asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children are currently attending day nurseries, residential nurseries and play groups, respectively.

The latest available figures are that the number of places in local authority and private day nurseries is about 41,000, and in play groups about 260,000. The number of children in residential nurseries is about 3,600.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something wrong with a system of administration that divides pre-school children between the Department of Social Services and the Department of Education for no reason other than facilities that may be available in a particular area? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether a joint authority can be established whereby educational responsibility can play some part in the care of the children in these areas?

I am not aware that there is any failure in the provision of services as a result of this division of responsibility. However, my right hon. Friend is in the process of having consultations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the development of the future provision.

Is everything possible being done to encourage the admirable voluntary work done by the pre-school play groups whose work fills an important gap until more money can be afforded for State nursery schooling?

Yes. We give the most sympathetic consideration to any approaches they make to us for special help or encouragement.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the development of play groups has taken place simply because there is not enough State provision of nursery education? Does the hon. Gentleman also understand that if the provision is not adequate or up to standard, mothers who want some kind of activity for their children will find many alternatives, many of which are not adequate or suitable? This matter is of great concern to many people involved with young children. Will the hon. Gentleman see what he can do to persuade his right hon. Friend to accept full responsibility and to find more money for the care of pre-school children?

The question about nursery education belongs to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I take the point the hon. Lady made about the undesirable fringe developments which may occur in this sphere. I do not want to play down the vital contribution which voluntary organisations can make. The hon. Lady will be glad to know that expenditure is increasing quite dramatically in both the private and public sectors on this front.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is considering, for inclusion for this year's review, for adjustment of social welfare payments in such fashion as to encourage unemployed males to accept employment offers, when available, and end the situation that unemployed males receive larger weekly welfare payments, including unemployment pay, than wages on offer for a return to work.

None, Sir. I consider the conditions governing the payment of social security benefits, in the circumstances outlined, to be generally adequate, though there is sometimes a difficulty in those cases where the job offered is low paid and the man has several dependants.

Is it not a fact that these circumstances are now proliferating and that there is increasing evidence from all parts of the country that it pays a man to remain out of work for long periods because the job opportunities offered to him do not reflect the return on the extra effort required to work as opposed to remaining on the dole? Surely this is a topsy-turvey condition of social welfare and economic affairs.

There is a difficulty where the man concerned has several dependants, is a low earner when in work, and lives in an area where there are not many job opportunities. It is possible in certain cases that a man may be tempted not to make the great effort which we would expect of him, but if there are not many jobs available that cannot always be accounted for by motivation. To alter the level or conditions of benefit to meet these cases would, first, prejudice the children concerned and, secondly, be unfair to the vast majority of unemployed and sick who are only too anxious to obtain work and to go back to work.

Will the Secretary of State go further and condemn the outrageous nonsense implied in his hon. Friend's Question? Does he agree that such doctrinaire campaigns are damaging to industrial relations?

The House knows that I do not agree with my hon. Friend on everything. However, I think that he is entirely justified in raising this very worrying dilemma which faces any Government. We have not yet discovered a way round it.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), he gave the impression that he thought that these cases were unusual? Does he further realise that in areas of low pay, such as East Anglia, these cases are not uncommon but are very common? Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, the gap is so narrow between what people may get when unemployed and what they may get when employed that it is not worth their travelling even 10 miles for a job.

There is some truth in what my hon. Friend says, subject to two points: first, the family income supplement encourages the low earner to go back to work when he can because it supplements his earnings; and, secondly, the overlap between benefit and earning is particularly large for men who have three or more children.

Surely the answer to the problem is to have a basic minimum wage which is higher than the social security benefit which is being paid to those who are not employed? Will the Secretary of State suggest this to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment?

The last Government presided over the publication of a very detailed inquiry into the implications of the minimum wage and rejected it.

No.

This is outside my Department. I withdraw that comment if it was inaccurate. However, there are difficulties in the way of doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he intends to take following the Expenditure Committee Report on pay beds in hospitals; and whether he will make a statement.

I am considering the report and shall be replying to it in due course.

