asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate new studies into the cost of maintaining children in families of differing sizes; and if he will study the effects of recent changes in the cost of living on patterns of expenditure of families.

My Department is doing some experimental work to see whether the data now available are adequate to enable us to draw conclusions from them about the expenditure patterns of different sizes of family.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the need, in view of the rise in the cost of living, to give further aid selectively to families?

My hon. Friend will know that the family income supplement ceiling and maximum are to be raised from 1st April. I am sure that his point has general validity. My right hon. Friends and I would like to consider it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are serious problems in families already, irrespective of size, class or financial position? Would he bear in mind that mental health and other things are often more important than a family's financial position?

I entirely agree.

When do the Government intend to keep their Election promise to increase family allowances?

The right hon. Lady knows that we have debated this so-called Election promise a number of times at great length in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money was devoted by his Department to treatment and research into the problems of alcoholism in the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971; and if he will make a statement.

The cost of treating alcoholism cannot be separately identified. My Department has specifically financed research on alcoholism only since 1970; about £10,000 was spent in that year and about £18,000 in 1971. This excludes some research undertaken with funds which my Department provides for use at the discretion of local hospital research committees.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increase in the amount of resources devoted to research. Would he not agree that the problems of alcoholism raise a very serious social problem on lines very similar to the much more publicised problem of drugs? Therefore, would he not also agree that it is very important that we should progressively devote more of our resources to research in this area?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. He will also be encouraged to know that my right hon. Friend has decided to apply an extra £2 million to this sector in the four years starting 1971–72.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many girls were vaccinated against German measles in 1970 and 1971.

The scheme was launched in September, 1970, and returns by local health authorities show that 112,220 girls in England were vaccinated against rubella in 1970. Figures for 1971 are not yet available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although these figures may be encouraging as a start we still have a very long way to go? To take just one abnormality, is he aware, for instance, that one in a thousand children are born deaf, that about 15 per cent. are probably due to German measles and that these figures can be applied across the whole range of congenital defects? Therefore, would he do everything to encourage every girl who might conceivably be having a baby at some stage in the future to be vaccinated against German measles?

I accept the real benefits which can come from vaccination. My hon. Friend will realise that the 1970 vaccinations started only in September of that year, so the figures represent only three months' work. I am sure that the 1971 figures will be very much higher.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the greatest breakthrough in the battle against deafness for 100 years? In that light, will he accede to his hon. Friend's request to take television time and step up the whole programme of increasing the age range of those liable to suffer from rubella to be vaccinated before deafness results?

We accept the very important development that this represents. The hon. Gentleman knows that vaccination is offered to all girls between their eleventh and fourteenth birthdays.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Social Security Act, 1971, insofar as it applies to the payment of supplementary benefits in industrial disputes; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that the Act has achieved its stated purpose which, as I said in the debate on the Second Reading, was to counteract certain abuses of the supplementary benefits scheme; namely the high level of dis- regards of income tax refunds and strike pay, which enabled a striker receiving them to have as much income as an ordinarily unemployed man, and reliance on supplementary benefit instead of advances of wages after a strike.

Surely my right hon. Friend would not ask the House to accept that in the passage of the Act it would be expected to pay over £6 million for supplementary benefit in the case of a single strike, when this was not the sort of situation that was foreseen? Would he bear in mind that there is resentment from our constituents about the way in which they are required to kiss the rod by having to subsidise strikes which cause very grave inconvenience and even hardship?

The Act did not purport to end the situation in which the dependants of strikers receive benefits of their resources justify it during a strike. What the Act set out to do—and I stated this—was to end certain abuses, and in that it was successful. I accept my hon. Friend's point that there is a great deal of resentment from supporters of both sides of the House about the payment of public money to the dependants of strikers. The Government have undertaken to review the position in the light of our experience during the miners' strike.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of payments in social security during the dispute reflect the deplorably low rate of wages prevailing in that industry? Will he make certain that he does not submit to the blandishments of his hon. Friends who want this very valuable service to be removed entirely?

There is no evidence that it is only the low paid, who might be thought to have less chance to save, who go for supplementary benefits for their families during a strike, as opposed to those who are higher paid but who just have not saved enough.

Does my hon. Friend accept that no one on this side of the House wishes to see families of strikers suffering—

The right hon. Gentleman does.

—for what their father does? On the other hand, would he encourage the trade unions to contribute towards the cost of strikes instead of the whole thing falling on the State?

That is a point of view with which I and many others have much sympathy.

Does not the amount of money paid in supplementary benefit to the dependants of strikers represent only a tiny fraction of the amount paid in taxation by the miners in any given year? Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman is reviewing the current situation, would he agree that it would not be conducive to good industrial relations if the Supplementary Benefit Commission were to be used as a weapon against strikers by starving even their wives or children into submission?

