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.

About 200 full-time health education officers are employed by 60 per cent. of the local health authorities in England and Wales. The numbers of staff engaged part-time on health education are not available centrally.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been insufficient improvement in those figures in recent years? Ought not the Government to be pressing local authorities until they have all appointed such officers? Has not the time arrived for a massive and continuing campaign by the Government and local authorities to show people that positive preventive health care is better than cure? Would not the Minister further agree that such a policy would in the long run save money quite apart from bringing much benefit to many thousands of people?

We share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the preventive potential of health education. The increase in the number of local authorities employing these officers has not been quite as poor as the hon. Gentleman suggests. For instance, in 1966 there were only 67 whereas in the current year there are 108. This is a substantial increase. In the past year there was an increase of 10. Many other members of the health team in local authorities undertake part-time health education.

If the Minister is prepared to disclose information on this aspect of the social services, why is he refusing to disclose information on the wider aspect of the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act by local authorities, particularly in view of the recent report which shows a disgraceful failure by many local authorities to implement that Act?

That is another question. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are awaiting returns on some aspects of the implementation of that Act.

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this is a deeply important matter? Has he seen the disquieting report by the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases? Is it not utterly disgraceful that there are five counties with a population of 8 million which spend less on holidays for the disabled than one London borough? Is he further aware that the report shows that some local authorities provide 25 times as many telephones for the housebound disabled per 100,000 of the population as some other authorities? Is it not time we had full information about what local authorities are providing in the social services field?

It may be easier to improve uniformity of standards when the health services are centrally administered by the reorganised National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many widowed mothers are currently subject to a limitation of supplementary benefit as a result of their children taking employment outside school hours.

The most recent information is at November 1971 when a sample inquiry showed that there were of the order of 150 such cases.

Does the Minister agree that the number may be much larger now than it was when that sample survey was made? Is it his intention that boys who do paper rounds before going to school should have to contribute towards the maintenance of their widowed mothers? Will he undertake to review the limits placed upon the earnings of schoolchildren in the payment of supplementary benefit to the mothers?

I will, of course, consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the widowed mother's allowance, which is the main allowance involved, is not affected by any earnings there may be. As regards supplementary benefit, the widow can earn £2 and have it entirely disregarded, and £1 for a child under 16 and £2 for a child over 16 can also be disregarded. Therefore, in addition to the main allowance, which is entirely disregarded, there is also a disregard of earnings which goes some way to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider amending the Family Allowance Act to permit continuing payment of family allowance for a limited period in respect of children who have been sent to a List "D" school or other establishment from a children's hearing.

No, Sir. A child who is sent to a List "D" school or otherwise committed to care is legally removed from parental control. This is the natural point at which to stop counting the child in the family for allowances purposes.

Does not the Minister agree that this is a punitive measure? When the Act was introduced, was not the emphasis to be placed on treatment rather than punishment, and on what grounds does the Minister justify continuing the punishment aspect? Will he say why, when the eldest child of a family of two, three or more children gets into trouble, the family allowance is stopped for other children further down the age list on the basis that the eldest child is the qualifying child for family allowances for the other children?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, nor that this measure is punitive. Family allowances are available to help families with the cost of bringing up their children. In these cases that cost has been entirely removed from the parents.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been made to him following the publication of the results of recent research which indicate that mothers who have had a previous abortion are more likely to have a stillborn, premature or defective child; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. But I am glad that the Lane Committee will be considering this matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence so far produced shows that of children born to mothers who have had one abortion, about 200 are seriously handicapped, about 2,000 are likely to have mild defects and about 1,000 are stillbirths, and that it is estimated that between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of women who have had an abortion are likely to be sterile? In view of all this evidence, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reviewed the operation of the Abortion Act to make sure that abortions are limited to cases of medical necessity and are not resorted to merely to save social embarrassment?

I have a great respect for the two authors of the report to which my hon. Friend refers, but they are non-medical and there are possible shortcomings in the evidence and conclusions which make it unwise to depend entirely upon them. But there is a need for further research, and I am glad that the Lane Committee will be considering the views of the Wynns and will, I hope, be making its report to the House later this year.