Will the Secretary of State take notice of the fact that we have a situation where consultants are organising the queue for operations and people can jump that queue if they are prepared to pay? Will he also take notice that the report shows that people have to wait on average 18 months for a tonsillectomy under the National Health Service whereas they have to wait only two weeks if they are prepared to pay?

The House is aware that the Government take seriously the length of waiting lists in many parts of the country. This is a subject on which I hope to make a statement later this year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the subject of pay beds in the National Health Service is highly controversial among not only members of the Expenditure Committee and hon. Members but people outside this House? Will he ensure that the report is not shelved, that we shall have an early debate on this important subject in Government time, and that the Government will make quite clear their policy towards private beds in the National Health Service?

The question of a debate is not for me. I believe that there are infinitely more important matters for the benefit of patients than this issue, on which I have already made my position abundantly clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now introduce special heating allowances of at least 50p a week for all pensioners receiving supplementary benefit.

No, Sir. The ordinary level of supplementary pension, which will be increased substantially in October, provides for all normal heating expenses. Where there is need for extra heating, special allowances are already provided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that that is almost the same answer as that which I received when I first asked the Question last September? Since then we have had a very long and cold winter in which a number of old-age pensioners have suffered severely from the cold. Will the hon. Gentleman treat this matter seriously? Large numbers of pensioners cannot at the moment afford to heat their premises properly. Will he make sure that something is done about this situation before next winter?

All supplementary pensioners will have an increase in both the scale rates and the long-term addition in October this year—in other words, before next winter—which will amount to 85p for a single person and £1·30 for a married couple. In addition, the special addition for heating is being increased by 20 per cent. in October.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no Government—I emphasise no Government—over the past few years have done enough for our pensioners? Is it not clear that the increase which will become effective later this year will not meet the needs of pensioners and that, in particular, there is a need, as my hon. Friend said, for extra money for heating? In my constituency, young people have carried out a survey among the old and have discovered that elderly people are living in sheer misery during the winter months. Will the Under-Secretary look at the problem again and do something about it?

Yes. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend takes this long-standing problem extremely seriously. In addition to the cash improvements, about which I have just given the House information, my right hon. Friend is also concerting activity with those who have undertaken surveys to ascertain the possibilities of other methods of assisting those who may require extra heating—for example, better insulation in their homes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will cause additional studies to be made into the causes and cure of agoraphobia; and whether he will provide appropriate finance.

My Department is able and prepared to consider proposals for research related to the provision of services for psychiatric disorders, including phobias, within its normal research programme.

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that more than a quarter of a million people suffer from this sad and disabling disease and that more than 10,000 are totally disabled? Will he specifically undertake to devote resources to the diagnosis and cure of this particular unhappy and almost forgotten area of mental illness?

I share the profound sympathy which the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed for those who suffer from agoraphobia. A good deal of work is going on. The hon. and learned Gentleman will presently get information about it in answer to another Question which he has down. I believe that the facilities which exist, either through general practitioners treating patients at home or in the ordinary psychiatric departments of hospitals, are adequate at present.

Is the Minister prepared to use the publicity facilities of his Department to make local councils and other authorities aware of the facilities which exist? I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this is a greatly under-publicised affliction which could do with some publicity by the Department.

Though I am prepared to look sympathetically at what the hon. Gentleman said, I think that most sufferers from agoraphobia will have brought their condition to the notice of their general practitioners and, through them, to hospital departments. If publicity will help in this respect, we shall certainly consider it.

Davis asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why it has been found necessary to increase substantially the number of special investigators employed by his Department since June, 1970.

They were appointed in order to enable more cases of suspected fraud, of the various types which can be practised in connection with supplementary benefit, to he investigated by officers specialising in this work.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that inquiries about cohabitation frequently go too far? Does he realise that inquiries are made of children, of neighbours and of employers all within the terms of the handbook? Is this justified and do the results justify it, and should not far more emphasis be put on the financial relationship between the man and the woman rather than on the alleged cohabitation?

