asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what figures he can now adduce to demonstrate a fall in cigarette smoking during the two years since the publication of his restrictive measures, including the labelling of packets with health warnings, advertisement monitoring and other devices; if he will now take further steps including the total restriction of advertising, as in Canada and elsewhere; and whether he will make a statement.

Following the fall in cigarette smoking in 1971 after publication of the Royal College of Physicians' report, there is evidence of an increase in total cigarette consumption in the first nine months of 1972. I do not yet have a figure of the number of nonsmokers in 1972. However, it has been estimated that in 1971 there were over 1 million more adult non-smokers than in 1970—that is, an increase from 44·4 per cent. to 47·2 per cent. of the adult population.

While applauding the zeal of my right hon. Friend, may I commend to him the example set by many other countries afflicted with the tobacco habit, namely Canada and others, where advertising of cigarettes has been banned entirely on account of the damaging influences of such advertisements? Will my right hon. Friend consider measures of this kind, which have often been suggested to him by myself and many other hon. Members?

I am not convinced that a ban on advertising would reduce the consumption of cigarettes, but I hope that the publication which will shortly be occurring of tar and nicotine yields will guide those who must smoke to less dangerous brands.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some weeks ago we drew to his attention the deceitful use of cigar advertising in an attempt to offset the ban on cigarette advertising? Will he look into this because it is one way of meeting the points he made in reply to the Question?

I undertook to look into that question, and I owe the hon. Gentleman an answer.

Will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of strengthening the warning in advertisements? We know that this is a first step but the wording is a little wishy-washy. Will my right hon. Friend go as far as is done in the United States and have it stated firmly in the advertisements that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health? That would be much more positive.

But we must be absolutely certain that what is put in the advertising is impeccably true. I am not convinced that a marginal alteration in the words would persuade smokers to give up the habit.

Has the Secretary of State been subjected to pressure by the Conservative Central Office on the bad image of a fuddy-duddy Government, thereby making him drag his feet? In the light of recent research, is it not nonsensical that, whereas industry is spending more than £1 million every week to promote the sale of cigarettes, the amount given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Health Education Council is in tens of thousands?

The amount given to the Health Education Council for this purpose was in a few hundreds of thousands of pounds last year, but the fact is that countries which have banned cigarette advertising altogether have not shown a falling consumption of cigarettes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to retain the regional hospital board headquarters in Sheffield; and if he will make a statement.

In order to crystallise opinion on this matter, I informed all the health and local authorities in the region that I had formed the conclusion that the headquarters should be at Nottingham. I have received a number of representations on this view. These are being studied, together with a number of other important factors, before a final decision is reached.

Is the Secretary of State aware that all parties in the Yorkshire region and hon. Members on both sides of the House are completely impressed with Sheffield's case, on grounds of availability, accessibility, level of employment, nature of employment and the involvement of the university and the teaching hospital? If he is seriously considering such a move, will he now put to the House just one good reason for even considering it?

A number of factors lead me to doubt the present location. The creation of a medical school at Nottingham, for instance, removes the unique distinction of Sheffield as having the only medical school in the region. In addition a medical school is to be created at Leicester. But I am being assailed from many parts of the region for the honour of having the regional headquarters. I shall take all the arguments into account before a conclusion is reached.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the southern part of the region, in which my constituency falls, is the poorest area in the region and that the region is the poorest in comparative terms? For that reason the decision in principle is welcomed by my constituents. We hope that the administrative advantages of central location will be of benefit. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling in the country that the National Health Service is becoming increasingly remote and that to place the headquarters in the centre would help in that respect?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for showing that there are several arguments on the subject. Whatever decision is reached, however, there will be work to be done in Sheffield in connection with regional headquarters for a number of years.

As the decision in principle has been taken without proper consultation, and as it arises from private pressures exerted by the vice-chancellors at Nottingham and Leicester, will the right hon. Gentleman now take into account the publicly expressed views and arguments from the elected Members of this House from all parts of the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board area?