Has the Minister any idea how long the Lane Committee is likely to take?

Yes, I have just said that I hope the report will be available later this year.

I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that, what- ever the report says, the consequences of abortion have been tragic. Will he concentrate his thoughts on further advice on family planning which has an important bearing on this matter?

It was because the Government were so concerned about some aspects of abortion that the Lane Committee was set up. We eagerly await its advice.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will award war widows' pensions to all those whose ex-Service husbands died before 3rd September 1939.

War widows' pensions are awarded by my Department only in cases where the husband's death was due to or hastened by service before 30th September 1921 or after 2nd September 1939. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for claims arising out of service during the intervening period.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a small and dwindling group of widows of ex-Service men of the First World War who married after their husbands were discharged from the forces and subsequently remarried after their first husband's death and are not eligible for a war widow's pension? I refer particularly to the case of Mrs. Williams, whose husband was a soldier in the First World War and was killed in action. Mrs. Williams remarried another ex-soldier who subsequently died of injuries received in the First World War and she has not received a pension. Will my hon. Friend give this kind of case particular consideration?

I remember the case which my hon. Friend has put to me. The difficulty when one makes improvements is how retrospective they can be because of the difficulty of making the assessment. I take the spirit of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Is the Minister prepared to contact the Royal British Legion, which could provide him with interesting data on this and related questions to help him to assess the situation?

I am glad to pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for the invaluable help it gives my Department in administering the war pensions scheme and trying to improve it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now provide behind-the-ear aids for all deaf people who can benefit from them.

No, Sir. We have not yet completed our consideration of the many relevant issues.

Would the Minister care either to get on with the trick or change his line of patter? When I asked a similar Question in February 1972, more than a year ago, he said that he was actively considering. In March he was seriously considering. In May he was expediting his study. In July he was looking into it. In August he said that there was no unnecessary delay. In December he was still looking into it. Today he says that he has not yet completed his study. Would it not be a good idea for the Minister, instead of parroting phrases, to give proper consideration to deaf people who cannot afford to buy expensive hearing aids?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by the appearance of the word "completion" in this saga. We are moving steadily towards completion. The hon. Gentleman will be amongst those who appreciate the need to integrate carefully questions of appliances with clinical treatment involving medical and para-medical personnel. It is better to hasten slowly towards a fully effective conclusion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the behind-the-ear hearing aids which are the subject of the Question have been in existence for many years? Is it not difficult to understand why it should take his Department so long to investigate this problem? As the studies are now nearing completion, will he say that he will give his conclusions to the House within the next two or three months?

My hon. Friend may not realise that the problem is not one of appreciating the refinements of either the Medresco aids which are currently supplied or the commercial head-worn aids that are now on the market. It is the more complex question of changing over from one form of hearing aid to another in the National Health Service in the context of a full clinical assessment of needs and the full range of audiological support that such an operation entails.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his Department started this inquiry in 1966 and that he has had his interdepartmental report on hearing research since April 1972? Does it not emerge from the moving account of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday that anyone who has suffered damage to his hearing mechanism is concerned not only with the cosmetic aspect but with psychological and other problems? If the 2¼ million deaf people, half of whom do not yet have hearing aids, are to benefit from behind-the-ear aids, the Minister must move far more quickly.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, while the cosmetic aspect is an important element and indeed has a psychological factor to contribute, we must not underrate the success and the value of the Medresco aids to those who use them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made in his discussions with local authorities and voluntary bodies about the need to insulate the homes of retirement pensioners to prevent heating loss.

A joint circular was issued to local authorities and a number of voluntary bodies in August last year by my Department and the Department of the Environment suggesting steps which could be taken to improve living conditions of elderly people, including draught exclusion and better insulation.

What is the good of a circular? When will the Government take action and publish a detailed report showing what action has been taken? Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the importance of insulation was a gimmick to avoid paying an adequate heating allowance? Is he not aware that, unless the wind is whistling through the walls, the maximum an old-age pensioner can get in heating allowance is 90p a week? Will he confirm or deny that the number of pensioners currently receiving this allowance is between 2,000 and 3,000 out of 2 million-odd pensioners on supplementary benefit?

