asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce the outcome of the Government's current consideration of the proposal of the Donovan Commission to allow unemployment benefit to workers laid off by reason of a trade dispute at their place of employment, but who were neither participating in nor directly interested in the dispute.

I have no statement to make at present.

Would the Secretary of State confirm that it is now virtually the universal view that this rule ought to be changed, and that if the Government persist in this out-dated rule they are only really doing so to effect the strike situation by trying to put pressure on strikers through the hardship on non-strikers' families? Is not that a pretty unworthy way of conducting an industrial relations policy?

I undertook, in Standing Committee, to consider discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment later in the year, and that undertaking, of course, stands.

The right hon. Gentleman showed a great unease about this in Committee and, indeed, on Second Reading, because he knows that what was already a rather unfair provision has now become doubly unfair because of the Government's proposed legislation in this field. I wonder whether he would treat this with some urgency, since the Act will come into force in the immediate future.

I think the hon. Lady is doing me an injustice in using the word "unease". I freely and voluntarily agreed that there were strong arguments on both sides of this case. I think "unease" is unfair.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is aware that when unemployment pay is disallowed because an employee has left employment of his own accord or because of misconduct, he can receive more in social security benefit than he would have received in unemployment benefit; and if he will take steps to remedy the situation.

Anyone who becomes unemployed, whatever the reason, is entitled to supplementary benefit to bring his income up to his requirements as defined in the 1966 Act. If he is not paid unemployment benefit for the reasons given, he is paid less for up to six weeks than the normal amount of his supplementary benefit requirements. The difference now is 75p. After the Social Security Bill has become law, the maximum difference will be £2·30 a week or £13·80 for the full six weeks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain instances people who are on social security can receive as much as £2 more if they have lost unemployment as a result of misconduct?

It is a difficult question to debate in this way, but I am simply assuring my hon. Friend that someone who loses unemployment benefit for the reason he has instanced suffers a penalty, which is being increased under the Social Security Bill, in supplementary benefit for up to six weeks.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in an area such as Norfolk, which I visited politically the other day, it is brought to one's notice from all quarters that the problem is that it is a low-wage area? It was put to me frankly by my friends there that people in authority seemed more interested in cows than people.

The East Anglian claim for F.I.S. is at about the same level as in other mainly agricultural areas. I believe that the F.I.S. will help many people working on farms.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider amending the requirement under the Family Income Supplement Scheme that the beneficiary must be in full-time employment when such beneficiary is a widowed or divorced woman.

I am keeping a close watch on the progress and effectiveness of the scheme particularly as it affects women who are bringing up children on their own. I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be anxious that this unique scheme should have the maximum effect, and I would like to suggest to him that a number of the women described in the Question are debarred for no better reason than that they go out to work for only a limited period whereby to look after their children. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in a future review that these people should be allowed as categories included in any extension of the scheme?

I will certainly bear that point in mind. The House may like to know that about 25 per cent. of the awards so far given are to single-parent families.

Has the close watch revealed, since the last time we had Questions to the Secretary of State, why so many families should not be claiming?

I think there are Questions on the Order Paper to which the answer would be more appropriately given on that subject.

Since there seems to be considerable confusion both in this House and outside as to what constitutes full-time employment under the terms of the Act, could the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what full-time employment is under the terms of the Act?

Under the Regulations under the Act, 30 hours per week.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has to increase the number of successful applications for family income supplement.

The publicity campaign is continuing. The number of successful applications is continuing to increase.

Is the Minister aware that the figure of 20,000 successful applicants divided into the number of constituencies represents about 32 apiece, in my case two in each parish, and they take some finding? Does he also realise that an average payment of £2 per week per person comes to about £2 million instead of the £8 million which he was bragging about this time last year? What will he do about this, apart from paying the cost of television advertising?

I do not think that I have bragged about anything connected with this scheme. It will put much-needed money into the households of the very poorest wage earners. It will take time to acquaint the under 1 per cent. of the working population involved of their rights, and the Government have just embarked on the second stage of advertising for that purpose.

Mr. Allaun.

How much is Mrs. Proops paid?

With permission, Mr. Speaker, since that question seeks to impugn an individual, I must say that Mrs. Proops had every right to ask for a fee for her advertising, but she voluntarily forwent a fee and is doing the service for nothing.

Withdraw !

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am being asked to withdraw. I made an interjection and asked how much, but the Minister did not say how much the fee was.

Order. This just shows the trouble the House gets into from sedentary interruptions.