The investigators are performing a necessary if distasteful duty in order to safeguard public funds from fraud. As for any allegations that children are questioned by the investigators, I should be most grateful if the hon. Member would send details to the Chairman of the Commission who—as I do—would take such cases very seriously indeed. My belief is that, subject to the occasional inevitable human error in a difficult job, they perform their duties in a decent, honourable and conscientious way. Only just over one-third of their time is spent investigating cohabitation, the vast bulk of it being devoted to detecting other forms of fraud such as fictitious desertion and undisclosed earnings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing is more likely to infuriate the decent, hard-working citizen than the knowledge that some of his neighbours are battening on the State and drawing benefits, paid for out of his taxes, to which they are not entitled? Does not my right hon. Friend think it extraordinary that all too often hon. Members of the Opposition try to suggest that, for some reason which I do not understand, a man who is living with a woman and sharing her bed should not be responsible for keeping that woman but that the State should? Will he rest assured that we on this side of the House will welcome any steps to tighten up the present system and to stop abuses?

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. and learned Friend said but, to be fair to him, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) did not, as I understand it, attack the whole cohabitation rule but the methods which he alleges are sometimes used in order to investigate alleged cases. That is a perfectly legitimate point to make to the Government. But I am sure that the rule, which is intended to ensure that the unmarried couple who live together as man and wife do not get more favourable treatment than the married couple is in accordance with public sentiment.

The remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) intensify the alarm that we have felt on this side of the House about the attitude to women involved in these cases. The Secretary of State's reply is not very reassuring either. Is the House not entitled to know what methods are used and what instructions are given to the investigators? Are we not indebted to the Daily Mail for having obtained a copy of these instructions and can we now have them officially? 'Will the Secretary of State please answer the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) whether the definition of cohabitation is one which distinguishes fairly and clearly between sleeping together and financial support? Can we therefore have the instructions and the definition published so that the House can express an opinion?

I must refer the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central to the very careful paper on cohabitation published last year by the Supplementary Benefits Commission which spells out in 11 pages the evidence for which they look in deciding where cohabitation exists. Their emphasis is the whole time upon the existence of a stable union. In a short answer I cannot give all the details set out in the paper. As for publishing the instructions to the investigators, there are a very small minority of people who are only too willing to embark upon frauds against the public and to publish the instructions would facilitate their lives.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent he discussed at his meeting in April with the deputation from the National Federation of Far East Prisoners of War Clubs and Associations the modification of the over-seven-years' rule; and if he will make a statement.

The meeting to which my hon. Friend refers took place only yesterday afternoon. I promised then to consider a number of points raised with me by the deputation, including the operation of the seven-year rule.

It was evident at the national service of remembrance and reunion held by the Federation last month in my constituency that the number of Far East prisoners of war are diminishing fast. Is my hon. Friend aware that Australia, the United States and Canada have consistently treated their Far East prisoners of war and their widows more sympathetically than we have in this country? Will he take these points into account in the review?

I would not accept entirely what my hon. Friend says about the treatment afforded by the United States, Canada and Australia, but I recognise that there are special problems here. I am taking steps to improve the arrangements which I think will reassure the Federation.

Many of the troubles and illnesses of Far East prisoners of war are just coming to light today, sometimes after 30 years. Is it not basically essential that each case of a FEPOW who has been in the hands of the Japanese should be treated on its individual merits? Is it not essential that these men are examined by medical practitioners who know something about what the Japanese did to them and not by people who have little cognisance of the matter?

I agree with the points which the hon. Member made and we must ensure in every case that where there is doubt, that doubt goes in favour of the claimant. The new steps which I am working out are designed to achieve this.

I speak as one of these men. Is the Under-Secretary aware that the meeting took place only yesterday and that as a whole we have great confidence in him and in Ministers in the past? These are new facts that have come to light, and we look forward in due course, now that he has heard the repre- sentations, to the Under-Secretary making another statement to the House.

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments and I will inform the House as soon as the details are worked out.

Will the Under-Secretary agree to reconsider the terms of his original reply and to make a full and further statement to the House at the earliest possible date?