My reference to insulation was not a gimmick, nor was it meant to distract attention from the additional money which the Government are now proposing to make available from 1st October by way of heating additions because we are removing the offset of the long-term addition. Insulation remains a matter of crucial importance and the Government hope that local authorities and voluntary bodies will more and more—although this cannot happen overnight—improve the insulation of some dwellings of the elderly which desperately need it.

Since my right hon. Friend has underlined the importance of insulation, would it not be of great assistance if the Secretary of State for the Environment did all he could to raise building standards and thus to improve insulation for these pensioners?

The real task lies in the improvement of existing buildings rather than of new buildings. It is the existing buildings that need insulation and the process is often relatively cheap —the sort of insulation which a man about the house can supply but which elderly spinsters or widows cannot supply for themselves. This is why the churches and voluntary bodies, working in the neighbourhood and in co-operation with local authorities, can do a power of good.

The Secretary of State has forgotten the last part of the supplementary question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Will he please confirm or deny that the number of elderly pensioners who receive the maximum heating allowance of 90p a week is between 2,000 and 3,000?

I have not precise figures because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I suspect that the figure may be of that order. The right hon. Lady did not table that precise question. There is a heating component in the supplementary benefit allowance and the extra is an addition. That extra will be paid without offset in terms of the long-term addition from 1st October and from that date about 400,000 supplementary pensioners will get benefit by way of an additional allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, until such time as the proposals for the intermediate treatment of young offenders laid down in the Children and Young Offenders Act 1969 come into effect, he will consider making funds available for a wider use by supervising officers of courses at outdoor pursuit centres provided by voluntary organisations.

Local authorities already have powers which could be used to make grants for this purpose.

Does my right hon. Friend see any limit to the resources which are available for this facility? Is this matter given encouragement by his Department or is it left entirely to local authorities?

There is certainly a limit because of all the tasks which local authorities have to face, but as the intermediate treatment plans are brought into finality by the regional planning committees and as they receive my approval— which I hope will be during this year— in most cases the opportunity for intermediate treatment and the budgets locally allotted for the purpose should increase in each region.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authority resources are largely taken up by social work departments in replacing family allowances which his Department takes away from the children when they are committed?

I think that is absolute rubbish. But if the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a Question I shall, so far as I am able to gather the information without disproportionate effort, seek to look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate a comparative study of the success ratios of different methods of treatment for alcoholism; and if he will publish his findings.

The Addiction Research Unit of the Institute of Psychiatry has been conducting research into the success ratios of different methods of treatment of alcoholism and its findings are expected to be published in due course.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the method of treatment used, after-care of the patient is particularly important? Is he satisfied that sufficient help goes to organisations which are able to offer this sort of service?

Sufficient, no—but much increased, yes. The Government set aside £2 million in the autumn of 1970, out of which a great increase is now being provided in the number of treatment beds within the National Health Service and from which there are extra grants for advice centres and hostels supplied by voluntary bodies. I pay tribute to those voluntary bodies which take on this work, because it is important to give help to those who need it as rapidly as possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that public money is being spent on research into the problem of alcoholism? Can he say whether the brewers have indicated their willingness to contribute to research into this subject?

The £2 million to which I have referred relates to increased services to alcoholics within the National Health Service and the voluntary sector. The Government also provide from public funds money for research, and there is a fund run by a sub-unit of the Medical Research Council which receives some support from the brewing industry. I cannot say how much support is given since that is not my responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many decisions the commissioner reversed in favour of claimants for industrial injury benefit arising out of claims for pneumoconiosis in 1972 and to the nearest available date in 1973.