It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly from the Front Bench, seeking to avoid the issue. The Government of the day have to reconcile two conflicting aspects of this problem—on the one hand, the protection of wives and children, and, on the other, the protection of taxpayers from the voluntary hardship to wives and children that results from strikes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional steps he took during the exceptional conditions arising from the coal strike to bring to the attention of people likely to be in need, the existence of supplementary benefits for special needs such as extra heating.

A number of people who are within the scope of the supplementary benefits scheme may find difficulty in meeting their fuel bills because they had to use alternative and more expensive forms of heating during the miners' strike. The local offices of my Department and the social services departments of local authorities have been authorised to tell them that extra help may be available under the scheme to meet this expense.

Is the Minister aware that there appears to be some evidence of fuel shortage among elderly people in areas like Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, where supply to old people was carefully preserved? Will he therefore tell the House what additional steps his Department took to safeguard the rights of old people during that crisis, and to alert them to their entitlement?

Our officers had an extremely difficult time during the strike, and the whole House will wish to pay tribute to them and to the local authority social service departments for the work that they did to try to avoid hardship. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in any case where a supplementary pensioner had no option but to spend more than the normal amount on heating that additional spending will be made up by the Commission.

Does my hon. Friend accept the view, which we understand is held by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stetchford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), that the living standards of retired people will be safeguarded only if there is restraint on the part of the population as a whole?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. A big step that has been taken is the annual review of pensions.

When the Minister is considering cases of exceptional need could he also look at the rate of the allowances given for special heating, for instance? I find that in my area the average is about 26p a week. As the cost of fuel has risen considerably, is it not about time that this was raised to a more realistic rate?

The scale rates take account of the cost of heating, food and other items. The review is taking place, and my right hon. Friend has said that the results will come into operation in October.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in his next review of retirement pensions, he will consider the proposal in the Trades Union Congress Economic Review 1972, a copy of which is in his possession, that the level of such pensions should be increased by £2.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the representations which have been made to him for an immediate £2 increase in the national insurance pension.

As soon as our proposals arising from this year's review are ready I shall make a statement. Until then I cannot make any comment.

Is the Minister aware that there is a great need for this £2 increase immediately, as has been suggested in the T.U.C. economic review, which the T.U.C. leaders referred to when they met the Prime Minister last week? Taking into account the fact that the 3 per cent. increase which emanated from the last pension increase has now been overtaken by the inflationary spiral in the cost of living index, surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that it is necessary to give pensioners more money immediately instead of waiting until the autumn.

I am well aware of the T.U.C.'s point of view. I have also to bear in mind the cost of any rise in increased contributions. It is not correct to say that the recent increase has been eroded. There was an increase of 20 per cent. All pensions have, of course, lost some of their value between up-ratings.

Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that if our right hon. Friend's Budget next week foreshadows another substantial increase in the retirement pension later in the year, no feature of the Budget will be more widely welcomed?

My hon. Friend does not have to go in for speculation here. The Government are commited to an up-rating of pensions and related benefits in October this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware of the views of the National Council of Labour, which sent a deputation to the Chancellor and to himself on the same point as the T.U.C. only recently? If the payments are not increased until October of this year, will not their comparison with average earnings be more unfavourable than at any time since 1960?

I would not think that that is true. We cannot tell until we see how prices and earnings move. But I am aware of the right hon. Lady's participation in the deputation to which she refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of loss to the revenue of abolishing the earnings rule for retirement pensioners up to a limit of £1,500 income per year per person.

The effect would be very similar to that indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 7th March.—[Vol. 832, c. 283.]

Would my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend about these proposals? Would he not agree that apart from the wider beneficial effects that it would have on stimulating the economy it would help to remove much of the bitterness and resentment felt by that section of the community that has suffered most from inflation under successive Governments in the past few years?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that to abolish the earnings rule would cost about £110 million a year, and that the bulk of this would go to people already in full time work and therefore earnings. I remind the House that there was a substantial improvement last September, when the amount that could be earned was increased by no less than £2, and in the case of a wife under the age of 60, by nearly £6.

Would the Minister agree that these and similar provisions ought to be more frequently adjusted upwards to take account of the falling value of money, which otherwise brings into the purview of the provisions people who ought not and were never intended to be covered by them?

As I mentioned, last September's increase of £2 in the amount that can be earned was a substantial one. The Government are committed to keep these figures under review.

I welcome the increase that the Government have introduced. Would my hon. Friend agree that although there would be a significant cost in making the level still higher, there would also be a gain to society as a whole? A further movement in that direction would be welcomed in all parts of the House.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is for that reason that we are keeping the figure under review.

