asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the procedures used for the financial accounting for, and monitoring of, private patients in National Health Service hospitals.

It is the responsibility of hospital authorities to make arrangements to ensure that accommodation and services are made available for private patients within the extent authorised, that private patients give an undertaking to pay the appropriate hospital charges and to ensure that these charges are collected. These arrangements are subject to examination by the Department's auditors.

How can the Secretary of State come to conclusions of the kind that he does in his reply to the Select Committee—namely, that private practice benefits the National Health Service— when all the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, especially by the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, shows that there is no standardised form of accounting or monitoring of private practice in hospitals? Will the Department now give very serious consideration to the introduction of a system of accounting whereby private patients are charged for every item and service of which they make use in hospitals?

It was the conclusion of the Select Committee of the House itself that private practice operated to the overall benefit of the National Health Service. But my right hon. Friend said that he accepted one of the recommendations of the Select Committee, namely, that control procedures in hospitals should be more strictly observed.

Since the hon. Gentleman says that it is left to regional hospital boards to monitor and fix charges, can he say what are the differences in the various regions, and will he publish a list in HANSARD SO that hon. Members can compare one board with another in this respect?

I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's request in detail and see whether I can help him at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking towards the development of a disability income.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking towards the development of a disability income.

As I told the Disablement Income Group at its annual general meeting last Saturday, the results of research, DIG's own publications and the experience of other countries are all being fed into a thorough review in which administrators, economists, statisticians and doctors are engaged, and in which my Department is co-operating with other Departments. This should provide a firm basis for the development of future policy.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Is he satisfied, however, that he will deal with those disabled who need the greatest sympathy, namely, disabled housewives? Will the review study what special consideration can be given to them?

Yes. Again as I told DIG on Saturday, the Government regard the disabled housewife as deserving special priority, and the study will have her very much in mind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reviews are notorious for the length of time they take? There may be some small comfort to the disabled arising from the review that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but will he say whether he accepts the need for a disability income and, if so, whether he expects within a reasonable time to introduce measures into this House to provide for a disability income?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an inquiry can put a subject to sleep for some time. But the Government's credentials in introducing attendance allowance in their very first Bill and then extending it before the higher rate was fully in payment establish our right to study fully the alternatives before us. The disability income covers a number of possible approaches on which DIG itself is not in accord. That is why a study is necessary so that we can decide the next sensible steps.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is some urgency about this? Whether a person is disabled by injury at work for which he is covered or in any other way, or is chronically sick, he is none the less disabled, and the provision of disability income would help him and also simplify the administration of the many other benefits which are available for the disabled.

Yes, I agree with that, but the Government are trying to put right the virtual neglect of generations. While on both sides of the House we are naturally impatient, it is right to work out sensible priorities.

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the Press headlines at the weekend arising from his speech which suggested that nelp for disabled housewives was on the way. How soon will this help be available? May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman at least agrees with the principle of a national disability income as proposed by DIG?

I must inflict on the hon. Gentleman a copy of my 27-page speech from which he can draw his own conclusions. I will send him one.

Before he inflicts his 27-page speech on the hon. Gentleman, will my right hon. Friend consider the difficulty of the definition of "disability" in this context?

Yes. It does not help if we put together into the same group the severely, the very severely and the appreciably disabled, the mentally disabled, the physically disabled and those with particular disabilities such as deafness or arthritis. We have to study the subject, as the Government are doing, on the basis of all the work that has been done, including visits by officials to six countries in Europe, so as to arrive at a sensible set of practical priorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opportunity of moving towards the immediate payment of a disablement income arises on the Social Security Bill which will be before the House this afternoon? Are we to take it that his decision instead to set up an inquiry merely means that the Government are anxious to buy time and have missed that bus?

No. The right hon. Lady knows that there are other issues at stake in the Bill which we shall be debating later. The Government have to their credit the paying out of what by the end of next year will be £100 million a year to the civil disabled that was not being paid at all when the Government came to office. We are entitled to study the alternatives before us.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in increasing the numbers of meals on wheels served.

During a sample week in November 1972, over 378,000 meals were served by or on behalf of local authorities to 135,000 people in their own homes. This represents a 17 per cent. increase in the numbers of meals provided over the previous year and a 13 per cent. increase in the number of people served. A further 221,000 meals were provided in clubs or centres, 19 per cent. more than in the previous year. In each case these are record increases.

My hon. Friend has given us wonderful news. Is he considering the possibility of getting more volunteers to help in taking round the meals, as this would be extremely useful to the people who administer the scheme?