The statistics do not show pneumoconiosis cases separately, but for the year ended 31st December 1972 the commissioner dealt with 589 industrial injuries questions, of which 187 were decided in the claimant's favour. Subsequent figures are not yet available.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does that answer to some extent substantiate the feeling that the commissioner's decisions are not treated with a great deal of favour by many people, particularly by those associated with industry? Does he not think it worth while to look into the whole procedure? Will he say on how many occasions a commissioner's decision has gone against a man who during his lifetime received a substantial pneumoconiosis pension and why on his death the commissioner has appealed even against a tribunal decision which went in the man's favour? Will he give the House information so that we may know whether the procedure adopted is fair and equitable for people in industry?

I should be unhappy if the situation in terms of the appeal procedure generally were as the hon. Gentleman outlined it, but there are some extremely difficult areas in this respect— and pneumoconiosis is one of them. For that reason the review of pneumoconiosis by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has been undertaken. We expect to have its report fairly soon and I am sure that it will give valuable guidance on the difficult areas the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

In view of the widespread and understandable dissatisfaction in the coalfields at the treatment of pneumoconiosis victims, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Labour Members are in favour of a comprehensive and major policy review of the whole of the pneumoconiosis legislation? Will he confirm whether the Government take a similar view?

The first thing we must do is await the report of the council which has been looking into this subject for a considerable time in depth to see what advice it can give us.

If the hon. Gentleman comes to one of my weekend surgeries he will see one elderly widow after another coming in who is baffled and angry at the fact that she does not receive a pension or house coal because it has been ruled that, although her husband may have been suffering 100 per cent. disability in terms of dust in his lungs, that was not a contributory cause of his death. I hope the hon. Gentleman will change his mind. Instead of saying that this is a difficult area he should wipe the rule away altogether and establish the right of widows to receive pensions and coal in these circumstances.

As a Member representing a coal-mining area, I also see coal miners' widows in my surgeries and therefore I know something about this matter from personal experience. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the whole basis of the injuries scheme which has existed since the war—namely, that death must have been caused or aggravated by the conditions of a person's work—should be completely changed. He raises a very wide question.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the length of time so far taken by his departmental investigation of the payment of supplementary benefits in industrial disputes; when he now expects to complete it; and what decision he has reached in his investigation about the provision of subsidised butter for strikers and their dependants.

As to the Government's review of supplementary benefit for strikers' families, I have nothing to add to my replies to my hon. Friend on 6th February and 6th March. The question of subsidising butter is being considered by Ministers.—[Vol. 850, c. 58–9; Vol. 852, c. 213–5.]

If we have really decided that, rather than incur the displeasure of Mr. Vic Feather and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, we will inevitably require the taxpayer to subsidise those who strike in defiance of legislation which the Government have chosen to pass, might it be better that we should say so rather than proceed much longer with the farce of this interdepartmental investigation?

I am sorry, but I must tell my hon. Friend that this has not been a charade. If he is distressed, as he may well be, by the length of time that Ministers are taking, I could, under pressure of examination, disclose other subjects, alas, on which we are taking even longer, because there are some very difficult issues involved.

Will the Secretary of State draw his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in the building industry there is a thing called lump labour, which means that certain people are not paying their national insurance contributions, some people are actually drawing their dole and working and some who should be paying taxes are not paying them? Will the Government do something about this, which is much more serious than the sort of nonsense that the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) raises every so often?

I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that the responsibility to which he refers is not mine but is at present being tackled by the Government. In so far as there is abuse, the recent Fisher Report drew attention to some aspects of the lump.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the hospital building programme will have on alleviating the conditions in mental hospitals.

The programme helps by providing local services in replacement of those in mental hospitals and by improvement schemes in the mental hospitals themselves.

I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the renovated workhouse-type hospital is totally inadequate in terms of modern mental medical techniques. Will he therefore ensure that, within the hospital building programme, purpose-built hospitals are erected for patients who are in so much need?

The present Government have raised the capital expenditure on psychiatric hospitals, mental illness and mental handicap by over 80 per cent. in real terms, comparing 1972–73 with three years ago, which is a pretty notable increase. But good psychiatric techniques can be practised in old buildings and there are some first-class psychiatric services in some of our older hospitals.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real aim should be to use the beds available wisely and to rehabilitate the people in mental hospitals back into the mainstream of civilian life? If that is so, can he say why a family in my constituency who want to have their daughter, the victim of a broken marriage, transferred to a hospital nearer where they live so that they can aid her rehabilitation into civilian life have been told that there are regional groupings and that because the family live outside the regional hospital grouping where the daughter is confined, until a transfer is found she will have to remain there, to the discomfort of herself and to the dismay of her family? This will delay her rehabilitation. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about it?