There is a tax aspect of the earnings rule as well. For instance, as a result of the recent rise in agricultural wages a retired agricultural worker can now work for only two days of the week without being taxed, whereas he used to be able to work for three days. Would the hon. Gentleman have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to sort out this matter?

Yes. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that he is now on a different point. I take note of it, and I will have discussions about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in his forthcoming legislation on pensions, he will include a provision compelling employers to refund an employee's superannuation contributions when that employee leaves his employment before retirement; and whether he will seek to backdate this provision to 1st July, 1970.

No, Sir. In "Strategy for Pensions" the Government have proposed that all employees who leave after the new arrangements come into force and who satisfy the qualifying conditions should be able to obtain a deferred pension in respect of the whole of their pensionable service.

Is the Minister aware that, taking advantage of technical circumstances following its merger with the District Bank, the National Westminster Bank pocketed £243 in superannuation payments belonging to a constituent of mine? Should not the hon. Gentleman take action to prevent and put right this legalised theft?

I know the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on it, but I can tell him that under Government proposals there will be much better cover for employees who change their jobs, in terms of the preservation of their pension rights, which will mean not only their own contributions but their employers' contributions as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, with a view to a community-oriented health service, he will now give an assurance that during the period of reconsideration of hospital planning, no more cottage hospitals will be closed.

No, Sir. Each case of prospective closure will continue, as now, to be carefully considered and decisions reached in the light of all relevant circumstances.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that reply is rather disappointing, that at present there are protests in different parts of the country about specific closures, and that this programme of closures by regional boards contrasts strongly with his own statement last month stressing the social and economic value of cottage hospitals? How long will it be before we have a definite policy pronouncement?

It will be possibly a few months, but not more, before I am able to make a definitive statement on the character of community hospitals. But whatever that statement may contain, it will still be necessary to close a number of small hospitals, keeping going only those which justify the money concerned, bearing in mind the huge amount of extra money being spent on district general hospitals.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a certain amount of social cost involved in keeping these smaller hospitals? Would he agree to paying that extra social cost where it is necessary for various reasons in a particular area?

Yes, I entirely agree with that. They perform a valuable function socially as well as medically. But we still shall not be able to afford to keep all of them.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in view of the shortage of doctors, particularly for the large hospitals, it would be advisable to consider retaining small hospitals where general practitioners are willing and able to work? Surely this would alleviate the shortage of staff?

That is one of the factors which has encouraged the Government to change previous policy and to intend to maintain some of the hospitals as community hospitals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what conveniently available figures he has of the number of people, in 1971, for whom a kidney transplant was requested by medical authorities, and who were turned down.

These are matters of clinical judgment which cannot be accurately assessed by statistics. I understand, however, that the latest figures indicated that some 700 patients on dialysis were likely to be clinically suitable for renal transplantation.

If the Government are reluctant to amend the Human Tissue Act, will they consider a second-best course of action and institute a system of medical identity cards giving details of blood groups, allergies, and so on? That would be an advantage not only to potential recipients but also to donors who might be badly hurt in an accident.

The hon. Member has been kind enough to send he his model idea on the question and we are considering this. We have put in hand an arrangement at the National Tissue Type Reference Laboratory at Bristol precisely to tie up potential donors and recipients who are compatible.

Is the Minister aware that 99 per cent. of Press reports about the National Health Service concern things that go wrong? Will the Under-Secretary instruct his public information department, therefore, to shout from the housetops about what is being done in this sphere? For example, there are the transplants that are taking place through the Euro bank, matching dialysis patients with those that need new kidneys, and the way in which practically every week a kidney is flown from Stockholm, Bonn or Paris for an operation in one of our hospitals which saves a life. This is the marvellous job that the National Health Service is doing.

I am grateful for that helpful contribution to the information that we have on the subject. About 200 transplant operations are already carried out a year, and the trend, I am happy to say, is upwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will call for reports from local authorities on the operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in general.

As regards Sections 1 and 2, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 22nd February. We already receive annual returns from authorities in respect of Sections 18 and 19. Other Sections are either not my right hon. Friend's responsibility or do not concern local authorities.—[Vol. 831, c. 257. Vol. 830, c. 60.]

I am grateful to the Minister for the reply. Some authorities are doing their very best to implement the Act in the manner and spirit that the whole House want to see. As a result, they have been compelled to increase their rates, but some people are opposed to this humane endeavour. Can the hon. Gentleman persuade the Secretary of State to make a public statement complimenting those local authorities which are doing this and condemning those which do not have the courage to do it.

It would be premature to make any judgment before we have the full set of returns on Sections 1 and 2.