We are extremely dependent upon voluntary workers for this service and my right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly paid tribute to the enormous contribution they make. We have recognised their special rôle by considerably increasing central Government financial support for the national headquarters of voluntary organisations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether an advertising campaign will be used to publicise the increased availability of family planning supplies from 1974.

As my right hon. Friend said in his statement to the House on 12th December, he will be making increased funds available for the purposes of education and training, and information of the public about the new service. —[Vol. 848, c. 234-40.] My Department will be in touch with the Health Education Council about an increase in its activity in this field, and the guidance which will be issued to area health authorities will cover the question of publicity at the local level.

Is the Minister aware that, with the great increase in the services available under his proposals, it will be even more important than it has been in the past to use advertising as one of the means of spreading knowledge of the availability of these services, because wherever advertising has been used in conjunction with a free service we have achieved the maximum take-up by those least able to afford the full costs?

Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point. The take-up was significant in areas where no free services were supplied but where, on the contrary, a massive effort was made to increase the publicity for a charged service. I entirely share my hon. Friend's anxiety and determination that money should be well spent on increased advertising.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if we are to get the greatest advantage from the increased propaganda for family planning which we all want to see, we need many more general practitioners and doctors generally to be qualified to teach birth control techniques? What is the Minister doing to ensure that all medical students are instructed in these techniques?

We have this under review. Even more important will be the negotiation, as part of their terms of service, with general practitioners about the possibility of becoming more actively and formally involved in the process of advising, prescribing, and, if necessary, treating in matters of family planning.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ask the Supplementary Benefits Commission to consider making grants for the installation of all-night heaters for pensioners.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ask the Supplementary Benefits Commission to consider making grants for the installation of all-night storage heaters for penioners.

The commission can already make payments for this purpose under its discretionary powers.

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's reply and the Government's concern for pensioners, particularly during inclement weather, but will he give the House further information about the availability of electric blankets for elderly people who suffer from low temperatures?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, although it may involve safety problems. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the practical suggestions that my hon. Friend has made. A number of considerations are now being actively looked into by the Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations in an effort to try to find a variety of ways to improve heating arrangements for elderly people.

How many old people will die as a result of the Government's refusal last week to allow more discussion of a Bill that would have given heating allowances to all the old people who are at risk? Is not the real problem the hypocrisy of the Government in pursuing this subject piecemeal?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels it right to use emotive language on such a serious subject. He must know that the Government, with the help of local authorities and voluntary bodies, have done far more than have any other Government to deal with this deep-seated problem.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that night storage heaters are a particularly safe form of heating for the elderly? When he is next in discussion with the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will he bear in mind the maxim that a word to the wise is sufficient?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but she will appreciate that the powers of the commission are fairly limited in this respect but substantial powers are available to local authorities. About 400,000 additional people will benefit from the improved heating arrangements which the Government intend to introduce before next winter.

Bearing in mind that the system of heating allowances through the commission is still inadequate in spite of the changes recently announced by the Government, and that the commission has discretion to make grants, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the commission's discretion is more generously exercised than it is at present?

Yes, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the commission is very exercised on this matter. Not only is it doing, and intending to do, all it can to assist more people, but it is also working in close co-operation with local authorities and voluntary organisations which are also doing a great deal to improve the arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will institute proceedings against organisations which publicise methods of illegally exploiting social security benefits and services, details of which are in his possession.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will institute proceedings against organisations which publicise methods of illegally exploiting social security benefits and services, details of which are in his possession.>

No, Sir. I am advised that the publication my hon. Friends have in mind contains nothing to justify either civil or criminal proceedings. Provision already exists for prosecuting fraudulent claimants of supplementary benefit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am disappointed with that reply? Does he realise that there is growing public concern that false and misleading information printed by organisations such as the Claimants Union is suggesting ways of exploiting and disrupting our very generous social system? Is he further aware that a great number of people right across the political spectrum are annoyed and disturbed at this?

I do not wonder that there is this feeling which my hon. Friend describes. The handbook to which I believe he refers is one to be deplored. It advocates a most tendentious and mischievous approach which is deliberately calculated to provoke ill feeling between potential claimants and the staff in my Department's local offices. I am glad that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has issued an authoritative leaflet putting the record straight. This has been made available through the offices to all who might be concerned.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the alleged abuse in this area is chicken-feed compared with the abuse which takes place through the evasion of income tax and all the rest? Will he ask his right hon. Friends to be as energetic in pursuing these defaulters as he and his committee have been in investigating the defaulters in social security benefits, the number of which is highly marginal? Is he aware that the number of prosecutions is small compared with the number of prosecutions by the Inland Revenue of wealthy taxpayers?