I have assured the House that as soon as more information is available and the details are worked out I will see that they are made available to the House in the most appropriate form.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of health education officers employed by local authorities; and what is the number of local authorities employing them as a percentage of those local authorities empowered to appoint such officers.

The local authorities with the major responsibility for health education are the local health authorities; these are mainly the counties, county boroughs and London boroughs. Of these about 60 per cent. are employing a total of about 200 full-time health education officers.

These are very interesting figures, but would the Under-Secretary agree that much greater emphasis needs to be placed on more preventive measures in health matters either by the appointment of additional health education officers or by some other means? Would he further agree that the climate of opinion is such that these measures would be accepted? If these things were done the saving might amount even to millions of pounds if we are to adopt the old adage that prevention is better than cure.

I share the hon. Member's enthusiasm for the value of preventive medicine. It has to be borne in mind that not only full-time health education officers but also the normal run of health professionals—doctors, dentists, health visitors, district nurses and so forth—have their part to play in health education. In the context of National Health Service reorganisation, we shall be looking again very closely at developing this side of preventive medicine.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for the development of National Health Service dental services; and in particular whether he intends to maintain the full list of dental treatments now on the schedule.

When I met representatives of the British Dental Association on 16th March they accepted my invitation to participate in a Joint Working Party with representatives of the Health Departments to consider how best, having regard to the availability of resources, to secure the long-term development and improvement of National Health Service dental services. The first meeting of the Working Party will be held on 19th May. I have no proposals for restricting the range of treatments available under the General Dental Services.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but may I remind him that there is an urgent need in many parts of the country for National Health Service dentists—I have raised this with him before—and that from the last amending regulations, produced earlier this year, it is quite clear that some of the new fees being paid to dentists, especially for restorative work, bear no relation to the amount of work they must do with the patient, and should be revised? In particular, where work must be put out to dental technicians the return for the dentist is minimal. This does not encourage more students to enter the profession. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

I should be grateful it the hon. Lady would put down a precise Question on the points which she has in mind. In general, because I am worried about the distribution of dentists, I have embarked on talks with the profession. The numbers of dental places and students in schools are rising.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in some parts of England, particularly Derbyshire, there is a grave shortage of dentists in the National Health Service? My constituents find it extremely difficult to obtain dental treatment. Will he use his utmost endeavours to see that the supply of dentists going into the National Health Service is increased as rapidly as possible?

The dental schools are expanding under the policies of previous Governments, and the present Government are continuing the expansion. There will be rising numbers of dentists, but there is a big problem of distribution, which I am discussing.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to arrest the widening gap between the living standards of the poorest in work and those earning the medium wage.

The available information in the articles published each year in Economic Trends on the incidence of taxes and social service benefits do not suggest that there was a widening gap up to 1970 between the incomes of the poorest in work and those earning the medium wage, so far as families with children are concerned. Since 1970 the present Government have provided additional help to low-income families designed to safeguard and improve their position.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other evidence, notably that provided by the Child Poverty Action Group, suggests that the gap between the living standards of the poorest in work and those earning the medium wage has widened over the years and is wider now than at any time since 1945? Only in 1906 was the position worse than it is today. Yet all that his Government are doing by way of relieving the low-paid workers is further to ensnare them in a trap of so-called ameliorative measures.

I do not accept those generalisations. The raising of the tax threshold in two successive Budgets has made a remarkable difference to the spending power, even in real terms, of the lowest-income families, on to which must be added the family income supplement, take-up of which has sharply increased since the recent advertising.

Is it not obvious that a rise in the cost of living has a much more adverse effect on a man with a family to support than on single persons? Is not that an unanswerable case for increasing family allowances, even if only in the interests of wage stability?