The Secretary of State has shown great understanding to the local authorities in their reorganisation of welfare services. This understanding is now being used by some local authorities as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Does the Minister agree that the time has come for persuasion buttressed by pressure from the Secretary of State on those local authorities who are neglecting the Act?

It would be appropriate to await the full set of returns for the Act, which we have not yet received. When we have evaluated these, the allegations by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends will be substantiated or disproved.

Will the Under-Secretary continue to keep this problem in perspective by making it clear whenever he has the chance that many local authorities, including Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, are doing much-appreciated work locally, in difficult circumstances, in implementing the Act.

I am grateful for that helpful support. I believe that all local authorities conduct, with a great sense of responsibility, the statutory duties placed upon them by the Act.

On Section 2(l)(h) of the Act, would the Under-Secretary agree that for large numbers of very severely disabled people the telephone is not a luxury but a lifeline and a necessity? Can he say how his discussions with the Post Office are progressing on the remarkably generous and warm-hearted gesture of the Post Office Engineering Union? On the point concerning protection for members of the P.O.E.U. from industrial injuries, can he assure us that this will be fully met at a very early date?

In the last debate on the subject, my right hon. Friend and I expressed our great appreciation and warm welcome to the Post Office unions for their initiative, and in every case in which an offer has been made it is being or has been followed up.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health centres are now operational; how many general practitioners practise from these health centres; and how many health centres he expects to be opened in 1972 and 1973, respectively.

At the end of February there were 284 health centres in operation in England, with approximately 1,550 general medical practitioners practising from them. I estimate that 80 more centres may be opened during 1972 and a further 90 during 1973.

Will the Undersecretary accept the thanks of the members of the medical profession and their patients for the great progress that has been made in this programme? Will he consider issuing some publicity to patients outlining the many advantages to be gained by attending a doctor who is practising from a health centre rather than from his home, under the old arrangements?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on this subject. The best possible publicity for health centres is derived from the experiences of those who are treated in them.

Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirm that the population criterion for health centres is 7,000? If it is, will he consider lowering this figure, so that those in smaller towns can have the benefit of a health centre on their doorstep?

I will look at what my hon. Friend has said, but if a scheme can be shown to be viable loan sanction is invariably given.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated annual cost of building a health centre; and what was the total expenditure on them in 1969, 1970 and 1971.

The cost of building a health centre varies considerably according to the extent of services provided from it. In England during the current financial year the estimated average building cost per health centre approved by my Department has been about £69,000. In 1969–70 the total capital expenditure approved for health centres was £4·8 million, in 1970–71 £5·0 million and in 1971–72, to 29th February. £5·7 million.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress being made, but is it his intention that even faster progress should be made in the next three years, and does he intend to encourage general practitioners to extend the range of services they provide in the health centres?

Yes. We expect a continued projection upwards and a steadily increasing number of health centres begun and completed every year.

Will the Minister say whether the figures he mentioned of £4·8 million, £5 million and £5·7 million represent a physical increase or an inflationary increase?

This is a real increase.

Is it not true that under successive Governments progress in building health centres has been held back by the refusal over many years of general practitioners to participate in health centres and will not this change of view be welcomed by everyone?

Yes, there is no doubt that there has been a substantial swing of opinion among the medical and dental profession as to the usefulness and benefits of health centres.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of people eligible to apply for an extra heating allowance; and how many are at present receiving one.

In November, 1970, 196,000 special additions for extra heating were in payment. Further figures reflecting the recently improved levels of these additions will be available in the spring. It is not possible to estimate the total numbers who might be eligible, since the eligibility of a long-term claimant depends upon the severity of his need and whether the sum of his special needs, including other things as well as heating, exceeds the long-term addition of 50p a week.

Although the Minister may not be able to make a precise estimate of those eligible would he agree, from the figures that he has given, that there must be a considerable number who qualify but do not receive the allowance? Would he consider paying an automatic heating allowance during the winter to all supplementary pensioners?

Special additions are available under the existing arrangements, where there are special needs, but the existing arrangements are being reviewed. All the books of supplementary pensioners are being examined when they come up for renewal to see whether there is an eligibility which is not being taken up.

Will the Under-secretary bear in mind that this is a most urgent matter and that I hope every effort will be made to deal with it? I am not satisfied that those requiring extra heating are getting it. It would be absolutely marvellous if some of the Treasury officials were to come up to my part of the world, where I would take them to see cases of need. I am certain that it is the Treasury and not the Department of Health and Social Security which is not co-operating, and I would love to do something to help my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to get on with the job.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that the Secretary of State is taking a great personal interest in this, as indeed is the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Arrangements are being looked at at the present moment, but I can add nothing to what I have already said.