The country is desperately short of community facilities for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and this is what is preventing the hospitals from carrying out their proper functions. This Government, by extra money and by a White Paper on mental handicap and a circular on mental illness, have set in hand an improvement and an increase in the community services, which I have said will take 10 years to produce good results and 15 years to produce first-class results. But the improvements are in hand.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the difference between the overall hospital capital expenditure for the current year programme compared with that of 1969–70.

Hospital capital expenditure in 1972–73 is estimated to be about £183 million compared with £101 million in 1969–70; this represents an increase in real terms of just over 50 per cent.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply, which I am sure will be very welcome? What emphasis has he managed to place on the deprived sectors, such as the mentally ill, the chronically ill, the disabled and the long-stay patients?

A disproportionately large increase has been deliberately made in the non-acute sector. I have just said that an 80 per cent. increase in real terms has been made between the two years I mentioned in capital expenditure on mental handicap and mental illness, and almost as big an increase in services for the elderly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a generally-accepted need to make preventive and curative medicine less hospital-oriented? What are his plans for reducing the proportion of the total National Health Service expenditure spent on hospitals and increasing the proportion spent on general practitioners and community services?

If the hon. Lady cares to put down a Question, I will give her the precise answer, but the general position is that, in each year for which the present Government have been responsible, there has been a shift, within the rising real expenditure on the health and personal and social services, away from hospitals towards the community services. That is deliberate and it will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take following the publication of the Quirk Report on Speech Therapy.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between his Department and the county councils in supplying an adequate national coverage of speech therapists to deal with adult patients as well as children; and what coordination there is on speech therapy research.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, following the Quirk Report, he will increase the number of speech therapists employed by his Department.

My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, Scotland and Wales are considering the recommendations in the Quirk Report, including those for a unified service, an increase in the number of speech therapists and an expanded programme of research. There is close co-operation between the Departments.

Will my hon. Friend say that the Government will accept the target of 2,500 speech therapists which the Quirk Report recommended? In connection with this, will he bear in mind the importance of ensuring an increase in the supply when the Government are having an increase in the expansion of nursery education? If this is to be effective in detecting impediments and speech difficulties among young children, does he agree that we must have the requisite number of speech therapists in order to take advantage of the nursery education programme?

We do not dispute at all the vital contribution that speech therapists can make in precisely the field to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. As for accepting at this point the target figure which the Quirk recommendation includes, we could not do so until our comprehensive consultations with all interested parties are completed. They are in train at present.

When my hon. Friend is considering this matter will he also look into the problem of deaf children who can be given the priceless gift of language if they have speech therapy at the right age?

Yes, we certainly understand the vital connection here; indeed the Quirk Report itself refers to this aspect and makes recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he intends to offer to doctors about the interpretations of "social need" in the new rules for family planning.

The arrangements which I announced on 26th March provide for family planning advice and treatment to be available free to all and for supplies to be subject only to the stan- dard prescription charge except in exempted cases when they would be free. The category of "social need" which was necessary under the 12th December proposals does not now apply.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that almost certainly there will be mounting pressure to switch from the system of making standard prescription charges to the provision of completely free facilities? Is he confident that he can withstand this pressure indefinitely?

As always I shall rely on the force of rational argument in the House, which I am sure will prevail.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the mechanics for collection of prescription charges from clinics at present under local health authorities and those run by the Family Planning Association? How will it be arranged?

All this change will come into effect only from 1st April next year, when it will be the National Health Service and not local authorities which will be responsible.

Do the supplies include vasectomy and sterilisation?

The sterilisation and vasectomy provision is already made in the National Health Service for medical cases. I should like to have notice of my hon. Friend's question so that I can make sure that I give the reply precisely.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he will be giving to the proposed new area health authorities about co-operation with voluntary bodies and associations in their areas.