My hon. Friends, and a great number of people throughout the country who agree with them, have a right to be aggrieved when people not only damage the innocent public by strikes but in addition are led, by the Claimants Union in many cases to a hectoring approach to public officials who are carrying out their humane duty. This is thoroughly deplorable.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the home nursing service will be maintained at present standards in the period between local government losing its health powers and the new health authorities taking over.

Yes, Sir.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us what will be the length of this interregnum period? Does he agree that any change causes unsettle-ment in the minds of people employed in such organisations? Can he do something to remove any unease in the minds of people employed in this service?

There should be no interregnum. The transition will have been prepared for months. The number of home nurses is, I am glad to say, rising at a record level.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has in relation to the amount of money available to the Rowntree Trust to assist disabled children.

I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend made during the debate on 29th November last about the provision of additional money for the fund.

Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of interest not only among the general public but among professional organisations about how this money is being distributed and what criteria are being used in its distribution? Would it not be helpful if the Rowntree Trust gave more information?

I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend. The trust has distributed 20,000 of its explanatory leaflets to local authorities, voluntary bodies and individuals and is about to distribute a further 10,000. It has also received a large number of written and telephoned inquiries which suggest that the publicity is getting across.

How did the Government arrive at the figure of £3 million as the amount of this fund? How many children will benefit? How can we possibly judge the adequacy of the fund if we do not know how many children will benefit?

It is a useful start. The hon. Gentleman will recall, in the context of the thalidomide children, that it is possible when these cases have been settled out of court that consideration might be given to the question of an additional fund.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that all patients in National Health Service hospitals have full consultant cover.

All in-patients in National Health Service hospitals have a consultant responsible for their treatment, except for certain general practitioner hospitals or units. The number of consultants is being steadily increased, and hospital authorities' programmes provide for over 400 new consultant posts to be established in the 12 months up to March 1974.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the affluent South East there is the highest concentration of consultants per 100,000 of the population? Is he further aware that about 835 consultant posts are vacant and that many regions are not getting the cover which he claims? Does he appreciate that even if he gets his 400 extra consultants they will still not fill all the vacant posts?

I hope that I am not being at all complacent. There is certainly a thin coverage in some areas and I am particularly worried about the shortage against the growing recognition of specialties such as geriatrics. The number of vacancies does not reflect the real position because many of the vacancies are covered by locums. We are doing our very best to increase the number of specialists in the specialties where there are shortages.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider linking merit awards, which involve millions of pounds a year, to special consultant posts where there is a shortage, such as in psychiatry and geriatics, and to those areas of the country which are short of consultants, rather than giving merit awards to unknown doctors for unnamed reasons?

It would be wrong for me to undertake to consider the use of awards which are designed to reward merit for other purposes. That is not to say that the Government are not anxious to fill the vacancies in the specialties and in the regions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider legislation to place a statutory liability on employers to ensure that an employee, when applying for casual work, either produces his insurance card or produces a receipt from his employer confirming that that employer has the insurance card in his possession.

There is already a statutory requirement on every employer to obtain a card from an employee for whom he is liable to pay contributions. It would not be appropriate to extend this so as to impose a similar obligation on employers who are not required to pay contributions.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that some such measure would go a long way to removing the abuses which are being practised by thousands of "spivs" and fiddlers who obtain money from the Supplementary Benefits Commission and at the same time work on the side—and who are now apparently to be given cheap butter too?

The arrangements about insurance cards should ensure that those who should be paying do so along with their employers. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to take a particular interest in the methods by which we detect abuse. If he has any particular information which he thinks will be helpful, I will be happy to have it from him.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has that cigarette smoking in the United Kingdom has declined during the two years ended in March 1973, following his special provisions, including the health warnings on cigarette packets and attendant matters; and whether he will make a statement.

There is little that I can yet add to my reply to my hon. Friend on 6th February about the changes in the amount of cigarette smoking in the last two years.—[Vol. 850, c. 200–1.]

The information I published recently about the tar and nicotine yields of brands of cigarettes sold in the United Kingdom should help and encourage those who are unable to give up cigarette smoking to smoke less dangerously.

My right hon. Friend continues to procrastinate about this. Is he not aware that over the last few years it has become quite obvious that to all concerned with promoting the non-smoking campaign that there is a deep divide between himself and myself? He prefers the non-legislative approach while I prefer the legislative approach. Since we have now failed absolutely to make any impact on cigarette smoking, and since all the evidence is that we have made no impact, will he not reconsider his earlier shibboleths and make an investment in legislation?