Less than 2 per cent. of all old people receive any special help with heating costs, and the vast majority of those who do get only 25p per week when average winter heating costs come to £2 per week or more. It is terribly mean to allow old people to shiver when the Government have given away £1.400 million in tax reliefs to the better-off, and are expected to give away a further £1,000 million in the next Budget. Will he look at the problem again?

I am confident that when we have the figures in the spring they will show a substantial increase in the numbers now benefiting from the improved arrangements that the Government introduced last winter.

How can the Minister be so self-satisfied about the scheme, with all the defects in current circumstances that my hon. Friend has described? Did not the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary promise the House before Christmas that a review would be put in hand urgently? We have had no announcement about it. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that, as the delegates from the Lancashire Federation of Trades Unions pointed out to him only this morning, for many pensioners the choice is between adequate heating and adequate food, and that because of the inflation produced by this Government, throughout this winter hundreds of thousands of pensioners have not had enough money for the heating they need?

We are certainly not self-satisfied, but we had to start from scratch, because very little was done by the Administration of which the hon. Gentleman was a member.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners applied for additional financial aid for heating as a consequence of increased costs to them because of the miners' strike; and what was the total cost involved in the respective geographical areas.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is there a problem of organisation here? The Minister must be aware that during the miners' strike it seemed to be easy to identify pensioners who were suffering because of the additional cost of heating. If it were possible to identify them then, how will the hon. Gentleman identify them now?

The information is not available now, partly because during the pressure of the strike it was not possible for our local offices to take down this detailed information. Discovering the additional cost often depends on quarterly bills which the people concerned have not yet received.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is something a little unappetising about those who were vociferous in demanding the most inflationary settlement possible for the miners' strike now complaining about the impact of that settlement on pensioners?

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said, and I had better not be drawn further.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that that type of carping will not increase the comfort of pensioners who will be receiving extremely large quarterly accounts as a result of having to employ electric heating instead of solid fuel. Will he give an assurance that pensioners who receive an extra large electricity account as a direct result of using alternative heating during the strike period will be assisted by the Supplementary Benefits Commission?

The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to my hon. Friend. The fact is that there was hardship among pensioners as a result of the strike, and that is why I have given the House an assurance this afternoon that help will be given in cases where higher additional costs have been incurred because of the shortage of normal fuel.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will allow National Health prescriptions for support stockings to be used in part payment for support tights.

No, Sir. The patient should be supplied only with the article which the doctor has prescribed and which he considers clinically suitable

Can my hon. Friend be unaware that most women wear tights these days, that is not a question of vanity or fashion but utility, and that it seems rather unfair that women unfortunate enough to be afflicted with varicose veins should be condemned to wear garments soon to be extinct? As most chemists sell support tights alongside support stockings, and as my suggestion would not cost the National Health Service a penny, will my hon. Friend reconsider his answer?

I am advised that tights are liable to slip and therefore are not suitable as substitutes for surgical elastic hosiery when support is needed for the thigh or calf.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he proposes to take to implement the report of his inter-departmental committee on smoking and health; if he will take into account the report of the Imperial Tobacco Company, information about which he has been sent by the hon. Member for Willesden, West; and if he will make a statement.

The Government expect shortly to reach conclusions on what further action may be necessary on smoking and health. I will make an announcement then. All relevant information will be taken into account.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the steps that we took in the House last year have now more or less been finished and have had no appreciable results? Hon. Members who smoke are probably past redemption, but the attack should be upon younger people. Therefore, will the recommendation on the sports events sponsored by cigarette manufacturers—which are aimed at, and attract, large numbers of young people—be one of the first parts of the inter-departmental report to receive his most earnest attention?

I have undertaken that that will be considered, but we must recognise that we are dealing with a very intractable appetite, and it is not easy to see ways of rapidly making an impression.

Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to encourage the development of a safer tobacco substitute for use by those who are hopelessly addicted? Will he make representations to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to see whether an adjustment in tax might aid this?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see my hon. Friend's comments. The new committee that the Government set up—the Scientific Liaison Committee, on which Government scientists and industry scientists sit together—is largely concerned with establishing criteria for just the innovation to which my hon. Friend refers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause to be published the tar and nicotine content of every marketed brand of cigarettes and have them printed on the individual packets? Will he consider imposing a statutory level of tar and nicotine content of cigarettes, as was recommended in the report of the Royal College of Physicians?

All these matters are part of the review that is now going on.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us who smoke reject the suggestion that we are beyond redemption, or are involved in an incurable habit, while we fully support the steps already taken to draw attention to the hazards involved, and that we repudiate any suggestion of compulsion?