I cannot yet add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) on 26th February—[Vol. 851, c. 302–3.]

Will my right hon. Friend make absolutely certain that the very strong local associations which appertain to hospitals, particularly in my part of the world, are in no way damaged by the reorganisation which is about to take place?

The present Government have multiplied tenfold the public money going to support the headquarters of voluntary bodies. Ministers of the present Government are intensely enthusiastic about voluntary service and will do everything possible to encourage it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the consultation that takes place between his Department and the medical practitioner of a person seeking a constant attendance allowance.

Yes, Sir. On receipt of a claim for attendance allowance, the Attendance Allowance Board requests the disabled person's own medical practitioner to visit him and submit a report. This report is supplemented by additional evidence when the claimant's doctor thinks that would be helpful. In cases of special doubt or difficulty the Attendance Allowance Board may ask the doctor for additional information.

Is the Minister aware that in spite of that reply there is widespread criticism by the local doctor and very often by the social worker of the person who is applying for an attendance allowance and whose claim they are supposed to be supporting? With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that shows that there is not widespread agreement. In view of the financial sacrifices made by many people who keep their relatives at home rather than in hospital, is it not time that we showed a little more humanity on this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore suggest that, where there are questions of doubt, a doctor from his Department should examine the person concerned before any decision is made? That is not the practice at present.

The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair. There are 90,000 of these new allowances in payment already. They are increasing week by week as the new rate of allowance comes into operation. Of course there are lessons to be learned, and we have not yet got the administration right. But there is close co-operation between general practitioners, social workers and doctors who have to make the eventual judgment.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us think that the Attendance Allowance Board is still interpreting the regulations in a very restrictive fashion? I appreciate that an unsuccessful applicant, after a review, cannot appeal to the Secretary of State, but will my hon. Friend look at one particular case in my constituency where there seems to have been refusal on a review in the most obvious case?

I should be glad to look at the case referred to by my hon. and learned Friend or, indeed, any case raised by any other hon. Member which he feels should be looked at again. There is the review procedure, which provides for a great deal of flexibility in this area.

Is the Undersecretary aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) sounded rather complacent? Is he satisfied with the way in which, for example, renal dialysis patients are being treated? Is he aware that we on the Opposition side of the House are not satisfied? Will he look again at the very important matter raised by this Question?

Yes. What I am saying is that the allowance is being extended. This is a new allowance. Of course we are not satisfied, and it is for that reason that the extension is now taking place. We shall bring it forward as quickly as possible.

Is it not to the great credit of the Government that the constant attendance allowance has not only been introduced but is being extended this year so that many who have been denied the allowance will qualify for a reduced allowance this autumn and about 250,000 extra people will be helped? Is not that to the great credit of my right hon. Friend and the present administration?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter into perspective. That does not mean that we are complacent. We are acting as fast as we can to see that still more people become eligible for the allowance and get it paid.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the London Universities Conservative Association on 16th March on the relationship between the Government and trade unions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made to London University Conservative Association on 16th March 1973 on Government and trade unions.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the London University Conservative Association in London on 16th March on the economy.

I did so on 19th March, Sir.

In that speech the Prime Minister said that he was concerned with the unfairnesses embedded in present-day society. Is he aware that the trade unions are also concerned about his potential unfairnesses in helping owner-occupiers with high interest rates and doing nothing about rents? Is he also aware that the trade unions, while wishing to see some aid given to owner-occupiers with regard to the 10 per cent. interest rates, expect at the same time that the present rent increases will be curtailed, so that there is fairness to all sections of the community?

We have already dealt with the particular question of rebates by increasing them greatly at the beginning of the year after we had discussions with the trade unions.

Does my right hon. Friend recall what he said in his speech about people who never go on strike? Does he not therefore welcome the news today that 69 per cent. of the miners have shown restraint? Will he express the hope that some other people might follow their example?

