asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the aggregate cost to public funds of national assistance/supplementary benefit payments paid to strikers and their dependants during industrial disputes and after return to work in the first five months of all the years between the passage of the National Assistance Act, 1948 and the passage of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and the cost of supplementary benefits payments during and after industrial disputes in the first five months in each of the years since the passage of the latter Act.

During the period January to May of the years 1951 to 1966 inclusive just under £400,000 was paid out in national assistance during trade disputes. During the same five months of the years 1967, 1970 and 1971 the approximate total of supplementary benefit paid out during disputes was £45,000, £441,000 and £3,900,000. Payments after disputes for the first five months of 1971 exceeded £460,000 but I regret that earlier figures are not available.

I will, if I may, circulate a more detailed reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Can he confirm that the figures clearly demonstrate that a fairly dramatic change occurred after the application of Section 4 of the 1966 Act to strikers and their families, and that it is clear that we must go back to the Labour Government's 1948 Act if we are not to have more multi-national companies following the example of Ford and taking their investments to countries which do not oblige the taxpayer to subsidise strikes and those on strike?

My hon. Friend is going far beyond the lessons that we can draw from these figures. They certainly show a very sharp increase. That is the background against which the Government introduced the recent change in legislation.

Is not it significant that the views and the Amendments of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) find no support from either the Government or the Opposition side in the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Bill?

Now the hon. Gentleman is provoking me, because my hon. Friend has a great deal of merit in his general worry about the impact of social security legislation on the motives of a minority of the people. But we must see how the present change in legislation works out.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are now awaiting admission to hospitals in England and Wales.

A total of 555,883, on 31st December, 1970.

Is not it clear that the figure will cause shock and dismay throughout the country, particularly because many of those people had been waiting many months to see a consultant before they even got on the list? Is not it time for the Minister to end the scandal of people with money jumping the queue? Will he say that at least for the present National Health Service beds will not be used for private purposes?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in the conclusions he draws from the waiting list, which is 1 per cent. lower than when I last reported. Private beds are always used for non-paying patients where there is medical priority.

Nevertheless, whether the figure has gone up or down in the last year, does not my right hon. Friend agree that to have over 500,000 people waiting is a scandalous state of affairs? Does not he agree also that this is because we have neither the resources nor the facilities, in terms of finance and staffing, in the National Health Service as at present constituted, and that if we are to reduce this number radically in the next few years we shall have to look to the restructuring of the service in terms both of administration and of finance?

It is easy for hon. Members to use words like "scandalous". I allowed myself last time to use the word "disgraceful" about the waiting list and was sharply rebuked by some doctors who have pointed out how much greater the throughput of in-patients has been over the last few years. But, of course, I agree that there is need for more resources.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that waiting lists in themselves encourage people to pay in order to queue-jump and that the only ones who profit from this situation are the consultants and a privileged minority of patients? Is not this an abuse of the National Health Service?

I think that it is right that there should be an opportunity for the minority who wish to pay, provided they do not get in the way of priority needs for those who do not wish to pay, to have private treatment. But there is no evidence that there is queue-jumping.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware that in the year ended 17th April, 1971 the £ sterling depreciated in purchasing value by 8·6 per cent.; and on this basis to what extent he anticipates that the proposed increases to be made in September will now offset the fall in the purchasing value of the £ sterling since the date when pensions and social security benefits were last raised and that which will take place between April, 1971 and September, 1971.

I am confident that the benefit increases next September will more than replace the loss of purchasing power since benefits were last increased.

That may be the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it is not the opinion of the old-age pensioners. Is he aware that the prices of meat, butter and eggs are going up and we are told that it is the deliberate policy of the Government to get prices up in order to get us into the Common Market? Is he further aware that old-age pensioners are fed up with the Government encouraging prices to go up and depreciating the purchasing value of their pensions?

The hon. Gentleman would be a little more convincing if the Opposition supported the Government in their fight against inflationary wage claims, which do more damage than anything else to the pensioners' shopping basket.

Does my hon. Friend realise—party politics aside—that, whereas the purchasing power of the £ fell by 8·4 per cent. in the year that ended on 17th April, 1971, at the present rate it will fall a further 11·4 per cent. by 17th April, 1972, thus aggregating a 20 per cent. fall over two years, and that 20 per cent. was the amount of the increase in the single old-age pension? Is not my hon. Friend therefore chasing his own tail in ever-decreasing circles?

The fact is that the increase is the biggest ever in money terms. It will more than restore the value of the benefits, and, over and above that, new benefits have been introduced for priority groups—namely, the over-80s and the chronic sick.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the purchasing power of the State retirement pension now, compared with the same date last year.

As measured by the Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the standard retirement pension in May, 1971 was £4·55, compared with £5·00 in May, 1970.

Does not that answer indicate that pensioners have had a hardup year under the Conservative Government and bear out the pensioners' contention that the rise which is due in the autumn is already totally inadequate and that another rise is required immediately?

No, Sir. The increase coming into operation in September will more than restore the value of the pension.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the increased pension in the autumn, which will be the highest ever paid by any Government, will do much to restore the purchasing power and to relieve the suffering inflicted on many pensioners by the inflationary policies of the previous Labour Government?

I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend; he is quite right. We succeeded after 1951 in clearing up the rip-roaring inflation, and we intend to succeed equally on this occasion.

Will the Government stop talking about increases in money terms, as this means absolutely nothing in terms of increased purchasing power? Will the Minister admit that the supposed six months' improvement in the purchasing power of pensions has now dwindled to at most six weeks?

The increase will certainly improve the purchasing power of the pension. Over and above that, there are further increases for the over-80s and the chronic sick. Furthermore, this is the third Bill in this Session to improve the cash benefit for the needy sections of the community.