Coming to more informed matters, why has only one in four of the 160,000 applications expected actually been made, whether successful or not? Does not this indicate that the flaw in this and similar schemes of the Government is that they are based on the assumption that there are large numbers of people ready to hold out their hands for anything? This just is not true. There are many poor people who are too proud to do this, and that is the weakness in all these Government schemes.

I do not think that conclusion can be drawn; 50,000 people have already applied, about half of whom have been allotted awards. Until today no payments have been made. Until last week no advertising was done by television. We shall need several months—and it may be perhaps well into next year—before we can judge how successful this scheme is in reaching those for whom it is intended. So far I am not discouraged by the response.

Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the possibility that the Inland Revenue department might automatically provide the names of people eligible for this supplement?

I think that raises very dangerous possibilities that my hon Friend might not wish to pursue. Perhaps my hon. Friend might wish to pursue this, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House might not support him in that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now give his latest estimate of the number of families who will be entitled to benefit from the Family Income Supplement Scheme.

The number given on Second Reading was nearly 190,000; this may be on the high side.

Would it not be helpful if hon. Members opposite, instead of denigrating a novel scheme which the previous Government did not manage to introduce, were to take every opportunity in their many speeches during the recess to publicise the scheme among their constituents?

Yes, certainly, and I am sure that hon. Members in their surgeries are drawing attention to these benefits.

Of course we are, but we think the scheme is a bad one. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on Second Reading of the Family Income Supplements Bill he said:

"The finances presume that we shall have an 85 per cent. take-up. I will do my best to do that, and better ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 227.]

I shall certainly draw the lessons that can be sensibly drawn from our experience over the next months and year. It was my duty to give Parliament the best estimate I could of the likely cost, and I had to base that on an estimate and an aim as to the take-up. That is where the figures come from.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest number of applicants for family income supplement; how many have been accepted and how many rejected; and what is the average award.

ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for successful applications for the family income supplement, and of this total, how many have been awarded a grant of £4 per week.

Up to 27th July 56,229 claims for family income supplement had been received; of the decisions so far given 23,152 were favourable and 23,301 unfavourable. In addition, over 20,000 families on supplementary benefit but wage-stopped will benefit automatically when the F.I.S. Scheme starts. As regards the average award, I have no figure later than that which I gave in my reply to the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 13th July. At that time we estimated that about 8 per cent. of awards are in the range £3·60 to £4 a week.—[Vol. 821, c. 191–4.]

In view of the derisory results of this scheme—[An HON. MEMBER: "Derisory?"]—yes, because the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he was not satisfied with the results up to date—will the right hon. Gentleman now give an assurance, which he did not give to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), that if in 12 months' time the results do not come up to the estimate which he made on Second Reading, he will undertake to have another look at the desirability of returning to the election pledge and solve this problem by family allowances—including, we hope, family allowances for the first child?

I should be very reluctant to commit myself to withdraw the benefit from families with only one child, which is what that would involve. I cannot believe that an increased income as from this week to some 43,000 families, as a result of one phase of advertising occurring before any payment had ever been made, is so discouraging. I believe that 43,000 households from this week will be very glad that this scheme has been introduced.

Will the Secretary of State not acknowledge that this miserable figure of 11 per cent. take-up means that the Government's whole anti-poverty strategy is stillborn? Will he note for future policy-making the stark contrast between the 100 per cent. take-up of his over-80 pensions, because people take those benefits as of right, and the wretched 11 per cent. take-up of family income supplement?

The hon. Member is not quite right. Part of the over-80 benefit had to be applied for, and the high take-up was the result of a quite large advertising campaign. I should not like the hon. Gentleman's wrong calculation to get on record. So far 23 per cent. of the estimated number entitled are from this week receiving benefit.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the best advertising agent he could employ is likely to be the man who from this week will receive the extra money?

Yes, and that is why the latest advertising campaign emphasises those who are already in receipt of it. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House should not under-estimate that for the first time an effective step is being taken to relieve those on the wage-stop.

Has any pilot study been undertaken in any area of the country to discover the reasons why people are not taking up benefit?

One is to be undertaken in September.

Where?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer at the moment. I am taking advice about a thoroughly typical area.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government identify an area of want, provide the resources to help the people in it and give the matter the maximum publicity, there is very little more they can do? Will he resist a request from the other side to plaster the whole area with money, which will only mean that those in real need will not get enough?

I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend is right. These families by hypothesis are people in work, despite the fact that the benefits for being out of work are higher than their household income. They are very good people, but they need education by advertising and personal help on how to obtain what is now their right.