Yes, but I hope that my hon. Friend will follow up that supplementary question by setting a national example by himself giving up smoking.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from one who does not smoke that we must note the amount of taxes received by the Treasury from the Imperial Tobacco Company and all other tobacco manufacturers? Will he also accept that the Government, irrespective of their colour, have a responsibility to see that the maximum amount of research is carried out, which means giving financial support to the tobacco companies for that research, to make smoking safer?

I believe that the companies, the industry, the universities and other laboratories are carrying out all the useful research that makes sense. I only wish that I were hopeful enough of what we can rapidly do to be worried about any large inroads into the revenue from smoking.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many abortion clinics have had their licence withdrawn in the past 12 months.

Four, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the decision to close the Langham Street Clinic will be widely welcomed on the ground that he is putting out of business some of the biggest crooks ever to set foot inside the medical profession? Is it not strange that a clinic which claimed a net profit of only £32,000 a year should be on sale for £1½ million? Will the Minister ask the Inland Revenue to investigate what has clearly been a case of massive taxation fiddling?

I am not at all sure that it is right for the hon. Gentleman to use the privilege of the House to repeat what has appeared in the newspapers, but what appeared in the newspapers must obviously have been read by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the representations that have been made to him that no new licences for private clinics should be issued until the Lane Committee has completed its work? If he is unable to go as far as that, will he apply strict and rigorous criteria to the approval of new clinics until that report is to hand?

I gladly give the assurance asked for in the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

When is the Lane Committee likely to report?

During the first half of next year.

If we must have abortion clinics, would it not be better if they were all brought within the National Health Service?

That is quite another question.

I fully support the Minister's decision in this case, but will he confirm that the behaviour of this and other clinics which he has closed is out of keeping with the standards in the rest of the private sector which are fully approved by his Department?

Obviously the fact that I picked out two clinics and did not renew their licences reflects the broadly satisfactory conditions in the others.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science in relation to deciding whether the payment of educational grants or supplementary benefit is the appropriate payment for the families of students attending full time courses in technical colleges.

Yes, Sir. Dependants' grants in such cases are the responsibility of local education authorities, who are doubtless aware of the limited access to supplementary benefit permitted to students. Authorities may not consider that a payment from public funds for a student's family is appropriate in every case.

Is the Prime Minister aware that married students with families attending full-time courses at technical colleges face particular difficulties because the Department of Education and Science, the local education authorities and the Department of Health and Social Security all disclaim responsibility for maintaining the wife and children? Will he initiate discussion between those three bodies in an attempt to resolve the problem?

This is a problem primarily for the local education authorities because they are responsible for the size of the grant that is made to any student. As I said in my original reply, they can be made aware of the student's position and consider whether or not it is appropriate that the grant made to him should be sufficient to maintain his wife and family. I do not think that there is any question of a division of responsibilities between the Departments. The responsibility is very clear.

Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that not only married students fall foul of the discrepancy between the Departments, and that a small number of students under 18 taking vocational courses tend to fall between the provisions of the local education authorities and the Supplementary Benefits Commission? Will he look at this to see that those who want to have vocational training are encouraged and enabled to do so?

I am prepared to inquire whether there is a gap such as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am advised that local education authorities have responsibility for making grants of this kind to those who have left school and are taking courses in colleges of one kind or another. The problem that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) raised was rather different from the one that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The case of the particular student with which he is concerned has been dealt with.

Is the Prime Minister aware that information has been sent to me that students aged between 17 and 18 who spend more than three days at a technical college are deprived of supplementary benefit, which makes it difficult for them to further their education? This is a serious imposition. Will the Prime Minister do something about it?

If the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to let me have the information that he has been sent I will have it examined. When a student is not actually at college he comes under the normal regulations and is eligible for supplementary benefit in the normal way if he complies with the requirements. I will gladly examine any evidence on this problem which the hon. Gentleman has.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Thirsk, Yorkshire.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he should go to Thirsk and put a stop to the Tories using offensive words like "traitor" against the Father of the House? Since it is rumoured that the Prime Minister is looking for a new constituency, why does not he apply for the Chiltern Hundreds and arrange a contest so that we can get the full-hearted consent of the people of Thirsk? I am sure that the usual channels will help.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) requires the assistance of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in dealing with this problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this projected by-election is being frustrated by the refusal of the constituency Labour Party to put country before party by allowing a by-election to take place on the single issue of the Common Market? Is he also aware that, apart from these little local difficulties, he will always be welcome in the Thirsk and Malton division, particularly since some of the ancestors of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used to live in that constituency?