Will the Minister answer my question?

I have answered it very effectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much the basic retirement pension, for a single person and a married couple, respectively, has fallen in purchasing power since the last increase.

As measured by the Index of Retail Prices, between November, 1969 and May, 1971 the purchasing power of the standard retirement pension fell by £0·64 for a single person and by £1·04 for a married couple, at November, 1969 prices.

Does not that answer confirm the view expressed on this side of the House that within a few weeks of the increase in September there will be complete erosion and that two years from then pensioners, many of whom are in this state now, will be virtually starving? Is not the Minister aware that, immediately after the war, when Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, said that we were a bankrupt nation, the Labour Government increased the basic pension by 160 per cent? Now that we have been promised a "better tomorrow", will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will make to tomorrow for the old-age pensioners and give them half what the Labour Government gave them in 1946?

I repeat to the House that the improvements coming into operation in September will more than restore the purchasing power of the pension, and that this is the third Bill in this Parliament to bring additional cash help to those in need. That in itself shows quite clearly that the Government intend to see that those who are in need do not suffer as a result of price rises.

Does not this confirm how wrong trade union leaders have been to press for wage demands ahead of increases in productivity, and that they are the people who are responsible for the difficulties of the old-age pensioners?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Criticisms from the Opposition benches would be much more convincing if we had their support in our campaign against inflationary wage settlements which hit pensioners so hard.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing more disgusting than for him to use old-age pensioners as an excuse to hammer the trade unions? Does he not realise that many of these working-class old-age pensioners have been trade unionists and have contributed to the wealth of this country, and that his action and his reply today will go down in the records as most disreputable? Is not the only contribution that he and his colleagues can make to old-age pensioners to pack in the job and get out?

I am simply pointing out to the House that, if certain sections of the community take out more than is justified by productivity, it is the pensioners and others on fixed incomes who suffer most.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now arrange for ear-level OL 67 invisible hearing aids to be made available under the National Health Service for adult patients; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The performance of this aid falls short of that likely to be needed from an ear-level aid for adults.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come to abolish these nasty, red, old-fashioned ugly knobs from the ears of National Health Service patients? If the other invisible aids are all right for children up to the age of 14, why are they not all right for adults'? Why, for the sake of coppers, do older people have this indignity imposed upon them in addition to the suffering which their deafness inevitably causes them?

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's sympathy with the deaf. We all wish to avoid any difficulty. We are studying the possibility of introducing an invisible ear-level aid.

While not agreeing with some of the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner), may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is a possibility of producing these post-aural aids in a development area to help cope with the unemployment situation?

The technical and medical implications of the aid are being worked out and we hope to have proposals shortly. It is difficult to forecast the precise implications for employment at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will issue a direction to all Social Security offices in Derbyshire to the effect that applicants for clothing grants, previously made by Derbyshire Education Committee, will be treated uniformly.

No, Sir. Standing instructions issued by the Supplementary Benefits Commission already ensure that all local offices including those in Derbyshire apply the same standards when considering discretionary lump-sum payments to meet the cost of essential clothing. The amount allowed in a particular case will of course depend upon the individual circumstances.

I am afraid that they do not all apply the same standards. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the lead given by the Government in attacking the needy has spread to the Tory-dominated Derbyshire County Council, which has callously withdrawn schoolchildren's clothing grants? Will he instruct his officials to apply a uniform standard so that they can repair at least some of the damage which the Government, in combination with the Derbyshire County Council, have inflicted upon schoolchildren in Derbyshire?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. If he has any individual cases which he thinks should be brought to my attention, I should be glad to look at them. I understand that the local education authority has withdrawn its necessitous clothing concession from people on supplementary benefit, but local officers of the Commission have made an arrangement with the authority with the aim of ensuring that the child of a supplementary benefit claimant should not go short of necessary clothing.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek powers to make grants available to unemployed young people who wish to study at colleges of education while unemployed, and who are thereby denied any unemployment benefit they may have been receiving.

No, Sir. So far as social security is concerned, I do not think it would be right to make such payments regardless of the person's availability for work.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware of what a problem this is throughout the country. One shudders to think what the figure is now, but last January over 20,000 young people had been unemployed for more than three months. Is it not the duty of the Government, if they cannot give employment to young people, to give them the opportunity of doing something constructive? As a result of measures operated by his Department, however, the young people are, discouraged from doing so. The hon. Gentleman should give this matter far more consideration than he so far appears to have given it.

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. If anyone undergoing a course can show that he is available for work and can take employment if employment is offered, his taking the course is not in itself a bar to the receipt of unemployment benefit. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about courses at training colleges, where there are grants available, that is a different matter.

At a time when large numbers of young people are unemployed and are likely to remain so as a result of deliberate Government policy, would it not be sensible to allow these young people to obtain skills for future employment so that they have a better chance of getting a job? Is it not the case that at least a number of young people—indeed, unemployed people generally—cannot get jobs because they have not the necessary skills? Cannot he do something about this?

If a young person who, because he is unemployed, takes up a course can show that he is still available for employment should employment be offered, he is not debarred from unemployment benefit. If any hon. Member has a particular case in which he feels that this system is not working properly, I will look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement about revised charges for prescriptions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet decided the price to be charged for the prepayment certificates which will continue to be available under the new scheme for graduated National Health Service charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has now completed his discussions with the British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Society regarding cost-related prescription charges; and if he will now announce his decision.

I am still considering these matters in the light of the views which were expressed to me by the representatives of the medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions during my recent discussions with them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in constituencies like mine are apprehensive about his plans and that the sooner this appre hension is dispelled the better? Is he aware that they are particularly worried if they are old-age pensioners, people living on fixed incomes, large families, low-paid workers and so on? Surely he has a duly to complete these discussions as soon as possible so that people may at least know the worst that is in store for them?