If that scheme does not reach those intended, it is a bad scheme and should be withdrawn? We have asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider in six months' or a year's time what the take-up then is and whether he will be honest enough, if that take-up is below the majority, to withdraw the scheme and admit he is wrong?

I am as anxious as the hon. Lady to get the money into the hands that need it. Obviously, if it fails to reach the majority of those entitled to it, the Government will have to find better methods of helping those people. I doubt whether it will mean withdrawing the scheme, but may mean refining it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Registrar General supplies the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority with his quarterly returns of population statistics.

Yes, Sir.

As knowledge of how much its population may be increasing is about the most important thing that a nation can know about itself, will my right hon. Friend take every step that he can to see that this knowledge is made widely and regularly known to our people?

I do not think that that arises directly from the Question. The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. do not come within my field. They are, in so far as they are anybody's responsibility, within that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will announce the proposed catchment area for the new hospital at Redditch; and the date when the new hospital will be started.

The new hospital is being planned to serve Redditch and Bromsgrove urban districts, most of Bromsgrove rural district about half of Alcester rural district and a small part of Droitwich rural district. Detailed planning has been commenced by the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board but it is too soon yet to say when construction will start.

Has the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board decided on a date for starting to build this hospital? If the board has not decided on a date, will the Minister tell us when he expects it to do so? If the board has decided on a date, even tentatively, will he explain why this information cannot be given to us in the House of Commons and to the people of Redditch?

The regional hospital board fixes dates tentatively some years ahead for planning purposes, but it is not the custom to publish dates more than a year in advance in case for some reason there is a slippage.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Children's Regional Planning Committee for the North-West will be paying special attention to the deteriorating position regarding remand home vacancies for girls and boys in the region; and when he expects to receive the committee's proposals for improving this situation.

The regional planning committee consists of representatives of local authorities, with which the responsibility for the provision of remand facilities rests. The committee is required to include provision for such facilities in the regional plan it is at present preparing, and will be reviewing its needs accordingly. Its plan is due to be submitted to my right hon. Friend by the end of the year.

While the position regarding vacancies for both boys and girls remains unsatisfactory, is my hon. Friend aware that the difficulties of the non-providing authorities in the North-West in securing vacancies for boys have got much worse since the beginning of this year, when part of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1969, came into effect? Will he undertake to consider the report urgently with the Home Office when it is received?

My hon. Friend will know that half the advantage of these new regional plans is that they will, we hope, show up local shortages where they exist. If we felt that the plans put forward were not adequate, my right hon. Friend would send them back for further consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now in a position to make a statement on the provision of maternity facilities in the Liskeard district.

Maternity facilities for the Liskeard district are provided by the local health authority, general practitioners and the regional hospital board. Facilities for hospital confinement are provided at Plymouth, Launceston, Tavistock and St. Austell. I have decided that the Trebarras Maternity Home should be permanently closed. The regional hospital board has considered the provision of alternative facilities in Liskeard, but has concluded that it is impracticable to provide them. I am writing to my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that his announcement today will bring great disappointment to the growing population of the Liskeard catchment area since during the three years in which Trebarras has been closed people have had to travel considerable distances to the alternative hospitals which the Minister has announced? I hope he will reconsider his decision, especially as there appears to be an alternative scheme in conjunction with the local practitioner hospital.

The local general practitioner scheme to which my hon. Friend referred has not, I am afraid, proved practicable, because it would involve the taking on of three domiciliary nurses for a total number of deliveries of no more than two or three a week. It is simply uneconomic to provide a comprehensive service locally for so few deliveries.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the procedures attending the sale of Keresley Hospital; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir; and I have written again today to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield).

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I am most grateful that he feels he has to write to me yet again? Will he accept that this hospital ought to have been put on sale with at least outline planning permission for possible hotel development, particularly when local planning officers had already indicated this would be the case? Would he accept that the hotelier in question got a very cheap bargain and that the hon. Gentleman's Department, through its own negligence, got a very bad one?

I shall always write to the hon. Gentleman when he writes to me. So far as the bad bargain is concerned, a reserve price was set by the district valuer at the auction, and that price took into account the possibility of the development of the building as a hotel.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to improve services available to the aged sick who are not in hospital.

We are currently holding a series of regional conferences specifically to encourage local health authorities to continue developing their services, including services for the elderly, in the period before reorganisation of the National Health Service.

I appreciate that reply, but, in view of the general lack of information about old people, the different kinds of welfare, domiciliary care and sheltered housing facilities, would the hon. Gentleman institute a special inquiry into the circumstances of old people, on the same lines as the inquiry which has just been undertaken into the problems of disabled people?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, which gives local authorities specific powers to make arrangements for the welfare of the elderly, was brought into force on 1st April. In connection with this we are issuing a circular which advocate comprehensive experiments in limited areas in the first instance, and many authorities will no doubt conduct surveys in such areas covering all elderly people.