I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the tax credit scheme which was proposed in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and which is shortly to be the subject of a Green Paper, meets a great part of the case he is putting.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in view of the fact that the Swedish Parliament has now repealed the law permitting fluoridation, and, after 17 years of trial, the only fluoridation in Germany has been stopped, whether he will now give further consideration to the advisability of fluoridation in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir. I see no reason to question the advisability of fluoridating water supplies. I understand that in Sweden the repeal of the legislation was not based on medical or scientific evidence and that in Germany fluoridation was suspended because of doubts about its legality, doubts which the Federal Government are seeking to remove with amending legislation.

Will not my right hon. Friend take note that the Governments of the countries about to form the enlarged European Community—France, Germany, with my right hon. Friend's modifications, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway and Denmark, and many other countries in Europe, including Sweden, Austria, Spain, Yugoslavia and Greece, have decided against fluoridation?

Enthusiastic European though I have always been and am, that does not mean that I must agree with every view of every country in Western Europe. But may I reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that I have no plans at present to introduce legislation on this matter?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but will he confirm that the incidence of dental caries in this country is among the highest in the Western industrial nations, and that this kind of experiment, which has never been extensive in Great Britain, is an experiment to which we should give a fair wind?

I know that dental decay is a big problem in this country, but I think the hon. Gentleman should put down a Question on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he has taken following the report of the Hospital Advisory Service on Stoke Park Hospital; and in what form he proposes to make the contents of the report available to the hospital staff.

Copies of the report were distributed to the Regional Hospital Board and their chief officers and to the Hospital Management Committee. All senior staff at the hospital received copies; the report was also made available to all nurses in charge of wards and a summary of the main recommendations was shown to junior staff. As a result of policy decisions before the Hospital Advisory Service report and of its recommendations, revenue for the Stoke Park Group has risen in real terms by 29 per cent. since March, 1969. In addition capital improvements to the value of about £1 million have been or are being made at hospitals in the Group. Present conditions in the older wards are however still very unsatisfactory. New beds at Gloucester and temporary wards in the Stoke Park Group are being provided to relieve overcrowding in them. Staffing has steadily improved and the Board expects to maintain the rate of increase.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that conditions in some of the wards, which were described to viewers in a remarkable BBC film recently, are utterly disgraceful and unacceptable? Why was the report with the right hon. Gentleman for six months before he took action on it? Why was it left for a small group of hospital nurses to raise the matter publicly?

The right hon. Gentleman falls far below his usual standards of fairness on this question. The overcrowding in the wards that I understand were shown on television is very severe. That is why new temporary wards in the hospital and further beds outside the hospital are being urgently provided as part of the £1 million extra capital expenditure of which I spoke, in order to relieve the worst of the overcrowding. As for action on the report, extra revenue and capital have been allocated, and were starting to be spent before the report, and both were stepped up after it.

After that great eulogy of his of what is being done, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the report's 60 proposals for dealing with what it described as squalid and unhygienic conditions have been or will be implemented, and when?

Up-grading and new building is going on to relieve overcrowding. Extra medical and nursing staffing is available and is increasing. Ventilation is being considered. Laundry, clothing and food have been improved. I could go through many of the smaller items. But there is a flood of HAS reports, trying to catch up with a huge backlog of neglect in these services, and everything cannot be done at once.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I propose to raise the matter again

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the extent to which private medical practice has increased in the National Health Service during the past five years.

Between 1966 and 1971, the number of private in-patients treated in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales rose from 101,696 to 114,856, an increase of the same order of magnitude as in the number of hospital in-patients in general. The proportion therefore of private in-patients to inpatients as a whole has remained roughly the same at 2 per cent. from 1968 to 1971.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he say that, whatever encroachment there is by the private medical service into the National Health Service, National Health Service patients will not suffer in regard to admission to hospital?

I have no evidence of acute need for hospital care being impeded in any way by private patients. If any such cases can be brought to my notice, I hope that hon. Members will send them to me.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the evidence that has already been submitted. He will find in it quite a large number of such cases cited by patients and people working in National Health Service hospitals. Does not he accept that the fact that private practice exists in the Service provides an enormous loophole through which there can be all kinds of abuses, and that that is the main objection to private practice?

I am due to reply to the report and I would rather reserve my answers until then.

