970–71 to 62·7 per cent. of the expenditure in 1972–73. Expenditure on family practitioner services will change from 21·9 per cent. to 19·6 per cent.—an increase in the service, but including an increase in charges—and expenditure on community health and welfare services from 13·7 per cent. to 15·2 per cent. over the same period.

I have arranged for full details to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that the increase in community health and welfare services is such that it would be very difficult to put much greater reliance on those services in the next few years and that, consequently, many people would be left in institutions who,

By any ideal standards, the hon. Lady's observations are absolutely correct. We have a long way to go to get the balance right. But she should not underestimate the differential increases which are occurring over the next two years in community health and welfare services, which will increase by just on 18 per cent., while expenditure on hospital services will increase by just on 10 per cent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the content of the 19 per cent. for general practitioner services, in view of the fact that about 8 per cent. is for general medical services and nearly 12 per cent. for pharmaceutical services? Should there not be a change in that balance?

I will examine what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what directions to date he has issued to local authorities to enable them to implement the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

My right hon. Friend has no powers to issue any such directions but a circular of guidance was issued in August last.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that circular is a shabby document, because it exaggerates the difficulty of finding out who the disabled people are and where they live? Is he further aware that the most recent estimates suggest that nearly two million people are not on the register of local authorities? Would he therefore consider issuing a new circular to encourage local authorities to compile a 100 per cent. register of ail disabled people—rather than discouraging them?

It was a factual circular which it would be wrong to describe as "shabby". The full extent of disability is precisely what we are examining through our national surveys. The hon. Gentleman will know that a number of the "missing" disabled, if there are such large numbers, are already receiving services under other Acts.

To help with the implementation of the Act, would my hon. Friend think it a good idea to hold a general conference at his Ministry to discover the problems, because in the introduction of any new Measure which contains wide-ranging provisions local authorities would welcome an opportunity to hear of the problems which are faced by other local authorities? Might it not also help the Minister to have this information?

I certainly note my lion. Friend's suggestion. There are, of course, a large number of inter-Departmental discussions taking place on this subject the whole time. If an initiative comes from local authorities supplementary to that which already exists, we shall certainly consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he has given to local authorities as required by Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, in order that they may carry out the duties imposed upon them under that Section.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent advice he has given to local authorities with regard to the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he is giving local authorities about the financial provision in their 1971–72 estimates for the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

I will, if I may, answer Questions Nos. 4,7 and 37 together.

A comprehensive circular of guidance has been sent to local authorities about the provisions of the Act, and further advice will be given on specific matters at the proper time. The Rate Support Grant negotiations of last November allowed for appreciable development of these services over the next two financial years.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that under Section 2 of this Act local authorities rely, for the carrying out of their duties, on general guidance and regulations issued by the Minister? As the Labour Government ensured, before the General Election, that the Act would become law by 29th August of last year, is it not disgraceful that nothing practical has yet been done to provide local authorities with guidance on this matter?

The House knows that local government is at present reorganising its services into new social service departments. At the same time, the national survey of handicapped launched by the last Government is being printed. We shall, during the next few months, be publishing that report, and as soon as possible thereafter guidance to local authorities on how they should carry out their local surveys of need in relation to the handicapped will be issued to help them fulfil their obligations under Section 2 of the Act.

Mr. Conlan.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

May I ask the Secretary of State—

Order. I am afraid that I have no option but to call the next Question, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) having given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, so shutting out about four supplementary questions.

On a point of order. I distinctly heard you, Mr. Speaker, call my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) to put a supplementary question before my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weiztman) gave notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I have no option but call the next Question. Mr. McElhone, No. 5.

As there may have been some confusion over Question No. 7, for which I may have been partly responsible, I now invite the hon. Member for Gateshead, East to ask Question No. 7.

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.

I have already answered it with Question No.4.

In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, many thousands of people are still anxiously awaiting implementation of the Act. Will he take whatever steps he can to bring about its early implementation?