I fear that I am not considering legislation. I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, whose enthusiasm I share. There are a couple of hopeful signs. First, we must give the new tar and nicotine yield tables time to assert what I hope will be a rational hold on the mind of the smoking public. Second, there has been a rise in the proportion of adults who are non-smokers as revealed in the 1971 figures.

Is it not a fact that each time the Royal College of Physicians has issued a report on the subject the amount of smoking has decreased, but that already the impact of the last report has been absorbed and the extent of smoking is rising again? Is it not time the Secretary of State took more stringent action in this regard? Is it not also a fact that the publicising of nicotine and tar contents merely changes the kind of cigarette smoked and not the amount of content consumed, and that the growth of emphysema and chest diseases indicates the need for much stronger action on the right hon. Gentleman's part?

We shall not begin to be able to judge the effect of the tar and nicotine yield tables for some months, but if they shift the choice of smokers towards the lower tar and nicotine yield content cigarettes the hon. Gentleman's fears will not be realised and there will be a smaller amount of dangerous substances being smoked.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, in view of the hopeful signs he has indicated this afternoon, that if we encourage the owners of public and private establishments and of transport to allocate greater areas for non-smokers, that might act as an additional deterrent to those who wish to smoke continuously?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There are hopeful signs in transport and in some entertainment establishments, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that we cannot go too far ahead of public opinion, because then we may run into enforcement difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in regard to the tax treatment of beneficiaries' contributions to the proposed State Reserve Pension Scheme.

I have had a small number of representations in favour of tax relief being given on employees' contributions to the reserve pension scheme, but it has also been represented to me that the effect would be to handicap our efforts to maximise the membership of recognised occupational pension schemes.

Has my right hon. Friend received representations from the Life Offices Association and the National Association of Pension Funds? Would I be right in believing that neither of those bodies has specifically asked for the tax bias to be brought back against members of the reserve pension scheme?

We have been in close touch with all organisations interested in these matters in the formative stages of the arrangements for the Bill which is now before the House.

Will the Minister confirm that a document is passing around the House showing that the Government invited the views of the CBI on the subject following their defeat in Standing Committee on it? Did they at the same time invite the views of the TUC?

I have a number of responsibilities, but I do not think that one of them is documents circulating in the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he has received only a small number of representations on the subject, which is perhaps untypical of the experience of other hon. Members, that could mean only either that members of the public are in despair of earning any kind of social justice between one side of the community and the other from the present Government or that they believe it inconceivable that the Government should attempt to overturn a decision taken by a large majority of backbenchers?

It could be because the country generally realises that the Bill represents a major advance in pension provision, both present and future, for the people of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he has given to the future of the casualty unit at the hospital at Bexhill-on-Sea.

None so far, Sir; no proposal has as yet been put to my right hon. Friend. The South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board is, however, seeking his approval to carrying out local consultation on the future of this unit.

Has my hon. Friend directed the attention of my right hon. Friend to the petition presented to the House in March, which was supported by at least one-third of the population of Bexhill? Is he aware that the letter he was good enough to write to me in April gave the impression that he was thinking that Bexhill's was a declining population, which it is not? It probably has the highest population over the age of 65 in Europe. Is not that something that should receive careful consideration? In particular, has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of using retired doctors on a rota basis?

Yes, Sir. All these possibilities have been and are being considered, but my hon. Friend will know that no proposal to close the Bexhill casualty department is before my right hon. Friend yet for decision.

asked the Secretary of Social Services what recent discussion he has had with the London Boroughs Association on the question of homelessness in London.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I met the London Boroughs Association, with the Greater London Council, in January to discuss progress in implementing the recommendations of the first report by the joint working party on homeless-ness in London, and practical ways of reducing family homelessness and making more dwellings available to meet the need. Maximum use of unoccupied and short-life property was among the matters discussed. The suggestions made at the meeting are being followed up and a working party has been set up to improve the information collected about homelessness. We shall be glad to meet the London authorities again as soon as they are ready.

While I welcome that statement, may I ask whether the Minister is fully aware of the extent of homelessness in London? Is he aware that it increases week by week, generally because of the vicious activities of certain landlords and property developers? That is what is causing homelessness, which in its wake presents many problems to local authorities. What financial help does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give to local authorities in the London area which are facing the expense of providing accommodation for people once they have been hounded out of their home?

I certainly agree about, and am well aware of, the distressing amount of homelessness in London. One of the recommendations that the Government are considering making to local authorities is that the responsibility for dealing with the homeless should be with the housing departments, which dispose of considerable re-lets and housing stock. But it is a very complex and difficult question. I should not presume to make any statements about panaceas, because there is none in this area. We shall be ready to meet the authorities as soon as they are ready.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representation has been made to him by Inner London borough councils on the increase of homelessness in their boroughs.

