asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now consider increasing the amount of savings which can be disregarded for the purpose of determining eligibility for payments of supplementary benefits; and if he will make a statement.

We intend to review the amount of capital disregarded in assessing supplementary benefit at an appropriate time, but I cannot yet say when that will be.

Is not the Minister aware that it is now a number of years since capital disregards were considered, that the value of savings has eroded considerably due to inflation, and that he should be more specific than he has been if some comfort is to be given to those who are entitled to supplementary benefit?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Equally I am sure that he will appreciate that this has to be balanced along with all the other priorities, especially increasing the rates of benefits for those actually in receipt of benefit.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is an extremely disappointing answer? Ought not the disregards to be increased automatically at the same time as benefits? How can my hon. Friend expect people to save for their old age when they are required to run down small capital sums with the result that they are no better off than those who have not bothered to save?

We want to encourage thrift. That is why a disregard is available. Equally, we cannot ignore capital resources where they exist. I remind my hon. Friend that the whole value of an owner-occupied house is disregarded and that people can have to up to £800 capital and still be eligible.

Is the Minister aware that I share the disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) at his reply? I think that the whole House will be disappointed that the Minister does not see fit to make the review. When he does make it, will he give massive publicity to the total amount of the disregard, since a great many old people do not apply for supplementary benefit because they think they have a bob or two above the limit?

That is a slightly different point, but we are anxious to continue, and intend to continue, the publicity arrangements with a view to everybody who is entitled to those benefits claiming them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of invalidity pensioners he estimates are receiving early retirement pensions or sick pay in respect of their employment.

I regret that the information asked for is not available.

It is difficult for me to thank my right hon. Friend for his informative answer, as I was hoping to be able to do. Will my right hon. Friend continue to seek ways in which those who have a disability may receive earlier retirement pensions through their occupational schemes?

I should like to earn my hon. Friend's gratitude. He will be glad to know that we have a research programme under way which will give us a great deal more information about the financial position of invalidity beneficiaries.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent, either before or after the publication of his White Paper "Strategy for Pensions", he has had discussions with organisations representing occupational pension schemes about the practicability of requiring such schemes to include an invalidity pension as a condition of recognition; and which organisations considered it to be impracticable.

This was not discussed because, accepting as we did that there are limits to the requirements that schemes can reasonably be expected to meet, we regarded provision for widows and some protection against inflation as of greater priority.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep concern at the lack of provision for the disabled in the White Paper "Strategy for Pensions"? Will he carry out the closest consultations with the organisations representing occupational pension schemes, especially those which already make provision for earnings-related invalidity pensions? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of such schemes already in operation is very low—only 1½ per cent. extra—and that in most European and Scandinavian countries earnings-related invalidity schemes are already in operation with the State scheme?

Yes. I hope the trend will grow. I hope my hon. Friend is aware that the public service schemes are setting a good example in this sphere.

While I am as anxious as the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) to see an improvement in the standard of occupational pensions schemes and a far higher standard being insisted upon by the Government than we have had any sign of yet, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the nub of the trouble is that the Government are setting such a bad example in "Strategy for Pensions" where, as the Disablement Income Group has pointed out, there is no effective provision for the disabled because there is no provision for an earnings-related invadility pension?

First, I hope that the right hon. Lady will shortly recover from the disability to her arm from which she is suffering so elegantly. Secondly, I think that both the right hon. Lady and the House will agree that the country as a whole has a long way to make up in proper treatment of the disabled. While this Government have started to make substantial inroads on past neglect by the attendance allowance and the invalidity package, there is a long way to go, and it may not be possible to go as fast as some admirable people, such as the Disablement Income Group, want us to go.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes towards myself, may I point out that although I am temporarily incapable of delivering a right upper cut, I can still deliver a straight left, and that which I have just delivered seems to have knocked him out.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total weekly outgoings on national insurance benefits, excluding attendance allowances, currently payable to invalidity pensioners; what is his estimate of the total weekly earnings such persons would be receiving if they were not incapacitated; and what proportion the former bears to the latter.

The current cost of national insurance invalidity benefit is about £3¼ million a week. The information is not available on which to base an estimate of what the earnings of invalidity pensioners might be if they were able to work.