Implementation of the Act will not by itself increase the services available to the people concerned. If the hon. Gentleman knows of people who are waiting for the services which are already, in principle, authorised, let him put them in touch with the local authorities or with me.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department will initiate a television and Press campaign to inform all chronically sick and disabled persons of their rights under the 1970 Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take immediate steps through radio, television and the Press to acquaint all chronically sick and disabled persons with their rights and the duties imposed upon local authorities under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

The Act is already receiving very wide publicity. In my view, the requirement now is not for general publicity but for local information about the need for, and availability of, services in each area.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as most local authority social work departments are not able fully to appreciate the implications of Sections 1 and 2 of the Act, he would be doing a service for the disabled and handicapped if such a television and Press advertising campaign were initiated?

The House should recognise that the task ahead of local government in increasing help for the handicapped is enormous and that the known need will tax to the full local government resources, when reorganised. There is at this stage a need to get on with it locally, which local government will be able to do when its social service departments are in action.

I apologise for my earlier statement. I did not fully appreciate the position.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous ignorance that exists among local authorities, among the chronically sick and disabled and among his own officers about the working of the Act? Does he recall that in regard to pensions for the over–80s he went on television to announce that a sum of £60,000 was to be paid, but that only 100,000 people were affected? About two million chronically sick and disabled people are affected here. Are the Government so chronically sick and disabled that they are reluctant to take a step of this kind?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting his analogies wrong. In respect of the very old, we voted a specific sum and it was waiting to be collected. The needs of the disabled are infinitely varied and cannot be met by a simple act of will on the part of the Government. They need an infinite range of different services. Local publicity and local services are obviously what is needed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House entirely support the underlying purpose of the Act and would like to see it implemented as widely as possible, but that there is growing evidence that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and others, are determined to use the Act as a political football, which would be entirely detrimental to the disabled, whom we all want to help?

I make no complaint whatever of criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, my hon. Friend is right in that disappointment could be created among the disabled if expectations were raised so high of services that could not, in the nature of things, be created automatically on a vast scale.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is widely enough understood which categories of mentally handicapped people are provided for under this admirable Act? Will he define those categories specifically and make clear that some types of mentally sick, as well as the subnormal, are included?

The Act does not define "handicap" in that way. The hon. Gentleman knows that the spectrum of Government and local authority services is seeking to improve the provision for the mentally handicapped and mentally ill in hospital and in the community.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that hon. Members can themselves do a great deal in their constituencies to help in this matter? Is he aware, for example, that I should be horrified to hear that hon. Members did not, when handicapped people came to see them, put them in touch with their local authorities? In other words, would my right hon. Friend agree that not just the Secretary of State and Ministers generally but hon. Members have a responsibility in this sphere?

My hon. Friend sets an admirable example to us all. It is indeed true that hon. Members can do a great service for their constituents and local authorities.

The right hon. Gentleman has given the impression that he wants the Act to come into operation very gradually. Will he ensure that with all haste local authorities are given the knowledge they need to implement the Act, bearing in mind that many chronically sick and disabled people are in urgent need of help, especially in the heavy industrial and coal mining areas?

There is no intention to delay the implementation of the Act. There is just a realistic awareness of the difficulties through which local government is going in the reorganisation imposed on it by both parties.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, in regard to the supplementary question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), that Section 28 of the Act empowers him to lay regulations clearing up any difficulty that might exist about the definition of chronic illness, chronic sickness, disability or disablement? In view of the points that have been made by my hon. Friends today, would he agree that he should now lay a regulation providing these interpretations?

I am aware of the powers. I do not think that the time has come to use them. It would be best to wait and see how the Act is working.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department will spend this year on research and development to assist in the mobility and independence of disabled people under Section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Identifiable expenditure on research and development in this area will amount to about £375,000.

Has the Minister got his priorities right? Does not he agree that by spending more on research and development he could make life much easier for disabled people and, perhaps, save his Department money on home helps, health visitors and so on, while at the same time—which is more important—giving greater freedom and dignity to the disabled?

I agree in principle that the research here can be effort well spent. If any hon. Member is aware of valuable research which is being neglected by my Department, I shall be delighted to receive evidence about it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the £3 million which he is proposing to cut off all the research councils, especially the Medical Research Council, as a result of the additional directive which came out since the Chancellor's October cuts?