Although his reply is quite satisfactory, is the Minister aware that in a written reply to me he said that he considered it adequate nursing care to leave a totally paralysed woman of nearly 70 lying in her own bed for six days attended only by a district nurse and unattended for some 16 hours during the day? Would my hon. Friend like one of his own constituents, or one of his own family, to be treated in this way?

I had hoped that the extremely encouraging and conciliatory letter I sent my hon. Friend today would have pre-empted that rather sharp supplementary question. I do not believe the lady in question has suffered to the extent he has suggested.

I do.

Is the hon. Gentle man aware that, although there have been some excellent achievements, progress in implementing the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, in the localities is still decidedly uneven? What does he now propose to do to ensure the full and humane implementation of the Act as it affects the elderly and home-bound sick? In what terms and with what guidance to local authorities will Section 1 of the Act be implemented in October this year?

I cannot comment about the alleged unevenness, although this is a risk inherent in the delegation of powers to local authorities. My right hon. Friend intends shortly to give guidance to local authorities on carrying out their duties under Section 1, which will come into force on 1 st October, and on development of services under Section 2.

Would the Minister agree that every aged person who wishes to remain at home ought to be allowed to do so provided he can get the basic services? Having regard to the economic aspects, surely every pound spent on giving help which will keep a person out of hospital in the long run will save money.

I take the point. Local authorities possess adequate powers to supply all the required services to people in their homes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters his Department has received on the increase in state pensions, which is to take place in September.

This information is not available.

In spite of the fact that the information is not available, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the deep concern which many retired people are expressing about the continued fall in their living standards. Unfortunately, because of the continual rise in the cost of living, with more in the pipeline, the pension increase next September will do very little to improve their situation. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman give a pledge to retired people that early in the New Year there will be a full review by the Department of the real value of the pension which people are then in receipt of?

The hon. Gentleman is being far too pessimistic. The increase in the pension of £1 is the largest increase ever. It will more than restore the purchasing power of the pension. No fewer than 10 million people will benefit next month to the tune of an additional £600 million.

rose—

Order. The Question related to the number of letters received and the answer was, "None". I think I was in error in calling the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Cox) for a supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what developments there have been in hospital casualty departments in the present year compared with previous years in terms of the number of casualty departments functioning and the number of staff employed in them; and whether he is satisfied with the equipment and resources now available for those in need.

We do not have information on which to base a detailed comparison of this kind, but my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the need for improvement both in premises and in staffing. Hospital boards have been asked to aim at faster progress in improving accident and emergency services, and my Department is discussing medical staffing problems with the profession.

The answer indicates a proper awareness that there is a serious problem here. In order to bring about some correction and to give added urgency to the improvements of which the hon. Gentleman has indicated the need, would it not be desirable to have some more facts? If that information were to disclose that the situation of the treatment of casualties is getting worse, that there are long delays between people having an accident and receiving treatment, would not this be a good reason to look into the matter with even greater urgency than the hon. Gentleman has indicated?

We are looking into the matter with great urgency. The switch in emphasis towards well-equipped and highly-developed central accident and emergency centres often means that, although delay may arise, more people are dealt with more satisfactorily and fully in those centres.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average amount paid to principals in general medical practice in respect of ancillary assistance provided by general practitioners in each year since such payments began; and what he expects it to be in 1971.

As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I shall read the figures with great anticipation. As these payments are intended for practitioners to supply and be able to employ assistants in order to give their patients better services, will the hon. Gentleman encourage the grouping together of doctors so that they can increase the services which they provide for patients? What steps is he taking to encourage group practice and to further the building of health centres for this purpose?

The hon. Gentleman is right in pinpointing the question of health centres as one of the most important factors. Substantially increased expenditure, as he knows, is forecast for their development over the next few years. This is only one of the aspects of encouragement that we are giving to the development of group practices, the number of which is growing steadily.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he is making in the establishment of detoxification units; and whether he will make a statement.

We hope to arrange for two or three experimental centres to be set up as part of the hospital service. Hospital boards have been invited to put forward proposals. So far, four proposals have been received and are being considered by my Department.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, I want to stress the urgency of this situation. Does he not agree that such treatment units could make a considerable contribution in tackling the problem of drunken offenders? Would it not as well take the burden off the prisons which at the moment have to deal with them?