I shall try to arrive at a decision as quickly as possible but I want to pay full heed to the representations made to me.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the majority of the prepayment certificates are used by those who are permanently sick and that any increase in the present charge will be regarded as a regrettable departure from the Government's sensible policy of concentrating help where it is most needed?

I am glad to say that the use of prepayment certificates has leapt in recent weeks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the medical evidence and clinical considerations? Is he aware that in a test 30 placebos of coloured water were just as effective as medicine but that once any question of a charge for a prescription was raised the patients' acceptance of the doctor's infallibility about prescribing charges and treatment becomes suspect? Is he aware that there are strong clinical grounds why this graded scheme should not be introduced?

I will study the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is not one that has been put to me by the profession.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House that the British Medical Association regards the suggestion of cost-related prescription charges as in conflict with clinical freedom and that the Pharmaceutical Society regards it as an administrative nightmare? Will he send this monstrosity back to the Treasury which so unwisely begat it?

The hon. Lady will recall that I said I would have a rational dialogue with the professions. They did not go in for the kind of shorthand in which she has indulged.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the extent of ingress into the United Kingdom of female aliens seeking abortions at National Health Service and private clinics: to what extent such foreign nationals are displacing British women seeking similar services; and whether he will take steps designed to diminish the flow of foreign women for the purposes stated.

The provisional figure for notified abortions on foreign women in the first quarter of this year is 2,617 or 11 per cent. of the total notified for England and Wales. Foreign women who come to this country for abortions are not eligible for free treatment under the National Health Service. I have no information on the effect at private clinics. This matter is one which I would expect the Lane Committee on the Working of the Abortion Act to consider.

As my right hon. Friend has no information on activities in private clinics, may I ask him to pursue his inquiries further, having regard to the fact that there is now a flood of these foreign women entering Britain under the guise of ordinary tourists? Is he aware that charges are exorbitant? Why does my right hon. Friend give tacit consent to this particularly odious and repugnant traffic which is coming to be regarded as a form of invisible export?

The Act gives me no power in inquire into charges inside abortion clinics but the consent given to their practice is dependent upon certain undertakings and the observation of certain regulations. If there is any evidence that these are broken I have power to withdraw consent.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave a promise to the House that the Committee he formed, very wisely, under Mrs. Justice Lane would be as broad-based as possible? Can he now tell the House whether he is satisfied that that Committee comprises such a broad base of opinion and that membership of religious organisations was no bar to membership?

I tried to recruit the Committee from people who had taken no firm line on either side of the issue and who would therefore bring a fresh mind and a fresh judgment to the implications. I am satisfied that I have a high-quality membership.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to make sure that this country loses as quickly as possible its growing reputation as the abortion centre of the world? Will he bear in mind that most people in this country are outraged by this situation and want to see an end to this traffic?

I find myself in sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend—

And with me, I hope.

—when he expresses disgust at some of the phenomena attached to the private sector of the abortion market. Nevertheless, I must have evidence before I can do anything about it. I rely upon the Lane Committee to look at the whole situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients are waiting for tonsillectomies in Medway hospitals.

A total of 439 at All Saints Hospital which serves the Medway area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I very much regret that it is such a long list? While I am aware that tonsillectomies are not always as urgent as other surgical operations, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware of my constituent who has waited for five years? I have sought to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the waiting list for other operations and to the pressures on general practitioner services. May I ask my hon. Friend to direct special attention to the exceptional burden placed on medical services in the Medway area?

I have noted my hon. Friend's general comments. As for the E.N.T. side, may I point out that following the reopening of the ward—the temporary closure of which caused an increase in the waiting list—an extra 20 beds will be available over and above the four which were lost as a result of the closure.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue new regulations governing the use of corporal punishment in approved schools, particularly to prevent or restrict the repeated use of the maximum penalties where boys of low intellectual capacity repeatedly abscond.

No, Sir. The Approved School Rules already provide that no boy with any physical or mental disability shall be caned without the sanction of the school doctor.

May I first thank the Secretary of State for the correspondence I have had with his Department? May I ask him whether he would agree that it is barbaric that boys of very low intellectual capacity should be subjected to repeated use of severe or maximum corporal punishment as laid down by regulations? Would he not agree that this means that a boy of such low intellectual capacity will be driven to greater desperation and is therefore more likely to commit such offences as absconding?

It would certainly be barbaric to cane a boy who did not have the intelligence to know that what he had done was right or wrong. I am advised that this is no such case and I am confident to leave the judgment in this instance to the headmaster.

If the boy in this case is handicapped, as I understand him to be, is it not a deeply disquieting case? Moreover, is not the corporal punishment meted out to him inconsistent with an important recommendation in the Plowden Report? Would the right hon. Gentleman institute a full and searching inquiry into this case?

No. It is not right to bandy discussion about individual cases in the House. My evidence is that this boy is not handicapped, although he is intellectually below average. As for withdrawing the right of the headmaster to use corporal punishment when he thinks fit, I stand with the previous Gov ernment on leaving that power, at any rate for the moment, with the headmaster.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the higher cost of living in London and the widespread practice of employers, both in the public and private sectors, of paying a London allowance to their employees, he will institute an inquiry into the possibility of adding a London weighting to family allowances and all social security benefits.

No, Sir. Most benefits and allowances are paid at a flat rate without regard to individual means or commitments, so that a London weighting would not be appropriate. For those who are dependent on social security, the supplementary benefit scheme provides payments tailored to individual requirements, including actual housing costs.

Is it not utterly illogical that people who are in employment should be deemed to warrant a London allowance whereas the majority of those on social security benefits should not?