I reject the hon. Gentleman's courteously expressed imputations. In fact the subject has been in open discussion since 3rd February 1972, when I came to a decision about whether to split the region. Many local authorities have expressed conflicting views on where the regional headquarters should be.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many families he estimates are currently subject to a poverty-trap surtax of at least 50 per cent.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 1st February.—[Vol. 849, c. 458–9.]

Is the Secretary of State aware that his figures reveal that 250,000 very low paid workers are paying a poverty tax surcharge at a level which is not reached again until the middle of the surtax range, on incomes of £10,000 a year, and that about 50,000 very low paid workers are paying a tax levy of over 100 per cent., so that they lose money when their incomes rise, which makes a farce of his means test policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government's recent extension of the family income supplement entitlement period merely postpones the injustice of the poverty wage trap and that until he forgoes his means test obsessions he will not end it?

It is true that, as the hon. Gentleman says, about 4 per cent. of the earning households with two parents and children are at risk of a poverty trap of over 50 per cent., in theory. I emphasise "in theory", because the hon. Gentleman's calculations rely on the instantaneous withdrawal, simultaneous with the increase of earnings, of the benefits received by a family, and that simply does not happen. Secondly, the withdrawal of benefits is a corollary of the high benefits now available to poor families.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably the best answer to the problem is to move on to a tax credit scheme and to be sure that the sincere objections from certain women about family allowances do not hold up the scheme completely?

The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". I agree with his general argument about the benefit that a tax credit scheme might give, but I should not like to leave the impression that that would automatically remove the problem connected with, for instance, free school meals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many abortions were carried out during 1972; and how many of them were outside the National Health Service.

The provisional number of abortions notified between 1st January and 27th December 1972 in England and Wales was 156,714. Of these 100,665 were for abortions performed outside the National Health Service.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us who supported the Abortion Act are appalled by those figures, particularly for the private sector? Is it not becoming apparent that vast fortunes are being made by some of the most unscrupulous people in the medical profession, with no regard for moral issues? Is not the time coming for us to say that abortions will either be carried out under the National Health Service or not at all?

The Government believe that there is a place for the private sector. But some of the hon. Gentleman's points will certainly have been considered by the Lane Committee, which I hope will report in the summer.

Is it not clear that those who initiated the legislation on the subject could have had no idea of what they were about? Is my hon. Friend aware—I think he will be from an earlier supplementary question of mine—that I do not agree with him that there is a place for the private sector in this matter and that it would be far better, if the matter has to go on, to bring it under the National Health Service so that it can be more subject to his supervision and that of Parliament?

It was precisely because of the misgivings we had about the operation of the Abortion Act that we decided to set up the Lane Committee.

While the figures are very disturbing, does not the Minister agree that but for the legislation other figures involving the back-street abortionist might well have been included? Even if that is true, however, is it not opportune for the House to have another look at the whole question of abortions, particularly in the private sector? Those of us who supported the Act are disturbed by its effect. Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter for us?

These matters will all come before the House in the context of the report of the Lane Committee. I am certain that the aspect to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be discussed by that committee's report and that the House will have the opportunity to discuss it fully.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to control the practice by doctors in the National Health Service of making separate cash charges for certificates written for their patients.

The certificates which family doctors are required to provide free of charge are listed in regulations; any other certificates which patients may require are outside the scope of the National Health Service and doctors may charge fees for them.

That answer is not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a constituent of mine in Walsall, a widow earning less than £10 a week, was charged 50p by her doctor to provide a certificate confirming that she was living in a sub-standard house for her to supply to the housing department? Is he aware that another constituent was asked for two guineas by his doctor to sign the back of a passport photograph and that a third constituent was charged four guineas for endorsing a driving certificate application? Is it not a scandal that constituents who can ill afford such charges are being—

Held to ransom.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Is it not a scandal that they are being held to ransom by doctors who are already very well paid? Is it also the case that the BMA has issued a schedule of charges and, therefore, seems to be condoning these excessive amounts? Will the hon. Gentleman order an inquiry by his Department into the matter?