That is not a question for me. My Department has a research budget of its own, and I was answering on that budget. I repeat the invitation to let me have the information for which I asked.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware that there is widespread ignorance on the part of local authorities of the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that they are fully informed of their duties under the Act.

I have no reason whatever to think that the responsible authorities are not aware of these provisions.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I am concerned about the lack of knowledge in this matter, especially as rate projections are now being made for the coming years. Will he look into it again?

I will look into any case which the hon. Gentleman cares to send to me. He will be aware that on 17th August Circulars were sent not only to the clerks but to the relevant heads of departments of counties, county boroughs, London boroughs and urban and rural and district councils. They should all be aware of the provisions of the Act by now.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what instruction his local appliance centres have sent to disabled persons and, in the case of disabled children, to their parents concerning the effect of Section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; if he will reproduce a copy of this instruction in the OFFICIAL REPORT; what action he has now taken to review the instruction; and if he will make a statement.

Letters were sent to users of attendant-controlled outdoor pushchairs and electric indoor chairs. I am arranging for copies to be reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The situation in respect of both types of chair is unchanged.

The letters from the appliance centres caused considerable concern to the parents of many severely disabled children, including thalidomide children. Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if their present vehicles cannot be properly used on the footway, they should now have vehicles which can be used outside the home as well as within it?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will appreciate that it places a heavy burden of responsibility upon any Department to ask it to facilitate young thalidomide children to go out of the home on to the pavement, with, perhaps, sharp drops on to the road, without at the same time being able to guarantee complete safety, which we could not do.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue advice to local authorities that they should make no charge for any alterations needed to make a house suitable for a home dialysis unit.

This is a matter for the local authority to decide in each case according to the particular circumstances.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but would he not agree that here is a clear question of using powers under Section 29, since people who are dependent for the rest of their lives upon a kidney machine can, surely, be said to be chronically sick? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider making this one of the first uses of his powers in order to clear up the invidious distinctions between local authorities?

I have no evidence that local authorities are not sensibly using their discretion to remit charges where necessary for those who have home dialysis units.

Many hon. Members on both sides feel strongly on this issue, since we had great hopes of what would come out of the Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when we put Questions and supplementary questions, we put them very sincerely, and will he in the circumstances ignore the asinine remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) on Question No.5?

That does not arise from this question at all. I think that my hon. Friend's comments were entirely justified, though I added my own gloss on them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recall the difficulties which one of my constituents had some time ago when the London Borough of Brent at first refused to pay for the installation of such a kidney machine at home, and represented thereafter to the Ministry that, in its view, this was the Ministry's responsibility? I am not seeking to support that view, but may we have the Minister's view on the matter, before any further difficulties of this nature come in the way of people in my area or elsewhere?

I would rather study that case before commenting upon it. In principle, there is no reason why people who can afford to pay for the home alterations should not be allowed to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the schools medical service and his medical advisory staff have been consulted about the proposal to give school children vitamin pills instead of orange juice and cod liver oil; and whether he is satisfied that this will not result in encouragement to young people to take pills of all kinds.

The vitamin preparation to be introduced in April is intended for pre-school children only and will be in the form of liquid drops. School children are not involved.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but has he seen medical reports to the effect that vitamin pills given to children who are already receiving a balanced diet can be harmful? Will he take that matter into consideration?

My hon. Friend will have noted that for children drops. not pills, are intended.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the redeployment of available funds betwen regional hospital boards in order to ensure that each board receives a fair share of such funds, bearing in mind the population it serves.

Annual revenue allocations to regional hospital boards are now made on a basis designed to reduce inequalities of financial provision without disrupting the services in the regions which are at present better off. The population served by each board features largely in the calculation.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but he will be aware of the great inequalities which at present exist. Is he aware, for example, that the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board is £10 million short of its fair share of revenue required to provide a service for its population? Over what period of time does he envisage redeployment ironing out these differences between regions?

I spent a day recently with the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board, and I am aware of the position. It will probably take about ten years, moving gradually, as we must in order to be fair to all regions, to even out the financial provision available.