I do not think so. I do not think that there is a parallel with workers. In the contributory insurance system there is a contribution for a flat-rate benefit. It is when people need to be made up to the minimum income through supplementary benefit that actual housing cost, which is the biggest differential in the cost of living between different parts of the country, is paid.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is disinclined to agree with my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Is the Secretary of State aware that a London allowance would be grossly unfair to the development areas in Scotland because of the low wages and heavy unemployment there, and that any increase in family allowances should be across the board?

I am glad to welcome an ally.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to seek to amend the Human Tissue Act, 1961.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 229–30.]

Are the Government satisfied with the present state of the law?

We are not convinced that a change in the law would make an improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many dentists have left the National Health Service in the last 12 months.

In the 12 months to September, 1970, 690 general dental practitioners, including those retiring because of age and those who died, ceased practising in the general dental services in England and Wales. The total number of dentists working in the general dental services rose from 10,659 to 10,843.

How many dentists leaving the Health Service defected into the private sector, and has not the number been steadily increasing?

The figures we have available do not show that but include the very large number of dentists who retired on age grounds.

Will the hon. Gentleman examine the significant regional differences in the number of dentists who have left the Health Service, and will he tell the House how many have left the Health Service since the introduction of the increase in dental charges?

I will look at both questions which the hon. Lady has asked and write to her.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take steps to increase the war pension unemployability supplement with a view to ensuring that it provides reasonable compensation for the loss of a wage packet.

My right hon. Friend has already announced proposals for substantial improvements in the payments made to those war pensioners in receipt of unemployability supplement, which are to take effect in September this year.—[Vol. 814, c. 1499–1514.]

Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory answer, and that the position of war pensioners will hardly be improved by the net supplement which will amount to about £1·18p? Is it not time to make fewer bureaucratic excuses and to treat war pensioners as the heroes they are rather than as paupers?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says because, in addition to the increase in unemployability supplement, the war pension itself, and the special war pension allowances which many war pensioners receive, will be increased. Over and above that, those who are under pension age will be eligible for the new chronic sick package in the National Insurance Bill, on top of the war pension allowances, with the result that many will find their income lifted to over £30 a week, tax free.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that he should negotiate with his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that the war pension is not taken into account when calculating rent and rate rebates?

I assure my hon. Friend that the various views which have been expressed by war pensioners' organisations are known to my right hon. Friends, who will take them into account in the consideration which they are now giving to this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in which hospitals synthetic foods have been consumer-tested on hospital patients; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir of which I am aware.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance, but does he not think that his right hon. Friend should have shown more concern about the Press report that nutritional tests were being carried out on patients in hospital on behalf of private industry, at least to the extent of issuing a prompt denial?

My right hon. Friend has invited the Food Standard Committee, which advises my Department among others on the exercise of its powers under the Food and Drugs Act, to review the use of all unconventional proteins as food or as ingredients of food, and has asked interested parties to comment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to provide that in cases where a man has more than one source of earned income his entitlement to earnings related benefit shall be computed by reference to the income tax paid on his total earned income in the year previous, and not as at present by reference only to his income from one particular source.

Entitlement to earnings-related supplement is already calculated on an employed person's total earnings, within the statutory limits, from all his employments, provided that the earnings in question are earnings from which income tax under Schedule E is deductible through P.AY.E.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great misunderstaning about this matter and that the present arrangements act very much to the disadvantage of people with more than one regular job, particularly in the printing trade, which may involve an extra day's work or an extra night's work once or twice a week? Is he further aware that a High Court judge has described the present administrative arrangements as unjust and purely for administrative convenience? Will he look at this matter again?

I understand my hon. Friend's point but would point out that it is not feasible to take into account casual employment. Furthemore, earnings from casual employment do not qualify for graduated contributions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of people in London who are homeless, and sleep in parks, under railway arches, &c.; and what plans he has to provide more hostel accommodation for those people.

The last count, attempted in 1965, found 275 men and women sleeping rough in London. This number would now be a considerable underestimate. Reception facilities are being developed and the provision of hostels is under review.

I am grateful for that reply, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the past 10 years the number of common lodging houses in London has decreased by about 25 per cent. and that the number of people sleeping out is rising every year? Is it not time that he had a social conscience and did something about the situation by providing more hostel accommodation?

I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. This is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend's working party on homelessness is now dealing with single homeless persons and why we are doing our utmost to try to ensure that local authorities, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and voluntary bodies, who carry out such good work in this respect, are encouraged to respond to the greater need which exists.

I thank the Minister for his statement. Is he aware that this is a very serious problem indeed, and that the estimate he has given could be met within several hundred yards of this building? In addition to the ordinary homeless in London, there are a great number of people who come to London to try to find jobs and who not manage to find anywhere to live.

I accept that this is a growing problem, and this is the reason that my right hon. Friend's working party is looking at this matter at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to eliminate delay by local authorities in the adaptation of homes for renal dialysis treatment.

I would refer the hon. Lady to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 18th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 151-2.]

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the causes of the serious delays by local authorities in adapting homes is that there is no central financing of cost and that in each case a time-consuming means test has to be carried out?

Local authorities are autonomous bodies, but my right hon. Friend has sent a notice to local authorities suggesting improvements in the procedure for this sort of assessment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much temporary accommodation at the initial stage of reception is at the present time provided by county councils and county boroughs in England and Wales, respectively, for whole families, including fathers and elder children as well as exclusively for mothers and younger children; and

EXTRACT FROM RETURNS MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY OF HOMELESS FAMILIES LIVING IN TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION
Number of Families Living in Temporary Accommodation provided by County Councils and County Borough Councils in England at 31st December each year
	County Councils
	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970*
Families with man, woman and child or children
(a) in family accommodation†	307	489	606	723	745
(b) in communal accommodation	16	24	16	20	40
Total	323	513	622	743	785
Families with only woman and child or children
(a) in family accommodation†	147	174	188	209	252
(b) in communal accommodation	27	27	27	26	42
Total	174	201	215	235	294
Total of all families	497	714	837	978	1,079

Information in the precise form asked for is not available. I will however, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing separately the numbers of complete and incomplete families living in family accommodation and communal accommodation at the end of each of the last five years.