Surely if we are to make some assessment of the grave problems afflicting the disabled, the Department should try to work out these facts and figures. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the other part of his reply. Does it not confirm that to be disabled means that one has to suffer additional burdens economically as well as in every other way and that the progress we are making, welcome though it is, is not nearly fast enough to give the disabled a fair and just deal?

The Government and, indeed, the whole House are committed to making up for the slow start that this country made in providing for civilian disability. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that four new allowances have been introduced in the last two years in this respect, and that is only a start.

May I press the hon. Gentleman on the need to provide the information requested at the earliest possible date? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend may at least earn the deferred gratitude of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) if he provides the information asked for by his hon. Friend at the earliest possible date?

Yes. We certainly intend to make available as much information as possible, because that helps to improve knowledge and enables responsible pressures to assist in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of invalidity pensioners are currently receiving supplementary benefit in addition to invalidity benefit.

At November, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, nearly 30 per cent. of the 400,000 people receiving invalidity benefit were also in receipt of supplementary benefit.

Will the Minister confirm that the following shocking statement is correct: that wealthy disabled people are allowed to retain their invalidity allowance whereas poor disabled people have it grabbed back from them by the Government if they are dependent on supplementary benefit? If that is true, what does the Minister propose to do about it?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has not got it right. Where there are special needs they can be and, indeed, are dealt with within the supplementary benefits scheme. The scheme responds to individual needs. In the case of the chronic sick, where there are special additional expenses they can be and are met under the scheme as it is.

The hon. Gentleman must not try to dodge the issue like that. The facts of the situation, which I have checked recently, are that the vast majority of the 30 per cent. of people receiving invalidity allowance find that their supplementary benefit is reduced by exactly the amount of the invalidity allowance. How can the hon. Gentleman defend that?

I am saying that the combination of the invalidity allowance and the supplementary benefits scheme responds and will continue to respond to the special needs of the chronic sick.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when positive tax credits are introduced the blind person's allowance, which is available only to better-off blind people, will be available to all?

I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Green Paper on the future of the tax credit arrangements, which will be coming along fairly soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to announce plans for providing earnings-related invalidity pensions in Great Britain.

I am not satisfied that provision for disability in the State scheme would best be developed on these lines.

May I press the Minister on the powerful supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? Why on earth cannot the Government give a lead on earnings-related invalidity pensions? Moreover, will the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that he will have full and meaningful consultations with the Disablement Income Group on this deeply important matter?

It is fair to say that the Government, as employers, have given a lead in the public service schemes which make provision for this, but we have to consider in the first place in the National Insurance Scheme benefits which may mature immediately, and it is for that reason that the first priority is being given to those which give assistance to people who are sick and disabled now, rather than to those who will be sick and disabled some years in the future.

Is my hon. Friend aware that earnings-related schemes would not be of much use in certain cases, particularly to disabled married couples at work in sheltered employment who, in many cases, are worse off going to work?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. One of the points which DIG has properly put to us over the years is that of giving more help for disabled housewives and those who have never been able to work. Neither of those categories would be included in any earnings-related scheme depending on the ability to work.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister to complete his reply to my supplementary question about consultations with DIG?

Whilst agreeing that the first priority of the State is to see that severely disabled people get all possible benefits, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that we must push ahead and see that those within two or three years of retirement receive some disability benefit, because they are left out of the scheme at present?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his statement, which again emphasises the need to assist those who are either retired or disabled now.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether as a result of his consideration of the case of the death of Mrs. Green in Napsbury Mental Hospital, he has now decided to hold a full-scale inquiry into conditions there.

As the hon. Member knows from my recent letter, I have decided, after consultation with the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, to arrange for an independent professional investigation into medical and nursing practices on certain wards at Napsbury Hospital.

I have not yet received the right hon. Gentleman's letter. What is against his having a full-scale inquiry on the lines of the Whittingham Hospital inquiry? It can only be beneficial. If the nurses have been using only reasonable force to restrain violent patients, they should be cleared. If, on the other hand, they have been getting annoyed and cuffing patients indiscriminately, something should be done about it. In either case, it will be beneficial to have a full-scale inquiry.

The fact is that the rather serious number of complaints concerning Napsbury Hospital over recent times have been almost entirely connected with a small number of wards. That is why, rather than distract and divert the work of the whole hospital, about the vast majority of which there have been no complaints, I have decided to have an investigation made into the wards concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that everybody concerned with medicine in this country is grateful for the acknowledgement which he shows that conditions in mental hospitals are rather less than satisfactory? Does he realise that this situation will not be improved until we have adequate nursing staff, adequately paid, in adequate buildings?