In view of the accepted discrepancies which exist between regions in both health service provision and hospital ward expenditure, what steps is the Minister taking to obtain a fairly equal standard of national provision, and what influence does he have with boards in this matter?

We are revising upwards each year the share of the extra money available to the boards with less resources in order, over about a ten-year period, to bring about equivalent revenue and capital availability, taking into account population, beds, and types and numbers of cases treated.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the number of speech therapists employed by hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

The present number in England and Wales is equivalent to 172 whole-time staff and represents an increase of over 35 per cent. between 1965 and 1970, but we are aware that more would be welcome in many places.

I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that the services and easy availability of speech therapists are vital to those who suffer from, for example, the appalling infirmity of having lost the voice box? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient full-time therapists and that, perhaps, too many hospitals are not having to augment them with part-time therapists, excellent though these people may be?

I note with sympathy the hon. Gentleman's reaction, but he will have noted that we are not satisfied that there are enough. The Committee of Inquiry into speech therapy services is expected to report towards the end of the year, and this will help us in assessing what further provision we should make.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hostels for the mentally handicapped are now in operation in the United Kingdom.

There are now 240 local authority hostels for the mentally handicapped in operation in England, Scotland and Wales providing 4,956 places. An additional 2,187 places are available in voluntary and private hostels.

To what extent will there be an increase in these hostel places? Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of how many beds may be made free in mental hospitals as a result of the desire to move mentally handicapped people into that type of hostel?

There is considerable scope for moving people from mentally handicapped hospitals into the community. There are 43 local authority hostels under construction in addition to those I mentioned, and a further 322 hostels in local authority programmes for the period up to March, 1973.

In view of the distressingly overcrowded condition of many wards in mentally handicapped hospitals still, despite the steps taken in the past year or so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking regional hospital boards as well as local authorities to consider establishing hostels, in this case within hospital grounds? My impression is that a number of the hospitals have sites large enough to allow hostels to be constructed.

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate an inquiry into the treatment of paranoia.

No, Sir. Paranoia is a well known, though rare, condition closely associated with schizophrenia. It appears in varying degrees of severity and a wide range of treatment is available.—[Laughter.] There is a good deal of on-going research mainly under the auspices of the Medical Research Council and in univerities.

I am not quite sure why hon. Members should find this a subject to joke about. Anybody who has ever met a paranoiac realises that it is a very distressing condition. Does not my hon. Friend think that perhaps the Mental Health Act should be amended in such a way as to allow local authority medical services the power to bring such people into care by a measure of compulsion, particularly when they are no longer able to look after themselves?

I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's point. It is very difficult to make clear definitions and the borderline between paranoia and schizophrenia is one of those areas of rather vague definition. But a great deal of research is going on, and I will feed into it the question which my hon. Friend has put to me.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? It seems to me to be an admirable area in which an inquiry could be made. Will he also take into account that the inquiry could start in this House, particularly on the benches opposite?

The serious point of that supplementary question is covered by my reference to the fact that the Medical Research Council is engaged in inquiries into this subject, wihch is one of its highest priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the report of his working party on the role of the community physician will be published.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on 2nd February.-[Vol. 810, c. 308.]

It is the right hon. Gentleman's view that the community physician under the National Health Service should also be the Chief Medical Officer for the local health authority? When does he expect to bring forward his proposed report on restructuring the N.H.S. which will also cover the role of the community physician'? Will it be a consultative document or a White Paper?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions which are not on the Order Paper. I hope that there will be close co-operation in the use of the community physician between the local authority and the health authority. The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, "Soon".

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for welfare payments to families of people who have withdrawn their labour; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have been reviewing the question of supplementary benefit payments to the families of persons involved in trade disputes. I hope to make an announcement in due course.

As families of those involved in industrial disputes often suffer more hardship than is realised, may we take it that the Government will not make changes in welfare payments which are harsh or unnecessary?

We shall not make changes which are harsh or unnecessary.

Is the Secretary of State aware that temporary postmen who are not party to the present dispute but who are dismissed because of the stoppage of postal services have been denied both unemployment pay and National Assistance? Is not that wholly unjust?