As a great many people who are using private beds in hospitals do so through private insurance schemes, and as the trade union movement has its own private hospital for its own members, is it not time that the Opposition stopped this criticism of what is a legitimate and useful service?

I hope that the Opposition are not taking up arms against the freedom of citizens to secure non-acute treatment at their convenience.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British United Provident Association in particular is widely regarded as a queue-jumping organisation and as such is deeply offensive to the majority of people?

The hon. Gentleman is not taking the point that the access to treatment at convenience is not intended to allow any interference with access as needed and at once for acute need.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce free prescriptions for a person in the long-term sick category whose sole income is £6·50 weekly invalidity allowance: and if he will make a statement.

Anyone whose income is, on supplementary benefit standards. insufficient to enable him to afford prescription charges, is already entitled to exemption or refund.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a decision in writing from the manager of the Department of Health and Social Security in Coatbridge informing me that this person is not qualified to receive free prescriptions? Yet the sole income of the individual concerned is only £6·50 per week and out of that meagre sum he has to pay 60p for prescription charges. Is it not a national scandal that a person living on such an allowance should have to pay prescription charges? When is the hon. Gentleman going to introduce some compassion into the National Health Service to ensure that people of this type are exempted completely from prescription charges?

It sounds a distressing case as related by the hon. Gentleman. If he will send me full details I will look into it. The exemptions are available not only for those on supplementary benefit but for those whose income is less than 50p above the supplementary benefit level.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received asking for changes in the Government's 15-year plan for long-stay mental hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the memorandum on hospital services for the mentally ill issued last December or to the Command Paper on "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" published last June. No specific time limit was set for completion of the redevelopment of either set of services, although we hope to make very substantial progress within the next 15 years. I have not received formal representations though I am aware that there are differing views on some aspects of these policies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that both the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and the Royal Society of Health are deeply concerned about these proposals and have expressed their concern in public? Is he satisfied, before he goes ahead with these plans, that he will have the co-operation and support of all the doctors, nurses and local authority servants who work for the mentally ill, as success depends on their co-operation?

Yes, Sir. I am anxious lo work very closely with all the professions. I had a session with the NSMHC recently, when I asked its representatives to come and discuss with me any gap there might be between us.

Will the right hon. Gentleman view the film, which had its premiere today, called "Like Other People ", which shows the emotional and sexual needs of disabled people and of mentally handicapped people? Will he look at the film before other Questions are tabled and also read the authoritative report by Ann Shearer, brought out today, on the emotional needs of mentally handicapped people?

I will try to see the film.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the procedures adopted by hospitals within the National Health Service for examining elderly persons who have been involved in accidents, and for their after-care; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, but if my hon. Friend is concerned about a particular case and will send me details I will gladly look into it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some hospitals, at least in the London area, have an inexplicable rule by which, even if a person over 80 years old is admitted after a fall in an accident in which a bone may well have been broken he is not automatically X-rayed? In a recent well-publicised case, an elderly person had to wait four days before the family doctor got to him, meanwhile suffering a great deal of agony because the bone was, in fact, broken.

I will consider the matter, but the use of X-ray equipment must be a matter of judgment by the clinical technician.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects a start on the next phase in the development of St. Cross Hospital, Rugby.

It is too early to forecast the date.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents are normally patient people but that they are fed up with year after year of waiting for desperately-needed improvement? Can we have fewer promises from the regional hospital board and the Department and a little more action? If we do not get it, 80,000 people are going to come marching down the M1.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I know that his constituents are normally patient people because I paid a prolonged and enjoyable day's visit to Rugby, when the people were assured that they would have their new hospital at St. Cross by the year 1974–75.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now arrange a further meeting with the representatives of the Disabled Drivers' Association and the Spastics Society further to the deputation he received on 7th December, 1971.

asked the Prime Minister if he will fix a date for a further meeting with the representatives of the Disabled Drivers' Association and the Spastics Society whom he met on 7th December, 1971.