Yes. I should like to take this opportunity, in replying to my hon. Friend, to pay tribute to the devotion and zeal, in the interests of the patients, of the overwhelming majority of doctors and nurses involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements his Department makes to the availability of his Department's posters and leaflets at main and sub-post offices.

The Post Office undertakes to distribute leaflets and posters to all Crown and sub-post offices and to keep stocks available. The Department also pays for poster displays in Crown post offices.

Has my hon. Friend seen a recent survey which revealed that very often sub-post offices are better stocked than main post offices? Will he engage in duscussions with the Post Office authorities to see that not only are the main leaflets from his Department available but that wherever possible posters are on display, because visiting the post office is the only way in which many people can become aware of the benefits to which they may be entitled?

The Post Office does a massive job of distribution and display for us—about 18 million leaflets a year. But I take my hon. Friend's point and I assure him that because of the weaknesses which exist in some areas we are discussing the situation with the Post Office in the hope of seeking an improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for increasing the amount of psychiatric accommodation on South Tyneside.

It is our policy in redeveloping psychiatric services to bring them closer to the population served. The Regional Hospital Board's long-term plan is to base the hospital services for the mentally ill on psychiatric departments in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead and South Shields General Hospital, each containing in-patient, day-patient and out-patient facilities sufficient for the populations served by these general hospitals. Future plans for services for the mentally handicapped are at present being considered jointly by the hospital board and the local authorities.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he recognise that South Tyneside is inadequately served by the excellent hospital at St. Mary's Stannington? Recently a lady who attempted to commit suicide by throwing herself off the Tyne bridge on three occasions on the same evening was refused admittance to St. Mary's because of overcrowding. Therefore, is not there a case for bringing forward the plans for a psychiatric unit at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in the short term rather than the long term?

I am aware of the particular case in relation to St. Mary's Hospital, about which representations are being considered. As the hon. Gentleman will have learned from my answer, because of the difficulties of distance and separation we are trying to bring the facilities of the South Shields and the Queen Elizabeth Hospitals forward as rapidly as resources permit in order to bring them nearer home.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in which year, on current trends, the population of the United Kingdom will begin to fall; and in which year it will fall below replacement rate.

I am advised by the Registrar-General that both current numbers of births and recent evidence about future intentions on family size indicate fertility levels above replacement rate. On this basis, projections of the size of the population show an upward trend over the medium and longer term.

Has not the birth rate already begun to decline? Confessing some interest in the matter as one who may be called the anti-social father of six, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that his Department will not lend itself to the fashionable death-wish propaganda against the family of more than two children, and also that such families will not be discriminated against in the future through withholding social benefits?

My hon. Friend and I are together responsible for no fewer than 10 children, but questions on population policy are for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell the House what stage has been reached in the Government's review of the family planning services? In view of the proposed reorganisation and integration of the National Health Service, will he make a statement about the rôle which the family planning services will play in the overall structure?

I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the review of the family planning services later this year.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the best form of population control which this country requires and wants is strict control of immigration?

I must repeat that all questions on such subjects are not for me.

I recognise that responsibility for population policy is not within the right hon. Gentleman's orbit, but may I ask whether his Department has carried out any investigation into what would be the likely effect on the size of families if we were to limit family and tax allowances to the first two or three children.

No such inquiries have been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the administration of his local offices in assisting and explaining their entitlements coming under the jurisdiction of his Department to recently bereaved widows; and if he will make a statement.

Claims from widows are dealt with sympathetically and given priority in my Department's local offices. Information about the benefits to which a widow may be entitled is given by the Register when her late husband's death is recorded.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am satisfied with the expedition and fullness of the information which he gave me about a case that I put to him? Would he like to reaffirm to the House that where cases of administrative oversight are drawn to his attention his Department will act with similar expedition?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I apologise for the error that was made. That was a complicated case concerning an injury which went back to well before the industrial injuries scheme. We consider these cases very sympathetically, and the Registrar helps, too. He makes available our leaflet which gives information about the death grant and also the widow's benefit. If widow's benefit may be payable the Registrar issues one free copy of the death certificate, and this incorporates a simple form on which the widow may indicate that she wishes to claim widow's benefit and/or death grant.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why the number of patients on doctors' lists in inner London exceeds by over half a million the total population of inner London; and what action he is taking to remedy this discrepancy.