I cannot believe that people with families are being denied supplementary benefit where they are entitled to it. Single persons involved in trade disputes are not entitled to supplementary benefit, but if the right hon. Gentleman knows of men or women with dependants being denied supplementary benefit when they are entitled to it, I should be grateful to be told.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in his review of the subject that we now have incontrovertible evidence that international companies are shifting investment involving many thousands of jobs from this country because of the incidence of industrial disputes? Does it make sense for the taxpayer to be required to subsidise industrial anarchy when it has such results?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us how that supplementary question bears at all on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services?

Order. I thought that the latter part of the supplementary question was in order, as bearing on the Question.

I must ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement which I hope to make in due course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not listen to the siren voices, particularly in the editorial columns of the Telegraph and The Times, urging such changes in comment written by people with no understanding of industrial relations? Will he bear in mind that if he makes changes along the lines suggested, they will, along with the Industrial Relations Bill, do the exact opposite in indus- trial relations to that which is intended and seriously worsen the situation?

I am not responsible for speculation in the Press.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a distinction should be drawn between unofficial and official strikes? Why should the community assist those unofficial strikers who are striking not against their company but against their own union? That is the point about which the House would like to know.

I must also ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side utterly reject the harsh philosophy underlying the series of questions asked by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? In view of the very broad nature of the Question, which refers to welfare payments and not to supplementary benefits, can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that in the review no consideration is being given to changing the availability of welfare benefits, as distinct from supplementary benefits, to the dependants of strikers?

My answer referred only to supplementary benefit payments. I must assert that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and all hon. Members are concerned for the national interest. It is against that background that the Government are considering the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the length of the waiting list for urgent admissions for the mentally subnormal in the Norwich area, he will authorise a building programme to increase the number of beds available at Plumstead Hospital.

No, Sir. The Region's services for the mentally handicapped are unduly concentrated in the Norwich area. The regional hospital board intends to deal with the problem by providing beds in other areas.

But is my hon. Friend aware that the long-term planning for the mentally subnormal in the whole of the regional hospital board area makes fewer beds available in the 1980s than are available in the 1970s?

The board's future plans are under discussion in the Department. I would rather not comment on them now. But I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is undue concentration in Norwich at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the overall savings which would accrue to the social services if the number of unplanned pregnancies were reduced, he will authorise general practitioners to prescribe oral contraceptives on the standard National Health Service prescription form for social as well as medical needs.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to make a statement on the extension of the Family Planning Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now ready to make a statement on an official inquiry into the working of the Abortion Act.

I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Questions No. 21, 101 and 105 together at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities have been available for private patients at Wolsgrave Hospital, Coventry, since its opening; how many private patients have been treated; and whether he will make a statement.

The number of private in-patients treated up to 31st January was 736. I am informed that at times the number of beds used for private patients exceeded the number authorised, and I have asked the regional hospital board to investigate and to report to me on any failure to observe the statutory procedure.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the opening of the hospital about £31,000 has been paid by private patients for private treatment? Is he aware that beds were promised to consultants before they were given authorisation by him? Is he further aware that on the hospital waiting list in the Coventry area there are over 5,000 patients? In addition to asking the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board for a report, will he institute a full public inquiry into what is fast becoming a national scandal?

No, Sir. I have no knowledge of these things. That is why I have asked the regional board for a full report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell us what percentage of that £31,000 went to the consultants? Is not this another example of the vicious secrecy with which the regional board conducts its affairs? Is it not clear that what we want is a full investigation of the board itself?

No, Sir. I am not able to answer those questions. But I must emphasise that there are two questions here, apart from the report which I await. One is the past and any possible irregularities there have been; the other is the future and the right number ofs private beds in this hospital group, on which, after long correspondence, I understand, between the hospital management committee and the regional board, I am awaiting advice.

What is the Government's policy towards private pay-beds? I welcome the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman will hold into this matter, but will he bear in mind that the last Government reduced the number of private pay-beds in hospitals by over 1,000 in England and Wales? Does he plan a similar reduction or an even greater reduction?