Doctors may charge fees for certificates to patients for their own private purposes which may lie outside the scope of the National Health Service. The BMA gives advice, though not advice binding on general practitioners and doctors, as to what they may do in this respect. At first sight, the first case that the right hon. Gentleman quoted seems as though it should have been excluded under the regulations. I should not like to commit myself. I should like to have a chance to study the points the right hon. Gentleman has made and perhaps write to him in detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions his Department has had concerning the takeover of private wings in National Health Service hospitals by private financiers; and whether he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Lady to my reply to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) on 23rd January.—[Vol. 849, c. 79.]

That answer to my hon. Friend was extremely incomplete. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the possible takeover by private financiers of private wards attracts scarce doctors, nurses and technicians away from the public sector of the National Health Service? Will he give a positive assurance that the Government will never agree to such a takeover of any private wards for profit-making purposes?

I entirely reject the hon. Lady's suggestion that my answer was incomplete. I was asked how many times I had met commercial companies since taking office with the purpose that the hon. Lady has in mind. My answer was to explain in full the one occasion on which I had so met anybody. There was nothing incomplete about my answer. It finished by saying, and I repeat:

"I have no plans for handing over National Health Service facilities for development by commercial companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January 1973; Vol. 849, c. 79.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that private practice has something to offer and that it retains doctors in this country? On the other hand, American medicine is held in very grave disregard by the American patients. We want no truck with that whatsoever in this country. Private practice here is still held in fairly good regard by the medical profession and the patients. It would be a retrograde step if we had any American finance in it.

I have always said, and I repeat, that private practice has a great deal to contribute to the health and benefit of the people of this country. I stand by that opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future of the private bed and private patient system within the National Health Service.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on 29th January.—[Vol. 849, c. 319.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply does not go nearly far enough? Does he appreciate that in areas such as my own, and in South-East Northumberland in general, people are being held back from receiving attention and treatment because of the private patient system that still operates within the health service? If the health service is to mean anything at all, does he agree that there must be a steady but quick progression towards hospital and medical treatment on the basis of need rather than of payment?

I do not accept the the hon. Gentleman's appraisal, but in the presence of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) who trounced me over the weekend——

And we are waiting for a reply.

I say with some diffidence that a White Paper will be presented by me before many weeks are out expressing the Government's views about private practice and the relationship of private practice to the National Health Service.

When are we to get the White Paper?

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that at the last election the Conservative Party talked about "one nation"? As long as many people when they are sick can buy preferential treatment, does not this mean that we are still "two nations"?

The right hon. Gentleman is oversimplifying, and I think he knows it. The fact is that for urgent medical need money is not relevant——

Yes, it is.

and in my view the availability of private practice brings substantial advantages to the whole of the people, advantages which I must justify in my answers to the Select Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set up an emergency working party to assess the effect of the increased price of meat on retirement pensioners.

No, Sir, but account will of course be taken of the movement of prices in the normal annual review of pension levels.

Surely the hon. Gentleman must agree that evidence is piling up in the constituencies that pensioners are suffering because of the escalation of meat prices. Indeed they went up by 40 per cent. in 14 days. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not informing the House that he will wait until October before he tries to redress the problem. Pensioners need help now.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the annual review of benefits is now in operation and that increases in prices will be taken fully into account in the next review. Equally the House would not wish to exaggerate what has happened to the retail price index. The pension was increased by 75p in October; it has lost only 1p since that time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with the ever-increasing price of beef and the better cuts of meat, in the North East in particular, where wage levels are generally lower than in the South East and the Midlands, it is becoming increasingly difficult for pensioners to purchase even the cheaper cuts of meat because of the resultant demand arising from the high cost of the better cuts?

I accept that meat prices have gone up. That is perfectly true. But so has the level of pensions. The level of pensions has been increased in real value by no less than 7 per cent. since the Government came into office. For pensioners over 80 it has increased by 11 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce an increase in the death grant payment.