This is mainly because patients' names sometimes remain on doctors' lists after they have moved away from the area. The Inner London Executive Council is supplementing the normal checks by special action, including writing to verify the registration particulars of all patients who have been on the registers for more than six months, except where these particulars have been recently confirmed in some other way. Something like three million letters will be needed, so this is a lengthy task.

Is this not a quite crazy and indefensible state of affairs? How many thousands of pounds have been poured into the pockets of doctors at the taxpayers' expense in respect of this vast number of ghost patients?

The problem of keeping pace with patients who move from one practice to another without notifying the executive council has been with us ever since the beginning of the National Health Service. I hope that the current discussions between the BMA and my Department, and the check to which I have referred, will bring about some improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to those involved in industrial disputes and their dependants during such disputes and after return to work in the first seven months of 1972.

Approximately £6·9 million.

As the strike subsidy is now running at a rate between two and three times that prevailing prior to the passage of the Social Security Act, 1971, is there not some urgency to my right hon. Friend's review of the workings of the Act? Will he give a progress report on that review and indicate when if will be completed?

It is true that the rate is now running at one and a half times the rate in the first seven months of last year. But 94 per cent. of the supplementary benefits payment payable this year to the dependants of strikers and to strikers was accounted for by a single strike, the miners' strike. Certainly the Government regard the review to which my hon. Friend refers as urgent, but we also regard it as extremely important to get the balance of the decision right.

Will the Secretary of State put some of the complaints made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) in perspective? Will he do his best to put in proper perspective the recent remarks of the hon. Gentleman about the advice which was given by the Claimants Union in Coventry, in that this was advice which was not endorsed by the Transport and General Workers Union, the union concerned?

Certainly the recent inflammatory leaflet in Coventry was promptly disowned by the trade union concerned. But my hon. Friend's disquiet is entirely justified, and while it is necessary to keep this whole subject in proportion, it is nevertheless entirely right for the Government to try to get the right balance between the interests of the public as a whole and the interests of the families of those who have voluntarily withdrawn their labour.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has a great deal of public sympathy on his side? There is very strong public feeling on this matter. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a man's wife and children should be that man's responsibility and that if he wishes to strike the State ought not to permit him to ditch his responsibilities, in the way that many such men do?

I have indicated my sympathy with the worry expressed by both my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, we must get the balance of decision right. I hope that the whole House will understand that the relatively simple solutions which are often peddled do not always bear close examination.

Is the Secretary of State aware that any disquiet which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) may feel on this subject is as nothing to the disquiet felt on the Opposition benches as a result of the industrial chaos which the general policies of the present Government have produced? Has not the level of supplementary benefit paid in the first seven months of this year been caused by precisely the policies put forward by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for South Angus? Would not a way of cutting down on such benefits be for the Government to rethink the whole of their industrial relations policy, including the scrapping of the Industrial Relations Act?

I do not believe that the very nearly indiscriminate support of the Opposition Front Bench and their hon. Friends of almost every wage claim and industrial dispute does the country any good or, indeed, does their interests any good.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when family allowances are extended to the first child this may make a significant increase in the amount of family benefit available which is indpendent of the circumstances of the breadwinner?

I am sorry to rebuff my hon. Friend and his enthusiasm. But the Green Paper on the tax credit scheme is promised for later this year. I must ask him and the House to await it.

When talking about inflammatory statements, is the Secretary of State aware that a recent decision made in Merseyside has not helped to ease the situation? The interpretation of paragraph 27 of Schedule 2 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, which his Department has found convenient to operate, is so rigid that it is causing aggravation where aggravation is not required?

I think that the House will acquit me of trying to shelter behind anyone else, but the Supplementary Benefits Commission is an independent body. It is up to the Commission to interpret the legislation under which it operates.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals in the central area of London provide an emergency casualty service each night.

Thirty-four, in the inner London area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on the evening of Friday, 21st July, there was not even a nurse or a receptionist available at the Westminster Hospital to decide which of the casualties waiting in the queue were in need of urgent attention, and that no doctor was available at either Westminster Hospital or St. Thomas's Hospital until after a two to three-hour wait? Some of the casualties needed urgent attention. Is not this evidence of a badly organised hospital service which is in need of investigation?