I have no information on which to judge whether any reduction or increase is at the moment necessary. We think it right that people who wish to pay for hospital treatment should be entitled to do so in a proper proportion of National Health Service beds, always bearing in mind the needs of those who do not wish to pay, who constitute the vast majority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who welcome his decision to inquire into this matter hope that he will protect the integrity of the inquiry by ensuring that any consultants or other personnel from this hospital who are also members of the regional board are not wearing two hats when the inquiry is going on? Will he take appropriate action to ensure that that does not happen?

I have not promised an inquiry into these things. I said that I have asked the regional board for a report. What I do after I study the report is for the Government's decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what restrictions he proposes to place on the sale and use of 1971 census data for commercial purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

No information about identified individual people or households is released to anyone outside the census organisation.

Census data published, sold or otherwise released are not analysed to such a level of disaggregation that information on individual people or households is disclosed. Publication of data from the census requires the permission of the Registrar General. These restrictions apply equally, whoever the user of the statistics.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that fairly large sections of the last census were sold for commercial use? If he will not change the regulations about the sale of census data for commercial use, will he change the law which insists that people have to fill in census forms?

No, Sir. I assure the House that the information which was sold, and which under the law could be sold again, was in such a form that it was quite impossible for any individual identifiable information to be gathered by anyone who had access to the bought or released information.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of anxiety about the amount of information which is required on the new census forms? Will he do his best to publicise the remarks that he has just made?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage fall-off in dental treatment was noted by his Dental Rates Study Group when charges for treatment were first introduced and when the basic charge was increased from £1 to £1 10s., respectively; and whether the advice of the study group has been sought on the effects of the new charges which take effect in April, 1971.

For adults, a fall of 5 per cent. in 1952, but this was quickly recovered and the number of courses has continued to increase steadily since then—with no reduction when the charges were increased in 1968. Consultations with the Dental Rates Study Group would not have been necessary or appropriate.

In view of the alarming fall which occurred following the comparatively small increase in charges, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the dental profession's justifiable alarm at the prospects when his proposals come into force shortly? Would not he agree that, if he were to consult the Study Group and its advice were in line with that of previous authorities, it would be wiser for him to reconsider his decision?

Certainly the dental profession is concerned, but I think that its concern is misplaced. I am sure that there will be a slight dip but that it will be recovered and that the increase of treatment will then continue.

Does not the right lion. Gentleman realise that he is hiding behind the statistics? While there may be a slight drop, it is completely accounted for by a section of the population which most requires attention to teeth.

I have no evidence of that. When the House takes into account the sharp increase in the income at which exemption will be available, it will realise that the dental profession's fears are misplaced.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Overseas Bankers' Club at Guildhall on 1st February, 1971, concerning inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st February to the Overseas Bankers' Club in London on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st February to the Overseas Bankers' Club in London on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech to overseas bankers made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London on 1st February on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend emphasised the need to defeat inflation; and, on the European negotiations, argued that our contribution to the Community budget should not be disproportionate. I am sure that his views command general support.

The Prime Minister will also be aware that the Chancellor referred to a voluntary incomes policy as not being practicable at present. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that direct Government action to raise food prices, rents, rates, fares, welfare charges and so on, and to interfere with trade union rights, is calculated to help towards achieving such a policy?

This matter was debated at considerable length last Thursday, when the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman was dealt with. The proposals on food prices, which are part of the general agricultural policy, and the rent rebates which we are extending to the private sector as well as to the public sector as part of our housing policy, were among our proposals which we put before the electors. They have also been discussed in the House.

Since the Government cannot hope to reduce inflation by undermining the role of the independent arbitrators, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government knew about the latest Civil Service pay award when they decided not to reappoint Professor Clegg?

That is an entirely different question but I will answer it. We did not know about this award, which was being made by the arbitrator at the time my right hon. Friend informed Professor Clegg of his decision.

I want to make it clear that the general impression given before the Report was published, that there was to be an increase of 20 per cent. for civil servants, was not correct and was unfair to the civil servants concerned. Those recommended to receive between 15 and 20 per cent. constitute no more than 3 per cent. of the staff involved. The remainder have increases from 15 per cent. to nil per cent. The average increase on the wage bill is, I am informed, 8·9 per cent.