The death grant will be considered, along with all other claims on the resources available, when this year's review of national insurance benefits is carried out.

I hope that that reply means that the death grant will be increased. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have done some research into this subject and some very interesting facts have emerged from the largest funeral undertakers in England, Scotland and Wales? Whereas in 1967 the average cost of a funeral was from £45 to £60, the average cost in 1973 is from £84 to £110. That is nearly double the 1967 figure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to these facts when the matter is under review.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all these factors will be given serious consideration before the uprating. Clearly, however, I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to what the outcome will be.

When my hon. Friend reviews the death grant will he pay particular attention to those who either receive no death grant or receive a grant of only £15? As these people generally are very elderly, there is a degree of urgency. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell me that he will turn his attention to this matter when the death grant next comes under review.

Without committing myself, I can gladly assure my hon. Friend that sympathetic consideration will be given to the point he has raised.

While an increase of that type for very old people currently excluded from entitlement would be welcome, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that when the death grant was first introduced it was set at a level to provide for the total cost of a funeral of minimum standards? Since that time the cost of funerals, as my hon. Friend has said, has escalated enormously. Therefore will the hon. Gentleman, when reviewing the level of death benefit, ensure that it is put up to a level that will meet the total cost of a funeral, as is urgently required by many poor families in 1973?

It is very easy to make a strong case for an increase in any benefit. It is the job of the Government to allocate the priorities within the resources available. I clearly cannot say what the outcome of the uprating will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in regard to the Briggs Report where this concerned the training, status and future description of district health visitors.

We have received a number of representations expressing concern over these points. These will be considered along with all other comments received on the report.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very real anxiety which is felt by district health visitors about this matter? Can he offer an assurance now, or will he do so very soon, that the decisions that will be made following the Briggs Report recommendations will not give the district health visitors cause for very real disappointment or a feeling that their valuable occupation is in any way disadvantaged?

I cannot commit myself in advance of the consultations which the Government entered into with the interested parties immediately following publication of the report. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the anxieties expressed have been received and understood and that the consultations will certainly circle around these anxieties.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the inadvisability of receiving children into care as a result of homelessness as an alternative to rehousing.

It has always been the Government's objective to prevent children being taken into care as a result of family homelessness. This policy has been emphasised in the joint working parties' reports on homelessness, on which there have recently been discussions with local authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latest figures given to me by the Department indicate that there are now about 3,000 children in care as a result of homelessness and that increasingly, due to various policies of the Government on housing, social services departments are being compelled to take children into care because there are no houses in which to accommodate homeless families? Will the Minister please do something about this situation quickly?

The latest figure I have on the number of children taken into care because the family was homeless is 2,811. I am happy to say that that is a drop from the figure for the preceding year.

Has my hon. Friend any knowledge of the numbers of children who go into local authority care on this basis because their parents consistently refuse to pay the rent of the accommodation they occupy?

I cannot without notice give my hon. Friend a breakdown of the figure in that way. However, the social services departments have powers and in many cases assist families with rent problems.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the assertion he heard a moment ago from his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is an appalling distortion of reality? What help do the Government propose to bring to areas such as mine in Hackney where there are tremendous problems of homelessness and where the local authority simply does not have the means to deal with this problem of children? Urgent help is needed now.

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that we have very recently met representatives of the London Boroughs Association and the Greater London Council specifically to discuss the two working party reports. I think that encouraging progress is being made.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Disablement Income Group and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations regarding the group's criticisms of certain aspects of the Social Security Bill. As amendments have now been tabled by hon. Members which deal with those points, there will be opportunities for a full discussion in Standing Committee.

Why does not the Secretary of State admit that he is guilty of gross discrimination against 488,000 disabled housewives whom he regards as second-class members of a second-class sex, since he does not even offer a gallant excuse for neglecting them? Instead of waffling about the plight of these women, like a miser trying to explain his poverty, why does not the right hon. Gentleman say frankly whether disabled housewives will get a disability income from the present Government or whether they will have to wait for the next Administration to take office?