Will the Minister issue a circular to all local housing authorities reminding them of the powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission under Section 25 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, to insist on the provision of temporary accommodation for the homeless, and not merely provide the homeless with money to rent accommodation that is not available? Since the incidence of homelessness is rising so fast, will he use this provision as a means of pushing up the present unreasonably low level of temporary accommodation?

I will gladly look at those points, but I would again stress that my right hon. Friend's working party is looking at this whole area at present.

This is the first major debate on food and agriculture during the first year of the Administration of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I believe that it is important to assess the attitude of and the development of those policies by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister.

Perhaps I may add a personal note. I participated in almost every debate on agriculture from 1945 until I became a Minister. In the interim three years I have had a feeling of nostalgia about agriculture debates, and so it is a pleasure for me to participate in today's debate.

I must declare an interest, because I am a member of the Board of the F.M.C. That is an honourable thing to do. Most Conservative Ministers have a special interest because they are farmers, but today I make no complaint of that. We all know the position, but it is right that an hon. Member should declare his interest.

Today we are debating the whole food and agriculture policy of the Government. The Minister, with the full approval of his party, indicated during the election campaign that there would be a major policy change. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was very frank, not only during the election, but before it. At least he takes the matter seriously.

The history of our agricultural policy in the post-war period must be examined quickly before we examine carefully and critically the new policies which are now to affect this great industry, and not only the industry but the consumer and the nation generally.

The main event was the passing of the 1947 Agriculture Act. Many right hon. and hon. Members still in the House will recall the long discussions on that major Measure, for which there was broad approval. It was a charter for the industry. I shall not deal with the specific proposals of the Act, but it worked a revolution in the countryside, and many hon. Members will recall in detail Part I, which laid down the system of guaranteed prices and assured markets, and Section II, which laid down specifically that there should be an annual review and also a special review of conditions in the industry if needed. Another important provision, which we must recall as we discuss the problems of the industry today, is that which enabled producers to plan ahead. It was linked with assured markets and guaranteed prices.

Part V of the Act dealt with administration, with the setting up of county agricultural executive committees. A great partnership developed in the industry. That Act has not yet been amended to fulfil the policies of the present Administration. One purpose of that Measure was to enable the farming community, the N.F.U., the agricultural workers' union, and the landowners of agricultural land to play their part in a unique administrative set-up. I remember the discussions about the membership of the executive committees. There were to be three farmers' representatives, two from the agricultural workers' union, two from the C.L.A., the county landowners, and the provision for the Minister to appoint a certain number up to five.

For a quarter of a century successive Governments have pursued that policy, though the Act has been modified in places and, with the passage of time, the discipline sections have been dropped. The Conservative Administration's 1957 Act, although continuing the main principles of the 1947 Act, introduced limitations to the amount by which the Government could reduce the value of guarantees in any one year. I remember, too, the arguments about the introduction of deficiency payments.

Whatever faults there may have been in the set-up proposed by the 1947 Act brought in by the first post-war Labour Government and that distinguished Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams, there was general approval for the policies which flowed from that Measure. It is admired not only here but in many other countries.

So we must consider whether it is right for the industry and the consumer to change this system. When I was chairman of the Ministerial Committee of O.E.C.D., I met other Ministers in Europe and I remember how often they expressed their admiration for the present British system, which is now waiting to be butchered by the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When I say "butchered" I mean changed and destroyed. If hon. Members follow my argument, no doubt they will say that it is right to do this. Others would say that this policy will harm the industry and the nation in the long run. Even though the system has been admired, there is now to be a fundamental change which will have implications for the farming community and the whole nation and, above all, for the consumer. This debate is not just about the farming community. It is also about food supplies and the position of the consumer. There is this partnership in the community.

I believe that we can see an end to the system of guaranteed prices and the transfer of the cost of agricultural support from the Exchequer, the taxpayer, to the consumer. That has been announced. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite fought the election on it, and the country accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has a mandate, but that is not to say that the policies are not wrong. I am simply saying that right hon. Gentlemen said this and I am right to explain why this policy will have disastrous effects on the consumer in particular.

I have often warned the House about the dangers of this policy. I have said that the present Administration would drop the well-tried deficiency payments system and slap taxes on imported food. This is the meaning of the levy system which we are to debate on Thursday. The levy system of the E.E.C. means a tariff wall against suppliers from outside countries and I assume that that is the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I would argue that this will seriously affect the consumer interest, and, in the end, also the farmer, who will face a loss of security and stability. After all, a target price is no substitute for a guaranteed price. So it could well harm our traditional suppliers in large sections of the Commonwealth, like New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the underdeveloped countries.

Perhaps hon. Gentlemen are doing that because they want to phase our policy in with the common agricultural policy of the Community after terms have been announced. This is a strange way to negotiate. It would be a strange irony of history if we destroyed a system which had worked and replaced it with one which had not and then, at a later stage, helped to change the system which we had joined for the old system, which many people in Europe admire. We must consider carefully the ending of main production grants which have been so helpful to so many sections of our industry, like the hill farmers. The Minister has argued that British agriculture has been stagnant for a long time. That was his charge against the Labour Administration, which I reject.