The whole House will welcome the balloted decision of the miners. More and more people are beginning to realise how irrelevant any action on 1st May will be.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this time last year it cost him more than £100 million to pay off the miners after the seven-week strike? Does he not remember that in order to stop it on this occasion he introduced a Bill costing £1,200 million in an attempt to buy them off? If the miners carry matters a stage further next year, it will take even more money to buy them off.

I do not regard the investment in the coal industry as buying off the miners. What the investment in the coal industry is designed to do is to safeguard the living of the miners but above all to safeguard the fuel supplies of this country.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed one-day strike on 1st May will be about the most irrelevant event of the decade? Does it not show that not only the TUC but also the Labour Party appear to be totally out of touch now with the feeling of the country as expressed by the miners today?

I have just said that more and more people are recognising—and saying so in the trade union movement—that it is irrelevant. It will not change the Government's position. Stage 2 is now in operation. I understand that some 50 settlements covering about a million workers have already been made under stage 2. The whole thing, therefore, is pointless. What would be much more to the point would be if the Leader of the Opposition told the House what his real position is on this matter.

I have repeatedly stated my position. Will the right hon. Gentleman now state his? As he has refused, on four occasions when I have asked him, to take any action on mortgage interest rates until he has now been pushed into it, will he say whether we can now expect a statement today or tomorrow, because this is of interest to millions of families whom he has let down?

If the Government think it right to make a statement, they will do so. But meanwhile it would be of interest if the Leader of the Opposition would say whether on 1st May he proposes to act, to strike or to abstain.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement with regard to the communication he sent to Alderman W. Sefton concerning the rate problems of the major cities.

In reply to letters from Alderman Sefton, I have referred him to the Government's announcement of extra rate relief to domestic ratepayers most affected by revaluation and to our intention to press on with discussions about the formula for the distribution of grant to the new authorities in 1974–75. I have also told him that his proposal to introduce a new grant system before 1974 would be impracticable.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman bring the representatives of the great cities to No. 10 Downing Street on a wild goose chase to discuss the financial problems affecting the great cities when, even before that meeting took place, he had decided to do nothing to help with those financial problems, apart from the footling aid to a tiny minority of those adversely affected by the rating revaluation? Is this deception, together with higher rents, higher mortgages, higher food prices and VAT, creating the right atmosphere for phase 2?

The hon. Gentleman is quite unjustified in what he has said. It is entirely opposed to what the leaders of the cities have said in their letters which they have written to me since, including Alderman Sefton, with whom I have had a very friendly correspondence. Those who will benefit from the action that we have taken, who are the ones suffering particularly from revaluation, do not take the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend inform Alderman Sefton that if he wishes to limit the expenditure of Liverpool Corporation he might abandon his proposal to spend another £10 million on Speke airport?

I specifically said to the cities, and indeed, to all the local authorities, that I would not discuss specific items with them. However, it is of importance that since the Department of the Environment took up the monitoring of local authority finances more than £10 million has been saved on the present rate expenditure for the forthcoming year.

If the Prime Minister felt able to enter into correspondence with Alderman Sefton of Liverpool City Council, may I ask why he did not feel able to send a personal reply to the letter which he received from the chairman of the finance committee of Worcestershire County Council?

I am prepared to look into that matter. The correspondence which I have had from Alderman Sefton was on behalf of the six cities. It is obviously not possible for me personally to answer letters from all the local authorities. These matters are dealt with by the Department of the Environment. If there was a particular reason I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the public speech he made on 16th March 1973 in Bromley on strikes.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on industrial relations made at Bromley on 16th March.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Bromley on 16th March on economic and industrial affairs.

I did so on 19th March, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister recall stating in that speech that sub-stanial pay increases were available under phase 2 to the lowest-paid, including hospital workers? Is he aware that they will probably be worse off by the autumn, given the expected rise in the cost of living, notably in food prices and mortgage charges? Why not admit that the prices side of phase 2 is not now developing to plan?

The point that I made about the hospital workers was that they could have been receiving the award under phase 2 from the week beginning 14th March. The same applies to the civil servants. They could be receiving their increase from 1st April. I wish to emphasise that point. However, I do not accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the end of phase 2.