If I were to make a political speech, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, I would assert that the present Government have done far more for the disabled than any previous Government. But since I am not making a political speech, I repeat that there will be ample opportunity in Committee for these points to be debated.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress which has been made in helping the disabled. There is a strong body of opinion on both sides of the House in favour of doing more. Will he consider publishing a Green Paper setting out his views on the way in which DIG's principal objective, namely the introduction of a regular disablement income, might be implemented and showing the costs and technical problems involved?

I remember with some trepidation that I am due to address a meeting of DIG in May.

Is the Minister aware that many of its adherents feel that DIG has not been offered anything like meaningful consultation? Will he say what are his immediate proposals for giving a basic and assured income to the very large number of disabled housewives?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met two representatives of DIG towards the end of last year to discuss the difficult question of priorities for the disabled. The Government are intensely aware not only of how much has been done but of how much still remains to be done for the disabled.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will state as a percentage the difference in the number of prescriptions issued by general practitioners for the years 1969 and 1972.

The estimated figure for England is an increase of 4·6 per cent.

Since the Conservatives have doubled the cost of prescriptions, and in view of the information in the reply that more prescriptions are being issued, does not this mean a greater imposition on the sick?

No greater an imposition than was the introduction of prescription charges from nil by the Labour Party.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has to increase the level of disregards as they affect means-tested benefits.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give consideration to increasing the £1 disregard for pensions, paid by former employers, to retirement pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefits.

I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) on 14th November last.—[Vol. 846, c. 55–6.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been some developments since that time, one of which is that the £ is worth less? The miners and the National Coal Board are at present discussing reasonable increases in miners' retirement pensions, and does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if nothing is done about the £1 disregard this will mean that half the miners will have the money in their pocket and will then lose it in respect of the clawback of supplementary benefit?

This is one aspect which has to be considered along with the annual review, because it demands additional resources. I agree that there have been changes, and one of them is that the Labour Party is not supporting the Counter-Inflation Bill.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if we take the £ as being worth 100p in 1966, we find that it is worth a little less than 70p and that a little arithmetic shows that it would have to be increased to £1·43 to restore its value today? Will lie act promptly to raise the level of disregards, especially for people receiving small pensions, such as the miners, who are given 50p with one hand but have it clawed back by the Government with the other hand?

I accept the point, and it is for this reason that there is a disregard of up to £2 for those with resources on pensions and the like; but to increase these disregards means using resources which would otherwise be made available for those who have no resources to disregard.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although there is great concern about means-tested benefits, there is equal concern about abuses among those who are drawing benefits? When will the report on this subject be available?

I cannot say exactly but it will be fairly soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Blackburn and District Hospital Management Committee about the need to increase the number of area health authorities in the new county No. 10; and what reply he has sent.

I have had no such representations from the Blackburn and District Hospital Management Committee.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that all the hospital management committees in the new county of Lancashire area No. 10 are up in arms over the fact that this county area will have only one area health authority to cover a population of 1,300,000 people, whereas the rest of Manchester Regional Hospital Board area will have 10 area health authorities covering an area of 200,000 to 300,000 people. Does he not appreciate that even the Manchester Regional Hospital Board sees no logic in this situation? Will he amend his reorganisation proposals to give us six area authorities to parallel the district authorites in the local government proposals?

The House will be able to debate this subject when the Bill comes from another place, but there will be a number of districts inside the Lancashire health authority which will have some correspondence with the existing local authorities.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Preston and District Hospital Management Committee is equally concerned about the proposals and regards the new proposed authority as administratively unworkable?

My hon. Friend should contemplate the availability of the district management teams, which will have a much closer relationship to the areas of district local authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend realise that there is unanimity in Lancashire on this point and that the management team to which he refers is no substitute for a proper health authority, which as at present proposed is far too big?