As a result of my previous meeting, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced improvements in the invalid transport scheme on 21st February. In addition, Lady Sharp has accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into ways of helping those who are immobilised by severe physical disablement, and is already in touch with the Disabled Drivers' Association and the Spastics Society. I have at present no plans for a further meeting.—[Vol. 831. c. 213–5.]

While acknowledging the recent changes affecting haemophiliacs and disabled mothers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recalls the emphasis which we placed last December on the mobility needs of those who are too severely disabled to drive themselves? Why are they still waiting for help?

This matter is to be considered by Lady Sharp because it is set out specifically in the terms of reference of her inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) were both present at the meeting, they will recall that those present agreed with me that we could not deal with all the problems at once and that there must be an order of priorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has set out that list of priorities and I am glad that we have been able to do as much as we have in the time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he offered this deputation tea and sympathy but precious little else'? Is he further aware that the improvements to which he has just referred are being paid for not by the Government but by other disabled invalid vehicle users, who have forfeited certain concessions in order to pay for the improvements? Can he tell us what increase in expenditure there has been, as a result of these talks, on vehicles for the disabled?

I cannot accept what the right hon. Lady said, which is very grudging and is certainly not borne out by the letters which I have had from those concerned—namely, the members of the organisations I met. The right hon. Lady says that nothing has been done. Five major improvements have been introduced by my right hon. Friend. Those qualifying for a vehicle will in future be able to forgo it and to receive instead an allowance of £100 a year tax free. This was specifically asked for in order to introduce flexibility into the scheme. It is no longer necessary for those individuals unable to walk because of a lung or heart condition to show that they need a vehicle to get to work in order to qualify for one. That is another group for which help was asked. Mothers who qualify for vehicles can have a car instead of a three-wheeler if they have young children. That was another case put to us. Disabled people living alone in their own households, who would normally have to have full-time employment to qualify, will be able to have a vehicle even if they are not working. That was a further major point put to us. Any vehicle issued by the Department or run with the assistance of the new allowance will be exempted from vehicle excise duty. The question of the haemophiliacs has already been mentioned. These are all valuable steps which the Labour Government could not take and which we have taken.

As a vice-president of the Disabled Drivers' Association, I can say that we are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for receiving us and for all that has stemmed from that meeting. But much more remains to be done and the great need is to put the case to Lady Sharp and her Committee.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The two major organisations mentioned in this Question are already in touch with Lady Sharp. We are anxious to hear views from any who have proposals to put forward. We have already shown that we are prepared to take practical action. When Lady Sharp reports—she has been asked to do so within the year—we will consider her recommendations.

asked the Prime Minister what communications he has had with President Pompidou since 23rd April.

asked the Prime Minister what communications he has had with President Pompidou since 23rd April.

My communications with President Pompidou are confidential.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French President remembers only too well a previous seige in Vietnam? Will the Prime Minister now pick up a telephone and ask President Pompidou whether it is in order to tell President Nixon that the British people want him to stop this crazy war adventure that he has embarked on in the last few hours?

The British Government are, of course, in touch with President Nixon. If President Pompidou wishes to express views to him, I have no doubt that he will do so.

Since President Pompidou has recognised the fact that in a democracy people must decide their own destiny, is there any reason, as we are supposed to live in a democracy, why the Prime Minister should not take a leaf out of President Pompidou's book and allow the British people to decide their own destiny on the most momentous issue that has ever faced this country? Or is he afraid to do so?

The entry into force of the Treaty of Accession, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, is dependent on its ratification by all member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It is open to each of the member States to decide how they should do this. There is no reason why we should argue particularly for a referendum, such as they had in France, nor is there any reason why instead of a referendum, we should not pursue parliamentary methods, as they do in Germany. The matter has been discussed in this House and the Amendment was rejected by a considerable majority.

Will the Prime Minister persuade President Pompidou to take part rather more closely in the affairs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, because it is likely that it will not be long before the Americans have left Europe, and if the European people wish to defend themselves against Communism, they had better get together.