I take the point, but we are bound to hasten slowly in this because the establishment of a de-toxification centre requires considerable planning locally, including the provision of hostels and other associated services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his most recent estimate of the current take-up of entitlement to welfare foods and milk.

The number of persons in England entitled to free welfare milk and vitamins, apart from those in receipt of supplementary benefit, was increased under the Welfare Food Order. 1971, from an estimated 327,000 to an estimated 420,000. About 230,000 persons receiving supplementary benefit also have an entitlement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these figures are very satisfactory but that he must continue his publicity efforts and even increase them, as nourishment obtained in these early years is among the factors which determine the future stature and health of the adult? Although one is pleased by the present take-up, will he continue his publicity efforts so that the number still further increases?

We want to raise the proportion, but I remind my hon. Friend that all those on the family income supplement with children below school age will be entitled, and their number will have to be added to the figures I have just given him.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent esimate he has made of the proportion of those eligible for exemption from prescription charges who have applied for it.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to people other than the approximately 23 million people covered by the wide automatic exemptions for children under 15; people aged 65 and over; people receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement; patients suffering from specified medical conditions; expectant and nursing mothers; and war pensioners for their accepted disablements. The number of exemption certificates issued in Great Britain in the 13 weeks ended 22nd June, 1971, to people who applied for them—[HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."]—I apologise for the length of the reply, but the Question requires a full answer and it cannot be given quickly—on grounds of income was about 44,000, more than 10 times as many as during the preceeding three months. No reliable estimate can be made of the number of people who, during any period, both need prescriptions and are eligible for exemptions on income grounds.

Does my right hon. Friend agree—I am sure that he does—that it is a difficult estimate to make, in view of all the difficulties which his Department seems to have, which is understandable, in finding all the people whom we are anxious to help? Would it not be rather a good idea to ask the Prime Minister's think tank—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sink tank!"]—which probably has much more time than my right hon. Friend, to look into the matter of estimating and finding those who are in need, because we certainly want to help them far more than all those odd people sitting opposite?

I take all my hon. Friend's suggestions very seriously indeed. But we are here faced with the problem which the Labour Government had, of trying to get into the hands of minorities the help which hon. Members on both sides of the House want to get to them. This is a question of persisting in our efforts.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has now repented for the sin of his plans for the infamous cost-related prescription charge scheme, that those plans have now been permanently abandoned, and that he will not attempt to replace them by an increase in the basic prescription charge?

That does not arise immediately from the Question. I am still considering the outcome of the rational dialogue which I undertook to have with the professions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement in regard to the protection of pension rights in occupational schemes on change of employment.

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are planning to publish our proposals for the preservation of occupational pension rights as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, while Parliament delays, people changing jobs are losing their pension rights at the rate of £100,000 every working day? While we look forward to the Government's White Paper on the future conduct of occupational pension schemes, does he agree that where existing accrued rights in these schemes are concerned there is no reason for action not being taken at once?

Yes. I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to that matter. We hope that the growing number of firms providing for this already will continue to do so.

As each year that passes without legislation means that thousands of people are being deprived of future income in retirement, why do not the Government show a little more urgency on this matter?

I assure the House that, unlike the Labour Government, this Government will not take five years to produce their plans.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of war widows who will become eligible for increased benefit in September.

Increases in war widows' pensions of at least £1·30 a week will be paid to about 100,000 war widow pensioners this September.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As there is a war memorial village in my constituency, I have more than the average number of widows in this category who will be particularly grateful for this assistance.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that she is aware that we are also introducing two new improved aspects of benefits for war widows in September.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date he received a communication from the Town Clerk of the London Borough of Newham regarding his consultative document on the reorganisation of the National Health Service; what was the nature of this communication; when he sent a reply; and what was the nature of this reply.

19th July; the letter contained comments on my proposals for reorganising the National Health Service, with particular reference to London; 27th July; consideration of the comments was promised and the Council's attention was drawn to the existence of the Consultative Group under the chairmanship of my noble Friend the Minister of State which is considering reorganisation in London.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply. Is he aware that this council, which is one of the most progressive in the country, has great doubts about the consultative document? Will he assure the House that before taking any action he will give serious consideration to this and any other council's opinions on this subject?

I share the hon. Gentleman's respect for many of the aspects of Newham's services. I assure him that I shall consider comments received even after the end of July.

Since the Secretary of State has been reported at least once as having said that on all aspects of the consultative document he has made up his mind, will he assure the House that it is still open for consultation on all the major points which were put before the public?

Except for what is in summary called unification and the date of unification, that is so.