I am not sure whether the welcome given to me by my right hon. Friend is somewhat qualified by the last part of his supplementary question, but I am glad to know that he places no responsibility for these matters on us.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Friday 25th February, 1972, at Aviemore, with respect to companies searching in the North Sea for oil, represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend reaffirmed the Government's full support for oil exploration and development in the North Sea, and the need to take full advantage of Scottish skills and resources.

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that we must go a little further in attempting to get the maximum benefit from this natural resource of Scotland? Would he concede that we should exert pressure on the oil companies to ensure that not a pint of crude oil which can be refined in Scotland or in other parts of the United Kingdom finds itself exported without its being refined? Secondly, will he draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the proposals made by the Industrial Development Authority, based partly on the licence fees and royalties from the oil companies, and will he see what can be done by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to facilitate that type of regional development?

Judging from the reports that I have read, the conference was valuable, and we will study the lessons to be drawn from it. The hon. Gentleman has raised the important question of exporting oil, and this will be a matter for discussion with the oil companies. As he knows, the B.P. project provides that a large amount of the oil should be refined at Grangemouth; and Shell proposes to land oil at Teesport in the North-East. It is thus already planned that much of the oil from the North Sea will be refined in the United Kingdom. A different problem arises over finance, and raises the question whether we should try to isolate finance for different parts of the United Kingdom. When in the past this issue has been examined, it has been thought that to try to do this would not be of advantage to Scotland and areas like it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some quarters it is felt that the disposal of some of our rights in respect of North Sea oil blocks could have been made on more beneficial terms? Will he look into this matter to see that the nation benefits fully from our wonderful potential.

The present Government changed the arrangements under which licences were granted. We were criticised for our action at the time, but it has proved to be more beneficial to the country as a whole. Later this week there will be an announcement about further awards of licences, and perhaps my hon. Friend will await that event.

Would the Prime Minister accept that there is a growing consensus in Scotland in favour of the idea of some form of Scottish development corporation, financed in part by revenues from oil finds, and does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at Aviemore the Secretary of State for Scotland seemed to give his blessing to this idea? Could we have a definite Government pronouncement on this matter?

I have already told the House, following my discussions with the Scottish Council, that we will examine this proposal. This is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was indicating, and this is what is taking place.

With regard to the oil that is alleged to be in other parts of the North Sea, particularly on the West Coast, is it not this matter all the more important when one considers the possibilities of refining at other sites, apart from use of the refinery at Grangemouth? Is he further aware that we are anxious about the fact that the Regional Development Corporation Bill was given a Second Reading but has not been further proceeded with? Does this mean that we shall soon have put before us radical regional policy proposals? If so, could it be connected with proposals relating to oil revenues?

The hon. Member is referring to a Private Member's Bill. I have already said that we have been undertaking a complete review of regional development policy, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the announcement to which I have referred. On the point about refinery capacity, I agree on the importance of the exploration around the North and West of Scotland, but it must be a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies as to where they consider oil should be refined, whether it be at Grangemouth or at refineries they wish to set up elsewhere.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the text of his ministerial broadcast of Sunday, 27th February.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a transcript of his ministerial broadcast made on 27th February.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a transcript of his ministerial broadcast on 27th February.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the text of his ministerial broadcast of 27th February. 1972.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of the text of his ministerial broadcast on Sunday, 27th February, 1972, in the Library.

As I indicated in the reply I gave last Friday to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), I did so on 28th February.—[Vol. 832, c. 403.]

In that broadcast the other night the Prime Minister told the country that the fight against rising prices must be fought with no holds barred. What in concrete terms does "no holds barred" mean?

It means taking the measures that we have been taking—for example, by bringing about the biggest reduction of purchase tax since the war, by halving S.E.T., and by the specific produce reductions which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture last week. That is real action to keep down prices.

In that broadcast the Prime Minister equated a defeat for the Government with a defeat for the country. Is he not aware that that is arrogant nonsense, and that at present a defeat for the Government on a whole range of contentious issues before Parliament would be regarded as a victory for the country?

What my speech said was that if the country wants to keep down prices, as it does—and presumably the Opposition agree with that desire—the means to do it is to keep wage claims from being excessive; in other words, not to have increased wages without increased productivity. That policy will keep prices where they are, and if that policy is defeated it will be a defeat for the country's wishes. That still remains the case.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept the blame for anything?

I have never at any time hesitated to accept responsibility for what I have to do and for what the Government as a whole have done. I am sure that in the various decisions I have taken during my time in Parliament the House has respected the fact that I have done what I believe to be right.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether, since his broadcast, he has received from the Leader of the Opposition a list of those groups of workers who voluntarily wish to put in decreased wage demands to pay for any special cases that arise?

In all fairness, I do not believe that it lies within the power of the Opposition to do such a thing. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was unable to do so when he was Prime Minister, and certainly cannot take such action now that he is Leader of the Opposition.