I do not entirely agree with the mood of the second part of my hon. Friend's question. French policy in NATO is a matter for France, although we have always expressed our desire that, if they find it possible, the French should play a larger part in NATO.

asked the Prime Minister if, at his next meeting with officials of the Trades Union Congress, he will discuss the measures the Government have taken to reduce the number of strikes.

I expect that there will be further discussions about what has been done and what more could he done to promote the peaceful and rational resolution of industrial disputes.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the irrational handling of the railways dispute will result in an increase in the already high number of working days lost under this Government since they took office? Is he further aware that the Government and the Board are responsible for creating confusion about which offer has been made, when it will be paid and who is speaking to whom? Would it help the Prime Minister if Sir Sidney Greene were to invite him and the Chairman of the Railways Board to a beer and sandwiches session to help them sort out the confusion?

I do not think there is any confusion among those dealing with this difficult matter. The hon. Gentleman spoke about reducing the number of strikes. It is to be noted that in the first three months of this year there were 448 strikes and in the first three months of 1970 there were 1.212. If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the railway negotiations, these were not discussed at my meeting with the TUC. It was not appropriate to do so.

Is it not a scandal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—that the ordinary citizen is being required[" Reading."]—through his personal taxation to finance and enable strikers—

Go hack to reading!

—to be in a position to hold the nation to ransom? Will the Prime Minister seek to take measures to redress the balance of misery as between the community as a whole and the strikers so that it is not always the community that suffers most?

Under existing law the families of those who require assistance can obtain supplementary benefit. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not justifiable, through a work-to-rule, to put the community to the inconvenience that we have seen, or to cause economic dislocation to the country as a whole.

In view of the many speeches the right hon. Gentleman made before the Election pledging himself to reduce the toll of man-days lost through disputes, will he tell the House the total number of man-days lost under this Government in the 21 months up to 31st March, 1972?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants figures for specific periods which he selects, I am prepared to send them to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] What is true is that the major loss in man-days has been due to two very large strikes, the Post Office strike and the miners' strike. What is also noticeable is that in the rest of industry the number of strikes is approximately one-third of what it was when the right hon. Gentleman was in power.

If the right hon. Gentleman either does not know the figures for his own period of office or has not the guts to give them in the House—[Interruption.] Will he confirm that man-days lost from all causes add up now to 35,225,000—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman used to offer to help me with figures when he was on this side of the House. I am helping him. Would he agree with that figure and agree that it represents 150 per cent. of the total man-days lost during the whole period of the Labour Government?

If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about it, why did he not pass his own industrial relations legislation and get something done about it?

asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek an official meeting with Mr. Lynch to discuss border security.

I have no plans for a meeting with Mr. Lynch, but we remain in close touch through diplomatic channels about matters of mutual interest, including border security.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disappointment that since the initiative, while Mr. Lynch is prepared to engage in fancy words, he does not follow them up with action in dealing with IRA activity in Southern Ireland? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Government are doing everything they can to tabulate and follow up each incident and trail, and constantly to remind Mr. Lynch of his responsibilities?

I can assure my hon. Friend that information on every incident on the border of which we have details is passed to the Government in Dublin. They know full well our views, and we look to them for co-operation in dealing with cross-border incidents.

While I fully appreciate Mr. Lynch's problems, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the case that the economy, the well-being and the reputation of the Irish Republic are suffering from the IRA? Is it not in the common interest of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic to tackle this problem together? Cannot something be done to get nearer to a joint control of the Irish border?

Of course it is in the common interest of both countries that we should deal with violence. I made this plain to Mr. Lynch at the meetings we had, the first at Chequers last September and the second with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, when the three Prime Ministers met for the first time in 50 years. We have taken every step possible to deal with this question and to emphasise that it is a common interest.

Have the Government of the Republic been made aware of the strength of public feeling in the United Kingdom that, while we are doing everything in our power to create a just and peaceful society in Northern Ireland, we are entitled to expect greater co-operation from the Government in Dublin, particularly in the control of gunmen across the border?

Yes, Sir. The Republican Government now have their ambassador back in London and we have our ambassador in Dublin. I am certain that the Government of the Republic are well informed about the state of British public opinion.