I am well aware of the pressure of homelessness in the Inner London boroughs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I met representatives of the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association earlier this year and discussed the problem of homeless families in detail. Several Inner London boroughs have shown concern about particular problems of family or individual homelessness.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major causes of the increase in homelessness, certainly in the part of Inner London that I know best, is the activities of winklers and speculators, who are rapidly eroding the supply of rented and furnished accommodation, which is needed so much for people in dire need? Is he aware of the increase of the squatting problem in many of our Inner London boroughs? When he next meets his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he try to shake him out of his smug, complacent approach to the whole problem, and try to find urgent solutions?

I do not think that any of my colleagues or I need shaking out of complacency. I was interested that the hon. Gentleman, with all his undoubtedly sincere interest and good will, does not have any panaceas to suggest, because there is none. We are in discussion with the local authorities to use every practical means to improve the position.

Will my right hon. Friend consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the under-occupation of many of the larger accommodation units in our big cities? People are afraid to let part of their houses because of the difficulty of rent control and that kind of thing, and the existing stock of accommodation units is largely underused in many places.

My hon. Friend tempts me out of my present responsibilities. When I was Minister of Housing, under-occupation was one of the great factors in the housing position.

Within his own jurisdiction, will the right hon. Gentleman investigate with the regional hospital boards of our big cities the acreage of land that is redundant and being held against the possibility of development in the years to come, land that could very urgently be made available for housing, and particularly the possibility of housing for the chronically sick and disabled, who require frequent and regular weekly hospital servicing?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be a source of land in some cases. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular hospital in mind, perhaps he will write to me. Since the Government came into office we have done a systematic survey of suitable land, and release is increasing in pace.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to comment on the part that the shortage of single-person accommodation plays in the overall problem of homelessness, not only in Inner London but elsewhere? Surely, if he urged local authorities to provide much more single-person accommodation and much more special accommodation for old people, that would to some degree resolve much of the homelessness that persists today.

Yes, Sir. I very much agree that, in the common interest I share in housing, more sheltered housing for the elderly would be a great blessing. Homelessness for the single is a problem in its own right, and has largely been exacerbated by the falling number of lodgings. The Government are taking steps to encourage both local authorities and voluntary bodies to provide more accommodation for the single homeless.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportions of the Health Education Council's expenditure in 1971 and 1972 were attributable to mental health education.

In each of the financial years 1971–72 and 1972–73, less than 01 per cent. of the council's total expenditure was specifically on mental health education.

I accept that the council is doing admirable work in physical health education, but are not the proportions astonishing? Will the Minister make it clear that the council's responsibilities include mental health education? Is there not a great need for more awareness of the need for mental health education not only in general subjects, such as the need of small children for emotional security, but in specific subjects—for instance, the possibility of reducing the number of mongol children born to mothers beyond normal child-bearing age? Will the Minister look into this matter?

I agree that the proportion is astonishing. I am encouraged to think that the present discussions between the NAMH and the Health Education Council will lead to a greater concentration of mental health education in future.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of total contributions to contributory private occupational pension schemes employees contribute, according to the latest figures available to the Government Actuary.

About one-third. Of a total of £860 million, £290 million was contributed by employees. The balance contributed by employers includes special payments, for example to finance benefits for back service, to augment benefits or to make good actuarial deficiencies.

Will the Secretary of State, and not the Under-Secretary, be prepared to admit that the facts which have just been given are in direct conflict with what he said on Second Reading of the Social Security Bill last November? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise for misleading the House on that occasion?

It is the hon. Gentleman who is trying to mislead the House. He should know enough about these matters to realise that there is a fundamental difference between an occupational pension scheme, which is part of the remunerative package over which the employer has control, and the arrangements which we are proposing for the State reserve scheme, which pays special attention to the needs of the lower paid who, amongst other things, cannot benefit from tax relief.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, which was designed to camouflage the facts—

Order. The hon. Member must make his submission in the proper form.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the conditions under which medical experiments may be performed on children surviving from an abortion.

Where a child survives an abortion the overriding responsibility of the medical staff is to promote and preserve its life. What steps are taken to this end is a matter for the clinical discretion of the doctor concerned.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the mother's consent is sought before experimentation on live foetuses? Secondly, before the Government and Parliament come to any firm view on these matters, should there not be an opportunity of discussing Sir John Peel's report?