Hon. Members will have read the recent O.E.C.D. Report which gives basic statistical comparisons for the 23 countries in the organisation for the year 1968. It shows that, in the United Kingdom, 3·1 per cent. of the population are engaged in agriculture, producing 3 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Our nearest competitors in this record are Belgium with 5·6 per cent. producing 5·4 per cent. of the g.n.p., and the Netherlands, with 7·9 per cent. producing 7 per cent. The other Common Market countries are way behind. For Germany, the figures are 10·2 per cent. producing 3·9 per cent., France, 15·8 per cent. producing 6·6 per cent., and Italy, 22·5 per cent. producing 11·1 per cent.

So we compare very well with most countries with whom we deal. This is a tribute to our industry and our farmers and also, despite all the criticisms of the system, a tribute to the policies of the system and the administrative structure which has operated under the basic 1947 Act.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was using his example to illustrate a trend, but all he did was quote one absolute statistic from 1968 in relation to other countries. This gives no indication of whether the industry was doing well or badly under his Administration.

I was trying to show that this trend in the post-war period, through security of assured markets and guaranteed prices and the system of annual reviews has enabled the industry to develop considerably. Technically, we lead the countries that I mentioned, and precisely due to this system.

Turning to the National Agricultural Advisory Service, I would say that our technicians who have been trained in our agricultural faculties, played their part in the N.A.A.S. This is very important and I am worried about the ending of a system which has worked so well. The Minister has proposed major changes in the Ministry. The N.A.A.S. is to be altered. It is to be given a new name.

I believe that the morale of the N.A.A.S. or the new organisation, the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, has been affected. John Charrington in the Financial Times wrote recently:

"The morale of the present members of the N.A.A.S., particularly in the field of agricultural research, is abysmal at the moment. They fear that redundancy will affect between 25 and 30 per cent., instead of 5 or 10 per cent."

The Minister will no doubt argue the case for his changes and his White Paper, but I would argue that the N.A.A.S. is valuable to the Community. I know that there are people running around the Treasury who wish to destroy the N.A.A.S. I resisted that and I hope that the Minister will continue to do so, although he has made changes. The N.A.A.S. has given tremendous service to the individual farmer and has been admired in many parts of the world.

I hope that the bodies which I set up in my Bill and which are important to the future development of agriculture—these policies were pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes)—for example, the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, will continue, and that there will be no attempt to end a policy which I believe is working.

Again, the Minister has shown his spite over one major development—the Rural Development Board, which has been debated previously. I cannot understand his attitude. It was an organisation accepted not only by the local farmers but by the local land owners, and even in that area, which is part of the area from which I come, by political opinion in sympathy with the present Government. I cannot understand why the Minister has attacked such a Board.

The National Farmers' Union issued a major statement on the matter in May of last year, saying:

"The National Farmers' Union regrets the Government's decision to terminate the work of the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board and believes the decision to have been a mistaken one."

The statement goes on to argue, as we all did when we created the Board, that the problem of the hill areas is acute and that there could be depopulation of those areas through the unprofitability of hill farming. Hon. Members from both sides who come from the area—and the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary knows this to be true—know that the Board was achieving some success. It did not have time to complete its full work. It was only beginning, but it was developing and creating confidence. The words of the N.F.U. should be borne in mind. It said:

"It was against this background"—

the background of the problems of the hill and upland areas—

"that the imaginative step was taken of establishing a Northern Pennines Rural Development Board, charged with the task of reconciling the interests of forestry, tourism, amenity and agriculture."

I am sorry that the Minister has adopted an ideological attitude. In the White Paper he talks about the Government's philosophy. It is the same as the Government's attitude in industry, the lame duck philosophy. I believe that the Boards are needed even if we wish to go into Europe and to compete in the Common Market, because it is right to have an effective regional policy for agriculture. Here was the first attempt to create in some of our problem areas statutory bodies which would achieve success. The tragedy about the ending of the one in the North is that it was backed up by the local farming community and the local land owners.

We do not want it in the West.

We wanted it in the North, and that is what I am talking about. I believe that when they come to realise what has happened the vast majority of people will regard the decision as a petty and spiteful decision by a Minister wedded to dogma.

There is also to be the ending of all the voluntary bodies that have been listed. I need not go into detail about them. They were organisations in which farmers and land owners in different parts of the country played their part. Just for a small financial gain, they had to go. There has been a major destruction of the county committees, a dreadful step backwards. Those committees have worked well and provided leadership in areas where it is needed.

The Government have pursued a doctrinal party policy towards the needs of agriculture.

Ask the farmers.

I am prepared to go with the hon. Gentleman to the South-West or to any National Farmers' Union meeting and argue with the farmers about what has been done in the name of the Conservative Party. I hope that he will invite me, and I will invite him to talk to the Cumberland farmers as well.

We are dealing not with the farming community, although it is important, but with a system which will increase prices for the consumer. We all know the arguments about the Prime Minister's "at a stroke" speech. We have seen the political gaffe of the Minister of Agriculture, his facetious remark on the radio that we should not take seriously the Prime Minister's statement that the Conservatives could cut the prices of food to the consumer at a stroke. Why should he cut them? The right hon. Gentleman does not believe in lowering prices. He has always believed that he should increase them. That is the whole purpose of the levy system, and that is precisely what will happen. If we have a levy system it will in the end mean a tax on food, and it will harm traditional suppliers who have supplied foodstuffs to this country for many years. People forget that countries like New Zealand will be harmed by the change. I am not arguing about the Common Market now. I am talking about the Tories' levy policy. In the end traditional suppliers who helped us in time of need, suppliers like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, will be harmed and the consumer will suffer.