Some of the 34 hospitals I have mentioned have on occasion had to restrict their night service because of shortage of beds or of staff. The case which my hon. Friend has brought to the notice of the House is serious and I shall investigate it.

How many hospitals are not equipped to provide this service? Could not some method of announcing which are and which are not so equipped be adopted?

That is a rather general question, and my hon. Friend has a Question on the Order Paper about his second point. I shall see whether I can write to him about the first point when I have studied it more carefully.

Is not part of the answer drastically to overhaul the conditions of employment of nurses and the younger doctors manning our hospitals? I know that the Under-Secretary is very much concerned about this matter. Does not he consider that there ought to be a speeding-up of this examination to improve recruitment and, therefore, to alleviate the situation we are discussing?

One of the difficulties is the serious problem of career prospects for young doctors in accident and emergency departments. We have made progress on this matter by securing the appointment of 32 consultant posts in this specialty.

My hon. Friend is obviously aware of the great concern all over the country, particularly in towns served by only one hospital, at the serious nature of the deficiencies of the emergency casualty services in many hospitals. Therefore, if there is no easy way of solving this problem quickly, will he set up a committee to sift the problem?

There are serious difficulties. The progress I have mentioned, the appointment of consultants, is a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in many cases local general practitioners can play an important part in helping to meet local emergencies.

Is the Minister aware that there has been widespread discontent on the part of junior hospital doctors for some years? Is he prepared at least to order a departmental inquiry to see whether something can be done particularly about their conditions of employment in relation to those of senior members of the medical profession?

That supplementary question goes very much wider than the ambit of accident and emergency departments. But I am aware of the very serious problems of career prospects in this sector, which we are looking into.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the achievements to date of his policies to alleviate family poverty; and if he will make a statement.

I am not satisfied, but our measures have certainly provided substantial additional help to poor families and we shall not relax our efforts for further improvement.

Is the Secretary of State aware that last year stockbrokers took £300 million in profits and that shareholders with large unearned incomes got a £300 million tax gift from the Inland Revenue while poor families got precisely £7 million in family income supplement? When will the right hon. Gentleman have the courage and realism to admit that family income supplement is nothing but a means-tested con trick to salve weak Tory consciences?

The two successive increases in the tax threshold which my right hon. Friend has introduced—first in 1971 and then in 1972—have put hundreds of millions of pounds back into the pockets of the lower wage earners and must be taken into account as the main contribution to help hard-pressed families. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise is that the levels of tax today on the higher incomes are higher than in nearly any other country and that the confiscatory levels of tax on higher incomes which the Labour Government operated did not enable them to help the poor nearly as much as we are helping the poor.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that where the family income supplement scheme is operating with a certain amount of success there have been a number of cases in which a very long delay has cropped up before an application is attended to? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that applications for family income supplement are receiving and will receive more rapid attention?

This is not a complaint that I have had often, and I hope my hon. Friend will send me details, because the centralisation of this service should provide a rapid response.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has to improve the rates of pay of ancillary workers within the National Health Service and to expedite wage negotiations in this sector.

The current agreement of the Ancillary Staffs Council runs until December; negotiations for revised rates of pay are expected to begin in September.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the machinery for negotiations within the Health Service is extremely ponderous and that ancillary workers on the lowest rate of pay are receiving what by any standards is very poor pay? Is my hon. Friend aware that these workers have refused to go on strike out of consideration for the patients in the hospitals in which they serve? Will my hon. Friend show these ancillary workers similar consideration?

There is no doubt that ancillary workers are amongst the lower-paid workers. The 1971 pay settlement increased the wages bill by 7·6 per cent. Another wage claim is presently expected, about which I should not comment at present.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that unless the ancillary services are properly manned—that is, radiographers, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists and nurses, all of whom are very important to the functioning of a realistic Health Service—there cannot be a fully staffed and effective Health Service? To secure this, realistic rates of pay should be given to these people now to increase recruitment for the future.

I fully support the hon. Gentleman's exposition of the vital part played by the various ancillary workers, of whom there are many different categories. I have no doubt that realism is present on both sides in the negotiations which take place in the Whitley Councils.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that some of the rates of pay which were referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) are quite shocking and that, far from the units being fully staffed, some people are leaving the service because of the rates of pay? As the Prime Minister has expressed great interest in the lower paid in his discussions with the Trades Union Congress, will the Government take action on this very important point?