I am not aware of any experiments. If my hon. Friend cares to speak to me or let me know what he has in mind, I shall write to him or submit myself to further questioning.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what categories of information are to be published for the areas covered by the new parliamentary constituencies, and when, based upon the 1971 census returns.

It is intended to publish the results of the 1971 census analysed by both the existing and the new parliamentary constituencies in two stages: first, the information on population and housing early in the autumn; and second, the economic information including that on employment by industry and occupation group towards the end of the year.

As at least 30 months will elapse between the census and the publication of the results based upon the new parliamentary constituencies, will my hon. Friend consider making available more quickly the information stemming from future census returns? I ask him to do so not only because the information is of vital importance to hon. Members but because of the increased mobility of the population, which makes the figures less relevant more quickly.

I take note of my hon. Friend's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further economies he intends to make in the provision of drugs for the National Health Service.

I am satisfied that the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme provides a proper means of settling the prices of medicines in this country in a manner fair both to the National Health Service and to the manufacturers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Monopolies Commission's report on the Roche Group's products reveals merely the tip of the iceberg? Is there not ramp in most of the drugs which are being supplied to the National Health Service which deserves the immediate attention of the Secretary of State? Another reference to the Monopolies Commission would mean another 18 months at least before the commission could report. Does not the pointed reference in paragraph 201 of the Monopolies Commission's report about the lack of competition in non-reference drugs call attention to the immediacy of the problem?

No. I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion. It is very wrong of him to make such a general denunciation without, so far as I know, a spark of evidence. I disagree with him entirely.

asked the Prime Minister if he will propose to the Heads of the Governments of the European Economic Community that all State aids to industry should be replaced by funds from the Community, allocated on the basis of a Community policy designed to put subvention to companies, industries and regions on a European basis.

The Community's policy on State aids for the regions will be determined this year in the course of implementing the regional policy objectives agreed at the summit meeting last October. The remainder of the area covered by my hon. Friend's Question is governed by the competition provisions of the Treaty of Rome.

Would that be a worthwhile European initiative which the British Government could take which would lead to much fairer industrial competition throughout the whole of the Common Market and which would perhaps go some way to correct the impression which is gaining strength on the Continent that?nous ne sommes ici que pour la bière?

We took the initiative at the summit as far as regional policy was concerned. I think that the other Heads of Government would agree that it was because of the action which we took in preparation for the summit that the objective was included in the communique. The Commission has now been working on this matter. The Commissioner responsible, a former Member of this House, has produced the initial proposals. These are now being examined by the other Governments. This is the initiative which my hon. Friend wanted.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there is no link between regional support, and the proposals brought forward by Mr. Thomson, and British membership of the economic and monetary union that might prevent the British float from continuing, thus endangering the growth of the economy?

I have always emphasised, and I did so at the summit, that there is a direct link. However, I think that it is the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The direct link is that it is not possible to move to a satisfactory position vis-à-vis economic and monetary union unless one has a satisfactory regional policy which will allow a proper balance to be created throughout the whole of the Community on the basis of which economic and monetary union could work.

If the Labour Party is interested in more regional aid through Europe, why is it that only the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) represents that party? Even the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln has had his path blocked in an underhand way by the Leader of the Opposition.

I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition would entirely agree with my hon. Friend's premise.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that, whatever conclusions the Commission may arrive at, the needs of the development areas will continue to be met by the Government until unemployment in those areas is substantially brought down?

It is in the interests of these areas that we should have a Community policy which meets their needs. That will be the objective of Her Majesty's Government in working out a policy for the Community as a whole with the Commissioner responsible and in the Council of Ministers.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office with regard to the planning for expansion of oil refineries in the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir. The three Departments maintain very close contact.

Does the Prime Minister consider it satisfactory that of all the refineries in the United Kingdom only one major refinery is located in Scotland? Will he try to push the Departments out of their absurd complacency in this regard? They seem to think that North Sea oil will only come ashore in late 1974 or early 1975. The time to be planning expansion is now. We must not wait for North Sea oil to come ashore.

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to plan fully in advance for the time when the oil comes ashore. That applies to refinery capacity as well. An interdepartmental working party has produced a note on the selection of sites for oil refineries. That has been sent out to all local authorities as guidance in dealing with specific applications and giving advice on potential sites in their areas where refineries could be to national and local advantage. All the information has been given to those who are concerned with the matter. Much depends on the individual companies making application either for new refinery capa- city or for the extension of their existing capacity.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us the extent to which the Government's endeavours to maximise the return in jobs and in cash for the nation from North Sea oil have been frustrated by the apparent threats by the Opposition to nationalise North Sea oil, either with or without compensation, in the event of their return to power?