I have quoted on a previous occasion a remark the Minister made when he was in opposition and when I was Minister. He played a very active part in opposition, because he feels very much for the industry. I criticise his policy and what he is doing, but I recognise that he has a deep interest in the industry. He has grown up with it. He said:

"The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industries. If we did that we would get competition working in both industries and the nation would get better value because the nation has been mollycoddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]

That is the right hon. Gentleman's approach, and he will say it again. How could he argue that his Government could reduce prices when he believed that as soon as he was the responsible Minister he would introduce a policy which would raise prices? That is what will happen, and hon. Members know it. That is what the ending of the present system and throwing the burden on to the consumer means.

Moreover, the change will harm many people who now face great difficulties. I think of old-age pensioners and those on fixed incomes.

Did not prices rise under the Labour Government? Did they stay stable under them?

We are not arguing that. The Minister said that they were too low and that he wanted high prices. I can remember what often used to happen when I introduced my Price Reviews. Conservative hon. Members said that I should give more and put more burdens on the consumer. I got into great difficulties. I hope that the hon. Lady will try to understand what a levy system means, as opposed to a deficiency payments system which we have operated for a long period.

The consumers will be affected. Already there is deep, bitter feeling about the matter in the countryside, and those constituencies where there is a fair proportion of agriculture, like Bromsgrove—

rose—

The hon. Gentleman must wait. He knows the position, as a former junior Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He knows that that is what a levy system means. The Minister of Agriculture is honest about the matter, because he believes in high prices. Therefore, when the Prime Minister said that he would lower prices at a stroke, he knew that his own Minister could not do so.

rose—

rose—

I have given way many times. I believe that hon. Members can make their case.

rose—

I will give way to one hon. Member who I know knows a little about the industry.

The right hon. Gentleman is adopting an attitude of being fair. He has quoted words used by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. If he wants to be fair, why does not he make the quotation complete? My right hon. Friend made it clear that any extra money that might result from the levy would be given back in the form of reduced taxation. That is what the Government have done. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell the whole story?

I believe that the main argument I put forward is valid, that the Prime Minister made speeches about reducing prices—[Interruption.] The record is there. Everyone in the country believes it. I am saying that the right hon. Gentleman believes in high prices to consumers.

Not only that, but the Government have also destroyed bodies which affect the consumer. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) wants to make a speech, he should make it standing up. The Consumer Council was abolished. That was a tragedy. The early warning and constant watch procedures have gone. The measure on school meals and milk will inevitably affect milk supplies in the long run. The Milk Marketing Board has made a major statement on this matter. There is no denying that it could have serious effects upon sections of the industry and small dairy farmers in parts of the country represented by many hon. Members present. It is a petty little measure which in the end will harm not only schoolchildren but also sections of the industry.

I should like the Minister to come clean on the value-added tax. There is still uncertainty about it. My Co-op friends, and Members of Parliament of that distinguished group, have made representations to the Chancellor on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) sent a letter to the Treasury seeking undertakings that food would get relief by a certain measure of exemption if right hon. and hon. Members opposite brought in a value-added tax system, and he has had a reply from the Minister of State.

Despite what has been said by the Chancellor, will the Minister make an unqualified statement that value-added tax will not affect the food of the British people? This is an important matter. I want an answer. So far we have had only equivocation. I want the Minister to give a categorical statement.

We can argue further about the policies operated by the Government. They are policies which will create insecurity in the farming community in the long run, as even farming leaders are now saying publicly. I have copies of their speeches on this very matter. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) represents a farming community and knows that this is true. These views have been expressed at meetings of the National Farmers' Union, and time and again farming leaders have said that there is now a measure of uncertainty not only because of the possibility of our entry into the E.E.C. but also because of the change of that system which, I believe, has worked so well for nearly a quarter of a century.

There is, too, tremendous opposition from the general public to a policy which is adversely affecting the price people will have to pay for food. If the Minister continues in the way that he is, he will one day be regarded as the Minister for mince and margarine, because that is the logic of his policy. We reject it. We said so at the last election. I quote our manifesto:

"Unlike the Conservatives, a Labour Government will not be prepared to pay part of the price of entry …"

—that is, into the E.E.C.—

"… in advance of entry, and irrespective of entry by accepting the policies, on which the Conservative Party are insisting, for levies on food prices, the scrapping of our food subsidies and the introduction of the Value-Added Tax."

It is for that reason that we censure the Government today.

I start by welcoming the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) back to our agricultural debates after an absence of a year or two. He played a distinguished part in our debates, both when he was previously in Opposition and when he was Minister, and the whole House always enjoys his speeches. I will pick up a great many of his points as I go along, but any that I do not cover will be covered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith). I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for stepping into the breach at short notice in the unfortunate absence through illness of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that he bitterly regrets being unable to take part in the debate, because for many years he has had a deep interest in agriculture, and he has been performing his job as Parliamentary Secretary with great distinction and great courtesy to all Members of the House.

I start by dealing with food problems and the problems of rising prices. Perhaps towards the end of my speech I can come on to the agricultural implications. Food prices, rises in those prices and inflation strike hard at all sectors of the community. They are of the gravest concern to everyone. Inflation undermines confidence, discourages savings and leads to very serious worries for all families and for housewives with limited shopping money. I am certain that this is a subject upon which the House should carefully deliberate and I am glad that we have this opportunity today.

I should like to try to analyse what is causing this rapid increase in prices and what we are trying to do about it. First, let us look at our food manufacturing and distributing industries. Are they doing all that they can to contain price rises? Are they efficient? I believe that they are, and I hope that hon. Members opposite share my view. They ought to, because the terms of the recent reports produced by the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the food industry certainly made it clear that the industry is not only operating efficiently but is serving the consumer well in the quality, safety and variety of food that it is providing.

If the manufacturing and distributing industries are not at fault, what then is the cause of increased prices? There can be no doubt that there are two major causes: cost inflation and rising world prices. I shall deal with these two points, but before doing so I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about "at a stroke" and my remarks in 1966 about food prices.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, when he talks about "reducing prices at a stroke", this is a complete misrepresentation of what my right hon. Friend said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We never promised to reduce prices at a stroke. Indeed, in our manifesto we emphasised that

"The Labour Government's policies have unleashed forces which no government could hope to reverse overnight."