In that broadcast the Prime Minister spoke about higher prices leading to higher wages without anybody being better off. Why did he not tell the country that in steamrolling through the Housing Finance Bill he will double the rents of council tenants by 1975 and will treble the rents of a million statutory tenants? Why did he not say that his policy would have such an effect on wages, prices and the general cost of living?

I did not tell the country that because it is not true. What I have told the country, and what the House knows perfectly well, is what the rent rebate system will mean to those in private tenancies—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I do not see why the Opposition should be so critical of help being given to lower-paid workers who occupy private tenancies in obtaining rent rebates. These policies will help the lower-paid, and therefore they should be supported.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a particular welcome for his comments in the broadcast about the current challenge to democratic authority inside and outside Parliament? In view of recent events in this Chamber, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make time available for somebody to say where the Labour Party stands on this issue?

I do not want to enter into current controversies on happenings in this House. I would only say that last night the House took a decision, and the country will be able from that to judge the views of all those who took part in that matter. In regard to my telecast, I believe that the country as a whole has expressed anxiety about some aspects of picketing during the recent miners' strike. It was absolutely right that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last Friday should have made the situation quite clear. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen below the gangway are not anxious about the abuse of picketing, then in the interests of their own unions they ought to be.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Second Church Commissioner told us yesterday that the reason for prices increasing by 100 per cent. was the reduced value of money? Does the Prime Minister support that point of view?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. I was here yesterday and heard the Question that he put to my hon. Friend the Second Church Commissioner. I recognise fully what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertford shire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) described as the increase in the cost of dying.

If my right hon. Friend is considering television Press conferences, in addition to broadcast speeches and Press briefings, will he bear in mind that many people will welcome this as an extra channel of communication with the public?

There is nothing new about it. I did this last July when we were discussing the European question as part of the great debate in which the nation was taking part at that time—[An Hon. Member: "What is the latest verdict?"] As the hon. Gentleman knows, I never refer to public opinion polls. It is therefore that which prevents me pointing out that today's Gallup Poll shows that more than 50 per cent. of the people want our membership of the Communities to go ahead.

Is the Prime Minister aware, in regard to wages, which was one of the major themes of his broadcast, that he has not made out the case either to this House or to the nation that high wages are the cause of the difficulties and problems facing the country? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the contrary, in many industries it is low wages which are the problem? What we want is high wages and low unit costs. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman's Government over the miners' strike has made it difficult for the country. Why does not the Prime Minister admit it?

The hon. Gentleman accuses me of not having made out the case. I forebear to refer to this afternoon's public opinion poll, which shows that two out of three people believe that the Government are right to try to prevent excessive wage increases. The case will never be made out to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). However, the last part of his supplementary question is the key to everything. One wants high wages with high productivity. Therefore, what is important is the speed at which one moves towards that. If wages outpace productivity, one cannot have a healthy and sound economy. I am with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to see a move towards high wages with greater productivity. If he will back an economic policy which says "Very well. Let us improve the lot of the lower-paid wage earner, but we recognise that we cannot at the same time keep all the differentials which have existed in the past", that will begin to make sense—but I have never known the hon. Gentleman be prepared to do that.

rose—

Order. Mr. Carter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Question No. 25, which concerns the child with no legs and only one arm whose parents were refused an attendance allowance, was not reached, and in view of the strong feeling on all sides of the House—

This does not sound like a point of order.

If it is not, may I respectfully give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the style and manner of Questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, a matter to which I have drawn your attention before? We have had four almost identical Questions today requesting answers from my right hon. Friend about his broadcast on 27th February. I should have thought that this House would have been helped if the matter had been confined to one Question, with some supplementary questions to follow.

I believe that I dealt with the form in which Questions are put down to the Prime Minister last Thursday. This is much more a matter for the Committee which is now considering Questions. It is not a matter for the Chair.

On the same point, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when the Prime Minister was answering Question No. Q4 he was presuming, with the permission of the House, to answer further Questions on the same subject. The right hon. Gentleman specifically excluded Question No. Q25, standing in my name, although it was tabled on the same day and is couched in identical terms. This is extremely unsatisfactory, in view of the fact that I had a friendly supplementary question to ask the right hon. Gentleman.

I think that even the Prime Minister would suspect some people with friendly supplementary questions However, that is not a matter for me.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1963 to give power to the Secretary of State to require by order made under section 21 of that Act that goods should be marked with the price per unit of measure.

"Whosoever keeps filled packages for sale to the consumer must indicate on the package or on a price ticket on or beside the filled package, clearly visible and distinctly readable the price he asks for 1 kilo or I litre (basic price) of the product."