It is difficult to give any figures. My judgment is that they have not frustrated the development of North Sea oil and the industries associated with it which have been going ahead very fast indeed, for the simple reason that people have taken no notice of what the Opposition have said. Nor do they expect them to become the Government.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on progress made in the improvement of security within Government Departments.

As I have told the House, security arrangements in all Government Departments are kept under constant review.

When does the Prime Minister or the Government intend to make a statement to the House about the investigations which have been under way for a considerable time and are currently under way by Scotland Yard into the inquiries instigated by the revelations in The Guardian some time ago? When will the House have an opportunity of debating the Franks Report, which is a linked problem? It is becoming in the nature of a major scandal that the House cannot express its views on an extremely important matter.

On the particular matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of course there has been action following the police inquiries in the courts and sentences were passed on four people concerned, but all have given notice of appeal. The hon. Gentleman will therefore recognise that I must await the outcome of those appeals before making any further statement to the House about the matter.

On the other matter concerning V and G, on which there was a leakage, I immediately instituted a tribunal of inquiry and the results are now well known to the House.

What about the Franks Report?

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware of the position about the Franks Report and hopes to arrange for a debate in the next few weeks.

Going a little further on that point, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that not all Government information requires the protection of the Official Secrets Act and that it is a matter of some urgency that we should come to a decision on the proposals in the Franks Report?

Yes. We said that there would be a debate in the House before the Government announced any conclusions about it. I think that this is right.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Leader of the House concerning this matter. Does he recall that I raised this matter with his right hon. Friend last week and also asked when we might expect a statement on the report by the Computer Society and the Royal Statistical Society on the question of security under the census? Since that report has been with the Government for many months, may I ask when we can expect a statement?

I cannot give a precise date. I hope that it will be in the near future. We have been having discussions with the two societies concerned about the extent of publication of their reports, because they were responsible for them, and they gave various undertakings about the confidential nature of much of the material in them. Therefore, I think we are in their hands regarding publication of the documents.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co- ordination between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry over the control of pipelines in connection with oil and shipping installations.

Yes, Sir.

If the Prime Minister is satisfied, may I ask who is responsible for planning below high water mark and whether mooring buoys, for instance, come under the Department of the Environment, as they are on or near the surface of the sea, whereas pipelines appear to be a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in what he says about the different responsibilities for these matters. We must deal with them either by saying that only one Department will be responsible for the whole of these matters—this applies not only to Zetland but to the whole of the United Kingdom—or by having a system of co-ordination between the authorities involved in the different aspects of planning. Co-ordination is carried out by the Departments, but for Scotland it has been agreed that it should be carried out direct at regional level. I hope that will assist the right hon. Gentleman in the interests that he has at heart in producing a more speedy conclusion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is a classic example of taking the delicate balance between the environment, on the one hand, and the economy, on the other hand, and that the real solution to the problem is to ensure that the local planning authorities have properly qualified environmental advisers who can look at the whole matter instead of simply appearing to see that on one occasion commercialism conquers conservation or vice versa on another occasion?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the reform of local government in Scotland, because of the change in the size of the units involved which that brings about, will enable greater resources to be made available to local authorities so that they have better advice in keeping this balance. But under our system, which is accepted over the whole country, it is a matter for elected local authorities to take the decisions.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—to clarify one point? Is he saying that under the new Act the regional authorities in Scotland will be empowered to plan below high water mark?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may raise this matter at the end of Question Time.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. Whereas there are Departments which are responsible for these matters, in particular the DTI, the DOE and the Scottish Office itself, instead of co-ordination taking place at headquarters departmental level it will now take place at the regional level of the Department concerned.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to meet Mr. Ian Smith to resume discussions on all outstanding difficulties, including the United Nations sanctions.

We have made it clear to Mr. Smith that what is now required is agreement between the races in Rhodesia on the basis for a settlement. We are ready at any time to respond to such an agreement.

Is not the most serious aspect of these matters the fact that the whole of the United Kingdom's trade with Rhodesia has now been virtually sabotaged and taken by the Americans, the Japanese, the West Germans and others— in other words, our most powerful trade competitors all over the world? Are we to sit on the sidelines indefinitely and allow these people to sequestrate our overseas trade?