I hope that the House will agree that it is of the utmost importance that those who publish wage settlements, through whatever media of communication, should await the Report before they Jo so and should then report it accurately.

In his speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to a statutory incomes policy as "crude, unworkable and unfair". Is the Prime Minister aware that most trade unionists and their families would agree that that was an apt description of the Government's economic policy? Is he aware that that was why 100,000 of them marched in protest on Sunday?

The statutory wages policy was abandoned by the Labour Government, as announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement, because it corresponded exactly to the description which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted.

The Prime Minister will he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking about inflation. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the inflationary effects of the abolition of subsidies for commuter rail services in London? Does he propose to put pressure on the private sector, in accordance with what the Chancellor was advocating, to prevent people from getting wage increases to make up for the loss of income when fares go up when subsidies arc taken off?

It is well known that our policy is that none of these problems can be solved by repeatedly increasing subsidies. It is the burden of taxation on British industry and the consequential weakness which results which has led industry to ask for further and further subsidies, and which has led us into the difficulties of which we have seen an example recently.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whereas everybody subscribes to the "desirable end", as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it, of defeating inflation, it does no good at all for the most highly paid men in the public sector, such as Lord Melchett of the Steel Corporation, to have their salaries increased at this critical time from £16,000 a year to £25,000 a year, this after no fewer than five increases in the price of steel within two years, and all of it dreadfully inflationary?

I fully recognise the impact of any increase in steel prices, but in my time in the House my hon. Friend has been one of those who have been foremost in emphasising that, if one is to have high quality management in the nationalised industries, it is necessary to pay those appointed salaries corresponding to those in private industry. There is also the point that under all Governments the nationalised industries have had to bring in management from outside, and this only emphasises the importance of the point which I have just mentioned.

Yesterday, in response to a point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), the Prime Minister apologised for having misled the House last Thursday. In doing so he mentioned the figure of £10 million. Will he not now concede that he further misled the House yesterday, as in this financial year there is nothing and next year the figure will be only £2 million? Will he now come clean and tell us precisely what this means for the North-East of England?

The position was exactly as I stated it. I said what the cost would be in a fully effective year, and I said that quite clearly. In any case, that has nothing to do with these four Questions.

As the Labour Party gave up all pretence of operating a prices and incomes policy in the six months before the election and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) pumped more money into the economy in the three months before the election than he had formerly proposed to put in for the whole year, is it not the plainest hypocrisy on the part of the Labour Party to talk in terms of inflation at all?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister saying that if an arbitration award affects only a few people, 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., it is all right to pay increases of 15 per cent. or 18 per cent., but that if it is 200,000 postmen, it is not right? Is that the right Hon. Gentleman's new incomes policy?

That was not what I said, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not ahe case. The point I am making is that the impression given this morning before the Report was published was that it was a general wage award of 20 per cent. affecting these classes in the Civil Service. That was untrue and unfair to those in the service.

The right hon. Gentleman agreed very briefly with his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) about pumping money into the economy in the second quarter of last year. Has he yet had an opportunity of looking at something to which I directed his attention, the report of the Bank of England that the greater part of the increase in the additional credit supply was created after the second half of June last year?

I looked at these figures and I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition. The situation improved in the second half of June after the return of the Conservative Government, the increase of confidence and the improvement in the gilt-edged market which then followed.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the London Borough of Brent.

I have accepted an official invitation to attend the Football League Cup Final at Wembley Stadium next Saturday.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I expected him to visit not only the League Cup Final, but the F.A. Cup Final, as did his predecessor? I do not ask him necessarily to linger in Neasden, in my constituency, which would no doubt welcome him, but could he use his influence on the Conservative Neanderthal Council of the London Borough of Brent, as my borough is now getting a reputation throughout the country for its appalling housing policy which is having a terrible effect in dividing not the nation but my borough into two, Willesden and Wembley? On his way to the Cup Final, will he stop off at the town hall and have a word with the terrible Tory councillors, who are pursuing terrible policies?

I understand that the council proposes to put out to tender nearly 2,000 dwellings in 1971 and approximately 1,000 in 1972 and 1973, and those do not seem to me to be terrible proposals.