What we did say was that the policies outlined in our statement of the 16th June

"… would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices."

That is the quotation.

What happened?

One of the ways of achieving this, as we went on to say, was a reduction in S.E.T. On 5th July S.E.T. will be halved. Many shops have already cut some of their prices. Others will follow suit. It will prevent rises in other cases. It has reduced the rise in prices. Incidentally, it was the first tax cut affecting prices since 1962. We never told housewives that we would reduce prices. What we did say—

Just read what it says in the statement.

was that we would reduce the rise in prices. The record of pledges that we have fulfilled in our first year of office is an outstanding one. Hon. Members should know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister keeps his word. [Laughter.] They are much more worried about that than they are about anything else. The Opposition display it. They are a little nervous.

We are told by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that it was this statement that won us the election. This statement was issued on 16th June. From all the noise this afternoon and over the past few months it might be thought that it would have made banner headlines on 17th June. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] That is very interesting indeed, because I have just refreshed my memory on this. Three of the nine national daily newspapers—the heavies: The Times and the Financial Times, and the Daily Mail—carried the quote—

"Reduce the rise in prices."

In The Times it is carried in precisely three lines on an inside page alongside a very large headline relating to the Prime Minister of the day saying—

"Tories seek price rises—Wilson."

In five papers—the Sun, the Sketch, the Daily Express, the Guardian, and the Daily Mirror—there was no reference whatsoever to this statement. The Telegraph mentioned it but did not put in anything about strokes. The Yorkshire Post used

"Reduce the rise in prices".

The Glasgow Herald made no reference to it.

This statement has been misrepresented, taken out of context, and taken out of time. It is a typical statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—by yesterday's men who did not read yesterday's papers on 18th June.

The Minister is a sophisticated politician. He believes what he is saying, but does he not under-estimate the impact of television upon the public? The housewife saw all this on the television news in addition to seeing it in the newspapers.

The hon. Gentleman and his Friends cannot escape from the fact that they tried to blow this up after the election and have now at last been nailed upon it; and they know it.

We were faced with a very serious inflationary problem with wage increases totally out of control. Once the Industrial Relations Bill had been abandoned as a result of union pressure, the unions knew that the Government could not stand against them. The flood gates were open. Wage increases of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. started to appear, and by the election double-figure increases were the rule rather than the exception.

This is why we had an election in June. It was the first time this century we had an election in June. It took the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) to let the cat out of the bag. He did it in his usual disarming manner. He said this in a broadcast in April of this year:

"The main fact is that we won the 1966 election by choosing the moment of wage inflation before prices had really been felt to rise, and obviously we were seeking to do it again in this election in 1970."

That was the real cat out of the bag. The country was set on an inflationary course from which we have been suffering ever since. This was directly contrary to the Labour Government's considered judgment. Their White Paper—Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy after 1969; Cmnd. 4237—said this:

"If we want price stability, then we cannot all have large increases in pay every year regardless of productivity."

How true this is, but how quickly hon. Members opposite and their friends in the unions seem to have forgotten it.

Wage increases unrelated to productivity do nobody any lasting good, and they can do very real harm to our longer-term economic position if as a result we price ourselves out of the world markets. It is a situation where the weaker lose—the lower-paid workers and those on small fixed incomes, including pensioners. In the same White Paper the Labour Government said this:

"If we want to improve the position of those who are worse off, the rest of us must be prepared to accept a little less ourselves."

What the Minister says about price increases is very interesting, but which party was it that lathered itself into a fury over the question of doubling the increase for the doctors?

It was the right hon. Member for Coventry, East who kept saying that we were in a financially difficult position at a time when the rest of the Government were saying that everything was plain sailing.

Food manufacturers and distributors have been faced with very heavily increased costs, not only in their own wage bills, but in the cost of virtually everything they buy. They have been forced into price increases.

A serious new factor has been gathering momentum. A significant proportion, perhaps between one-third and one-half, of increased costs is due to rises in the world prices of materials which we have to buy from overseas. For these materials the price we have to pay is outside our control and is determined by supply and demand. For many of them world market conditions have been such that prices have risen and have led to increases in retail prices in this country.

Perhaps the most notable example of this is butter. Little more than a year ago—indeed, even in a debate in January of this year—hon. Members were talking about mountains of butter in the Common Market countries and the problem of butter surpluses. Yet now there is a shortage. The measures adopted by the E.E.C. countries to deal with their surpluses, coupled with the effects of drought in the Southern Hemisphere, have transformed the position and there is, as I have said, now a world shortage of butter. The wholesale price of New Zealand butter has, for instance, risen from £300 to £460 a ton—an increase of over 50 per cent.—in just under a year since last June and retail prices have inevitably followed suit.

Nor is this all. There are many other examples. There was the poor harvest in the United States and the onset of blight in the grain crops there last summer which raised grain prices to nearly record levels. This, in turn, has increased the cost of producing bread and many other articles. It also led to a sharp increase in the cost of animal feeding stuffs, which are by far the largest element in the cost of producing poultry and eggs.

The Minister is advancing the reasons for price' increases. His colleagues are always arguing that price increases are due to the rise in workers' wages.

I just made that point, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not listening. I made it plain that 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the increase is due to raw material costs and that the balance is due directly to wage and cost inflation.

For some commodities hon. Gentlemen opposite must share some of the blame. For example, putting up the guaranteed price for milk in the Price Review of 1970 resulted in the increase in the price of milk last year. The price of home-produced beef, veal and lamb would not be so high if supplies were greater—