I take note of the formidable arguments being put against me, but this will inevitably come under discussion when the Bill comes from another place.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received any communication from the Oldham Executive Council regarding the patient/dentist ratio in the Oldham area.

Yes, Sir: a letter dated 5th January 1973 enclosing for information a copy of a letter which the Chairman of the Oldham Executive Council had addressed to the Editor of the British Dental Journal.

Did the Minister observe that the Chairman of the Oldham Executive Council had referred to his previous answer in the House as "misleading" and "juggling with statistics"? Is it not the case that there is a serious shortage of dentists in many areas of the country? Would not the Minister be better employed in trying to do something constructive about that shortage rather than juggling with figures to conceal the true picture when an hon. Member asks a Question?

I refute the allegation that we juggle with figures. If the hon. Gentleman will recall the earlier answer, he will note that it contained a substantive qualification. However, I accept that there should be more general dental practitioners in service in Oldham and, indeed, throughout the country, and we should like to see this.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total cost, to the latest available date, of advertising means-tested benefits since 18th June 1970.

Family income supplement campaigns in 1971 and 1972 cost £310,000 and £300,000 respectively. An additional £200,000 has been spent advertising other benefits.

Will the Minister confirm that that amount is greater than the amount for any other similar period? Would he agree that in spite of the vast amount being spent on advertising means-tested benefits, there is still great ignorance about them and an alarming lack of take-up? Has not the time arrived when there should be a wholesale investigation into all means-tested benefits?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking every step we can to bring to the notice of people who might be eligible the benefits which are available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in making his understandable criticism about take-up, will not forget that no fewer than 100,000 families are benefiting from FIS, up to £5 a week.

My hon. Friend will agree that this is a very good attempt to get the benefits to the people, but it does not seem to be quite working. Could not the professional and voluntary organisations which are working in this field be streamlined to get a better coverage of the whole field?

I do not quite accept what my hon. Friend has said. The fact is that take-up is probably half, and maybe over half, of those eligible, and it is very much above half of those who are eligible for the larger amounts. Having said that, we intend to continue perfecting the arrangements so that we can improve take-up.

Is the Minister aware that much of this advertising is grossly misleading?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it is. If he would care to tell me in what respect he thinks that is so, I shall gladly look at it.

I will tell the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the annual death-rate from carcinoma of the cervix in England and Wales for the past five years.

The latest available annual death rate for malignant neoplasm of the cervix was 92 per million females in England and Wales in 1971.

Does my hon. Friend agree that to a large extent these are preventable deaths and that more of them would be prevented if the Department paid more attention to medical experts and rather less attention to financial considerations when assessing the time when women should return for further checks?

In all these matters we are closely advised by the Committee on Gynaecological Cytology, which is precisely the professional body my hon. Friend wishes to see advising us.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to the report for last year of the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow there was not a single death from cervical cancer in Glasgow? Does he agree that that is a tribute to the services supplied by the city, and will he make such services free and available to all women in the United Kingdom?

The figures are noteworthy for Glasgow. There is no evidence to suggest that women are in any sense prevented from coming forward when they have real need to do so.

Has there been an increase or a decrease in the number of women using this valuable service over recent years?

There is an increase in the number taking advantage of the facilities of the service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will bring forward the increase in pensions due next autumn, in view of the continuing increase in food prices.

No, Sir. Retirement pensions and other benefits were increased last October and the real increase of nearly 4 per cent. has by no means disappeared since then. Moreover, a special payment of £10 was made to pensioners only two months ago.

Is the Minister aware that in the first quarter after that increase, food prices rose at an annual rate of 10 per cent.? As pensioners will have to face more increases in food prices, and as such a high proportion of the pension goes on food, surely it is intolerable that the Minister should say that no pensions will be increased until next autumn.

Even for pensioners, who admittedly spend more of their income on food than other groups, the rise in food prices in no way corresponds to the rise in the cost of living.