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the reasons for strikes has been his own boring posture of silly sabre-rattling in the direction of the trade unions? Has not the time now come when he should treat trade unionists as normal human beings, which they are?

It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to sustain any thesis of that kind when one sees the extent to which the trade unions have cooperated throughout the standstill. It has not been necessary to issue one order in respect of a breach. As I have said, in more than 50 settlements they have already accepted phase 2 and are operating it.

Was not one of the messages in that speech that there is too much conservatism in industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that conservatism with a small "c", just like liberalism with a small "1", is potentially disastrous to the country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that both sides of industry would do well to recognise that change is their ally?

All I have to add to my hon. Friend's list is socialism with either a small or a big "s". I quite agree with him in quoting again the title of the pamphlet which we wrote 20 years ago. It was this theme which was the basis of my speech.

The right hon. Gentleman has just said how much he appreciates the co-operation that he has had from the trade unions. Would it not be a good gesture now on his part to show his appreciation by withdrawing the Industrial Relations Act, which has failed anyway?

No, Sir. I think it is clear from recent statements that I am no longer being asked to do that. I am being asked to consider certain specific amendments, and that I have always said I am fully prepared to do.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an official visit to South Africa.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) on 27th March. —[Vol. 853, c. 1095–6.]

Is the Prime Minister now able to confirm that the Government are agreeable to the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to investigate the standards of British firms operating in South Africa?

There have been discussions about this matter between my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and the Opposition. I stated my position clearly last week. It is for a Committee of this House to decide whether it is appropriate for it to make inquiries of any particular kind, including this one.

. If there is to be such an investigation, may I ask whether it would be right, helpful and informative to have a similar investigation into the wages paid in other developing countries?

This, again, is a matter for a Select Committee if, as I said, it

"deems it right and appropriate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1096.]

In anticipation of a possible visit to South Africa by a Select Committee of this House, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to ensure that his Department gets as much information as possible from South Africa about wages being paid by British firms there? Will he also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what instructions and political advice are being given by trade missions to South Africa financed by his Department?

The advice which is given regarding wages has been published and is made available to every firm. It emphasises the opportunities which they have for increasing wages and raising the standard of living of their employees. That information is also in the hands of trade missions which go to South Africa. I think that information about the practices of individual British firms could be available in London.

Will my right hon. Friend also consider setting up a Select Committee to inquire into the reasons why wages and the standard of living are so much higher in capitalist countries like America?

I take my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that it requires a Select Committee to go into this question to recognise the enormous advances which have been made through technology, the removal of restrictive practices and in other ways in some Western countries.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of New Zealand to make an official visit to London.

The New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister is at present visiting London but, as I told the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on the 29th March, there are at present no plans for Mr. Kirk to do so, though he would always be welcome.— [Vol. 853, c. 393.]

Since New Zealand is understandably concerned about the French nuclear tests, may I ask whether we can count on the Prime Minister to go shoulder to shoulder with the Duke of Edinburgh up the Champs Elysées?

The hon. Gentleman cannot count on my going off in a frigate into the Pacific.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Social Services concerning the effect of revaluation for rating on social services.

Yes, Sir.

In view of the fact that many social service projects to help the disabled will be butchered as a result of the Government's policy of revaluation, does the Prime Minister intend to stand aside and allow this to happen or will he now intervene to ensure that projects to help the disabled are preserved by local authorities?

I cannot give an all-embracing undertaking of that kind. I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have very great sympathy with social service projects of this sort. I myself opened a magnificent one in Newcastle only 10 days ago. I think that that is a sufficient guarantee that we we shall do all we can to help.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that after the monitoring by the Department of the Environment the rate demand in cities like Manchester will be reasonable in view of their social problems?

It is not for me to to confirm a judgment of this kind. It must be for the electors in Manchester.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present Government have done more for the disabled than many of their predecessors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Any."]—and that this Government will continue to protect the disabled against the effects of inflation?

Yes, Sir. We have pledged ourselves to do this for old-age pensioners, for Service pensioners and for the disabled. It is now widely recognised that this Government have been able to do more than their predecessors, especially for the disabled.