May I assure my right hon. Friend that he will always be very welcome in the Borough of Brent and that he will be given a tumultuous welcome by the residents there?

I am looking forward to seeing my hon. and gallant Friend at Wembley.

asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for answering Questions relating to the implementation in domestic law of international human rights obligations.

Where the Question concerns international human rights obligations in general, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would normally answer. Where it relates to obligations in a particular field, the Minister responsible for that field would reply.

Is it not a curious arrangement, even for the present Government, to make the Foreign Secretary answerable for domestic legislation? Do we not require some machinery for supervising proposed legislation for conformity with human rights, for example, the Industrial Relations Bill, particularly as we are not entitled to discuss all the Clauses in the House?

No, Sir. It has been the custom under all Administrations for the Foreign Office, which is responsible for the negotiation and observance of treaties, to have these general responsibilities for human rights. If there is a particular aspect, such as an International Labour Office regulation, naturally the Department of Employment is primarily concerned. I know that the hon. Member has suggested the setting up of an inter-departmental committee, but co-ordination among Departments about legislation of this kind is sufficiently close to deal with these matters, and to create a further piece of inter-Departmental machinery would be clumsy and expensive.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Commission has found that there is a prima facie case against this country over the Kenya-Asians, and is not this an exceedingly serious matter for the good name of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "And for Kenya."] Would he take steps to see that the Home Secretary deals with this matter in the Immigration Bill which I believe is to be presented to the House today?

As the matter is sub judice, it would be better for me not to comment and, obviously, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot take account of any view expressed by the Commission until it has reached its conclusions.

While the right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right in saying that the Foreign Secretary must be the Minister responsible for the conduct of these matters in international negotiations, would he say whether when he met Major Chichester-Clark recently he drew the attention of the Northern Ireland Government yet again to the fact that we have international responsibility for human rights matters? Did he get an assurance from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that at the earliest moment the Northern Ireland Government will proceed to remove all the aspects of the Special Powers Acts which are in conflict with our international obligations?

The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has given that assurance publicly, and that assurance remains firm.

asked the Prime Minister how many times he has been officially entertained at the Bank of England since 18th June, 1970.

None, Sir, but I have accepted an invitation to lunch with the Governor and the Court on 6th May.

When the Prime Minister meets the Governor will he discuss with him the fact that his Government's heavy reliance on monetary policy is having serious effects on efficient firms which have a small ratio of cash to sales, whereas inefficient firms with large cash balances not invested are managing to get along all right? Is not this a policy of the survival of the fattest rather than the fittest? Was not this comment a criticism which the right hon. Gentleman himself made of the introduction of corporation tax, a very fair criticism when the tax was introduced in 1965? Are we not now saddled with a situation in which the pernicious effects of the tax system, which the right hon. Gentleman himself identi- fied, are reinforced by his own Government's monetary policy?

It is not true that the Government are relying only on monetary policy. We are relying on a combination of economic weapons in order to deal with the inflationary situation. Nor is it true that because a firm does not have a satisfactory cash flow, it is therefore efficient, or because it has cash resources, it is inefficient. That surely is a very arbitrary judgment.

If the Prime Minister does lunch at the Bank will he remind the Governor that under the Labour Government Bank Rate was never so high for so long since 1694 when the Bank was formed?

I do not think it necessary to remind the Governor or the Court of that fact.

When this engagement takes place, would the Prime Minister congratulate the Governor upon his control of money supply, at any rate in recent weeks? Would he accept the fact that the problem of managing the economy is a consequence of the very large balance of payments surplus bequeathed to the Government, plus the fact that Bank Rate is at such a very high level that we have this vast flow of hot money? Would he say to the Governor, "Please reduce Bank Rate so that we can ease this problem"? Is he aware that that might lead to a more satisfactory solution to the inflation problem?

I am glad to hear the tribute to the Governor over the control of the monetary policy, because it has been regained in the last six months. When the hon. Gentleman speaks of an inflow of money into this country he is also accepting that the control of monetary policy has been maintained even in the face of this inflow, and that is the consequence of activities on the gilt-edged market.

If the Prime Minister is using not only money supply, would he say what other solutions he is using to reduce unemployment?