I have conceded, regretfully, that ancillary workers are amongst the lower-paid workers, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the substantial increases accorded in 1971, and no doubt a claim will be made presently for 1972 by the trade union concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many accident departments in England have been temporarily closed in the last two years due to staff shortage or other causes.

This information is not collected centrally and is therefore not available. To obtain it would require a special survey covering the whole of the National Health Service.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anger and frustration in East Bristol about the recent closure of the casualty unit at Cossham? Following the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) and for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the answer which my hon. Friend gave, would it not be a good idea if he studied the national pattern? Is there not some evidence that, where regional hospital boards are unable to obtain the necessary satisfaction about the reasons for closing casualty units, they seem to be going out of their way to find reasons, thus depriving a large number of people of an adjacent casualty service?

My hon. Friend came to see me to talk about this matter. I hope that he thought that our talk was constructive. My hon. Friend will remember that Cossham got through no fewer than 10 casualty officers in the course of a few months. This was due to the very real problems of career prospects for younger doctors in casualty and emergency services.

I recognise the importance of career prospects, but does the Under-Secretary agree that it would be desirable to appoint part-time casualty officers if there are general practitioners willing to serve? Will he bear in mind that many married women doctors would welcome a suitable appointment in an accident department?

I take the hon. Lady's point about part-time doctors, particularly part-time women doctors. She will know that my Department gives every possible encouragement to general practitioners to attend, on sessional bases, for minor injuries work in local hospitals, thus allowing the concentration of skilled resources and manpower to be placed in the major general hospitals.

asked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the British Broadcasting Corporation programme, "Panorama", on 24th July on industrial relations represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

Can the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary help the House by naming perhaps two of the major British industrial companies whose management would think it wise to use the Industrial Relations Act?

The publicly expressed view of the CBI, which represents the great majority of British companies, is that the Act should remain.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for meetings with representatives of the Trades Union Congress during the Parliamentary summer recess.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent meetings with Trades Union Congress leaders.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent official talks with the Trades Union Congress at Downing Street.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his latest meeting with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry concerning matters of mutual concern.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meetings with the Trades Union Congress.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with Mr. Victor Feather and officers of the Trades Union Congress since 24th July, 1972; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his most recent meeting with the Trades Union Congress.

I took the chair at a further meeting with the TUC and CBI yesterday. A work programme to be undertaken by the staff of the three parties was agreed, covering the practicability of action under two headings. The first is action by the participants in collective bargaining to improve the relative position of the lower paid, consistently with slowing down the rate of inflation. The second is action which could be taken by the parties to reduce the rate of increase in prices in the next twelve months. The work will also cover a number of factors which are relevant to these two objectives.

Is the Prime Minister aware that most of the House will be very glad that these talks are to take place? How much of the information or the papers prepared will be made public to the House and to people outside? Will the Prime Minister define more closely what is meant by "lower-paid workers"? Is it those on £20 a week, £25 a week, or what figure? How does the Prime Minister square the need for slowing down price increases with the provisions of the Housing Finance Act which, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, will probably increase rents on average by 14 per cent. per year?

On the last part of the question, I do not accept the Leader of the Opposition's figures. He appears to have omitted the private sector of housing and the rent allowances in that sector.

In spite of the attempts by certain hon. Members opposite to sabotage all discussions between the trade unions and the Government, is it not encouraging that the Trades Union Congress has risen above this and that the Industrial Relations Act has brought it into direct discussion with the Government and the Confederation of British Industry?

In fairness, it should be said that a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite want to see work of this kind done and believe that it is in itself valuable. I hope that the whole House will feel that in the three meetings that we have had we have made substantial progress. There is now a great deal of work to be done by those representing the three parties and then conclusions and decisions will be required in September.

Since shareholders profited from last year's rise in the price of ordinary shares to the tune of over £20 billion while wage earners gained only one-ninth as much in total wage rises, how can the Prime Minister seriously expect the ordinary industrial worker to forgo his just wage rise until the Government impose restraint on this colossal windfall stock exchange profiteering?

The question of investment and the means of providing the finance for it is one of those which all three parties have agreed shall be on the agenda and the work will be done during the coming weeks.

Has the Prime Minister had an invitation from the TUC to speak at its conference, which will take place during the recess?

I have already made public my availability, but there is still no proposal to take advantage of it.

In order to make talks with the TUC meaningful, will the Prime Minister indicate what proposals he is to make to it about the Government's action to curb property speculation, which has been quite indecent in the last year or so? Will he also indicate to the TUC what proposals he has concerning the Housing Finance Act, since council tenants' increases in rent will not be 72 per cent., which was the figure he presented in his bogus statistics, but more like 13 per cent.?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The TUC find these talks meaningful or they would not have continued them or agreed to the programme of work and the meeting on 14th September.

I recognise the success of these talks, but would they not go even better if we could have an authoritative statement from the Leader of the Opposition repudiating the pernicious nonsense being peddled about by the Chairman of the Labour Party?

The Leader of the Opposition might prefer the Chairman of the Labour Party to speak for himself.

All of us want to see communications between the Government and the trade union movement, but may I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the recent article in the Sunday Press by Mr. Frank Chapple, who is by no means a militant in the trade union movement, saying that he and others like him have had their positions made impossible by the Industrial Relations Act and what has flowed from it? Can the Prime Minister not say to the TUC that there is some kind of timetable for the amendment or the withdrawal of the Act?

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to exaggerate what Mr. Chapple said. He put forward specific proposals for amendments to the Act where he thought they would be justified. I have said that I cannot repeal or suspend the Act but that when it has had an opportunity to work, amendments to it can be considered. We have indicated directly to the TUC in these talks that if it would like to put forward proposals for amendment we would consider them.

Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister see some real prospect that the higher paid and the rather higher paid will agree to a narrowing of the differential?

It is too early to reach a conclusion about that, but obviously in dealing with the lower-paid and wage negotiations at a level which will not put an undue burden on the firms or industries concerned, the relationship between the lower-paid and the rest must be taken into account. This is one of the most difficult questions we have been discussing, but it has been discussed very seriously and further work will need to be done on it.

Has the Prime Minister seen the excellent contribution on this subject in the article in The Times yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)? Does he appreciate that it represents far more accurately the feelings of people in this country than some of the sentiments expressed by Conservative back-benchers? What does he intend to do during the recess to come ashore and find out what people are thinking?

Of course I respect the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) but I cannot agree with the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary.

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of discussing with the CBI the disturbing lack of control by certain trade unions over their members stemming partly from the activities of some employers who decline to meet wage claims made by responsible trade union leaders and then concede them two or three weeks later to militants?

That specific question has not been discussed in the talks, but both the CBI and the TUC have been genuine in discussing difficult factors involved in wage negotiations and the means of dealing with them, particularly in the context of the lower paid and the possibility of threshold agreements.

In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that my letter to him was nullified by the exclusion of private tenants. Does he not recall that when the question was first put to him about the CBI limit of 5 per cent., I asked him for an assurance that council house and new town tenants would not find their rents raised by more than 5 per cent.? Does he recall that he refused to give that answer? He said that the figures could not be calculated—and then he calculated them and sent them to me. Does he now accept that the question was about council house tenants? Does he disagree with the estimate in my letter of 13 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—It is too high, not too long. Does he disagree with my estimate that the increase would be of the order of 13 to 14 per cent. for council house tenants, which was how this exchange began?

What I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot separate one part of housing provision from the whole of housing provision in this context. If he is trying to do so he is concerned not with the housing problem but purely with a political manoeuvre. What matters surely is that the private sector will also get help and, indeed, many of his hon. Friends have pressed for that help to be extended to furnished accommodation. The Government have undertaken to look at that to see whether it can be done. The right hon. Gentleman must deal with the whole picture.

I asked the Prime Minister almost a month ago for an assurance that council house tenants' rents would not be increased by more than the CBI 5 per cent. He refused to give that assurance. Will he now do so? It is not for him to say what should be the parameters of the question he was asked to answer. The Prime Minister may dodge the question, as he dodges every other question. Will he now say whether he disagrees with the figure of 13 to 14 per cent.? If he wants to import into the question a matter which was not put to him concerning private tenants, is he not aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—I can understand the sensitivity of Conservative Members. Will the Prime Minister now agree that by importing the private tenants into the picture—and there are five categories covered by the Act, only the first of which comes within the 12 months period. [Interruption.] Will he say whether his policies are within the 5 per cent. of the CBI, because he has been dodging the question for a month?

The Leader of the Opposition's memory is failing him. I told him the first time he asked the question that I would give no such assurance, but I have given him a figure for the whole of the housing sector. He is on a bad wicket and the quicker he gets off it the better.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Warley, Worcestershire.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Will the Prime Minister accept from me that until two years ago this was a classic example of an industrial area suffering from noise and pollution, but with most people busy and relatively prosperous? Within the last two years it has retained the pollution but lost the prosperity, and the prosperity recedes further with each new closure by the British Steel Corporation. Will the Prime Minister therefore give a clear answer? Do the Government accept responsibility for the social consequences of such events as the threatened closure of the Birchley Steel Mills, or does he say it is none of his business?

The hon. and learned Member knows that this is a matter which is the responsibility of the British Steel Corporation, and it was deliberately made so by the Labour Government. I know that he has an Adjournment debate about it tomorrow, and I know that he will then be able to initiate a fuller discussion about it. No Government under the existing legislation has the power to force British Steel Corporation to sell a mill if it is not prepared to do so. That provision was also written into the Act by the Labour Government. We have made it clear that the corporation is enabled to sell the mill if it wishes to do so, but in this case, for which I know he has deep concern, I cannot force the corporation to do something against its will.

Will my right hon. Friend take it that if he were to visit Oldbury, which is the best part of Warley—

Balls! Absolute nonsense!

—and which happens to be in my constituency, he would receive a warm welcome and a clear realisation that the sturdy, independent people of Oldbury do not wish for any specious help from across the border?

I admire my hon. Friend's local patriotism. I hope that it will be possible one day to accept his invitation.

Has the Prime Minister any conception of the damage which his Government's changes in industrial training have done to the prospects of young people, in an area such as Warley—which covers this foreign ground mentioned by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes)—where about 50 per cent. of all school leavers enter engineering, compared with a national average of about 13·9 per cent., simply because many of the smaller firms cannot afford training facilities?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern, and that of many other right hon. and hon. Members about training for the young, but I cannot for a moment accept that the steps which we have taken to increase the numbers being trained and which are borne out by the great increase in the figures of those undergoing training over the past two years, have damaged their prospects. I should agree with the hon. Gentleman if he said that much more still needs to be done, and we are trying to bring this about, but I do not accept that the increased training which we are providing has in any way damaged the potentialities of the young in his constituency.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the closures by the British Steel Corporation in Warley are having a depressing effect not only in Warley but in the whole of the West Midlands? When he does arrange his visit to Warley, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to cross the border to Walsall to see for himself the distressing effects which will be felt in that town as a result of the complete closure at the end of this year of the stainless steel tube works of Tube Investments, resulting in total redundancies of over 2,000?

The British Steel Corporation is carrying through a process of rationalisation, which was one of the arguments put forward by the Labour Government when they nationalised it, and this has certain consequences. The answer lies in regional policy to bring about increased employment in other spheres, and I am sure that the House will agree, as most observers agree, that the present regional incentives and the areas which they cover are the most generous which this country has ever had.

Although the Prime Minister tries to shuffle off his Government's responsibilities in these matters on to the British Steel Corporation, will he take into account that the Government have, apparently, proposed a figure of 28 million tons a year for production in the steel industry as sufficient, whereas the Corporation has been arguing for a figure nearer 36 million tons, and under the Labour Government it was proposing a figure of 42 million tons? Is it not plain, therefore, that under his Government's policy there has been a progressive reduction in the British Steel Corporation's programme?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The bracket is 28–36 million tons, and it was reached by a joint body on which the British Steel Corporation was fully represented. The Corporation accepts the bracket. What the Corporation has done, like the steel industry in most other Western countries, has been to look at future demand and to make its assessment on that.

If the right hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong on the figures, does he then say that the Corporation has accepted the figure of 28 million?

I said that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that it was Government policy which brought this about. What the British Steel Corporation has accepted is the bracket of 28–36 million tons for production. This can be reviewed annually, like all investment programmes, with the Corporation, and if it comes to the conclusion, with my right hon. Friend, that the demand will be greater than estimated by the joint body at this moment, action can be taken on it.