The loss of trade to the United Kingdom is and has been one aspect since the Rhodesian problem began, but it is only one aspect. The other aspect was that the settlement which we worked out was shown by the Pearce Commission not to be acceptable to the great majority of the African population. If my hon. Friend is referring solely to economic matters, I should point out that the impact on British trade in the rest of the African continent has to be considered as well.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the view of a growing number of people, it is time that we brought to an end this period of waiting for Mr. Smith to produce an agreement? Is he aware that the security situation in Rhodesia is deteriorating very fast, that there is a growing danger of bloodshed there and that the time has now come for the British Government to call together for fresh discussions not only Mr. Smith but the Africans, who must be involved in any settlement, otherwise in default of this the situation will continue to deteriorate, there will be bloodshed and the African leadership will pass into more extreme hands?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There has always been a danger of internal violence in Rhodesia, particularly perhaps from those who come into Rhodesia from outside.

As to the British Government bringing together Mr. Smith and the Africans, that depends on the two parties being prepared to talk together under British Government auspices.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us whether, in the Government's view, sanctions will become effective in weeks rather than months? Alternatively, does he agree that there may be an argument for and against sanctions but that there is no argument for sanctions which do not work?

There is absolutely no doubt that one reason why Mr. Smith was prepared to negotiate with the Foreign Secretary and to work out an agreement which it was hoped would be acceptable to the Africans was that sanctions were continuing.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is only one outstanding difficulty—the continuing state of treason and rebellion by Mr. Smith and his friends in Rhodesia? Will he therefore take fresh initiatives to ensure that sanctions are rigorously applied and extended by all United Nations members? Is he aware that the problem arises because of a cynical dual standard there and by the lack of determination, for which we all share in the blame, to bring to heel a group of men who have shown their willingness to imprison, to detain and to execute people who are under the protection of this Parliament?

The Government ensure that their obligations to the United Nations on sanctions are carried out. I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I think that the only way of dealing with the problem is to produce a settlement acceptable to all races in Rhodesia.

Whatever we may think of the Smith régime, do not recent events indicate that there is in Southern Rhodesia a system of appeal which is a proper system of appeal that is totally absent in other African States which continually criticise the Smith régime?

I do not see why this should be a matter for dispute. One can dispute about the terms on which Mr. Niesewand was allowed to leave Rhodesia. One cannot dispute the fact that after a court decision there was a means of appeal and the higher court came to a different conclusion.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no system of appeal whatsoever for a very large number of Africans who have been in detention for a very long period and that, indeed, in the Matamabuto case there has been a decision by the Privy Council in this matter?

Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that we should all like to congratulate him on the answers he has given this afternoon, particularly his repeated answers on sanctions, remembering the line which he himself took when the sanctions were imposed? Will he now answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he put his question? Is it still the fact, as the Foreign Secretary told us earlier in the year, that the draft agreement of last year, which was turned down by the Africans and the Pearce Commission, still lies on the table? Should it not now be made clear that it does not lie on the table but will require substantial amendment as well as African approval?

I am well aware of the first point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he will recall that in the settlement negotiated by my right hon. Friend provision was made for the commission to deal with detainees.

On the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think one needs to split hairs about this, but surely the position is that one wants Mr. Smith and the Africans to discuss together a settlement, and the basis of this can be the agreement which was worked out with amendments made by either side in the discussions they may undertake. I see no point in removing this entirely from the table and then saying that they have to start all over again, either on the last Rhodesian constitution or on the 1961 constitution.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I have selected new Clause 1 but I gather from the right hon. Member that it will be for the convenience of the House to consider with it the following amendments:

No. 53, in Clause 49, page 64, line 37, at end insert:

and

(f) it offers to women earners the same rights to membership as it offers to men'.

No. 172, in page 64, line 37, at end insert:

' (f) it offers to women earners the same rights as it offers to men'.

No. 173, in Clause 51, page 68, line 25, leave out subsection (9).

No. 174, in Clause 52, page 70, line 5, leave out from 'earner' to 'to' in line 6.

No. 152, in Clause 69, page 91, line 19, after 'State', insert:

'of which at least one-third shall be women'.

No. 131, in Schedule 18, page 179, line 41, leave out from beginning to the end of line 53 on page 180 and insert:

4.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the weekly rate of pension (without bonuses) for every £1 of the earner's contribution factor.

(2) An earner's weekly rate of pension shall vary according to the age at which he earned his contribution factor (treating him for this purpose as having been in any year, of the age which he had attained on the last day of that year).

(3) The regulations referred to in sub-paragraph 4(1) above shall specify separate rates of pension for pensionable ages of 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 '.

No. 155, in page 180, column 2, leave out line 5.

No. 156, in page 180, column 3, leave out lines 5 to 44.

I confess I am in some difficulty because I do not see any member of the Government responsible for this Bill in his place to listen to my persuasive arguments. However, as the Minister has now arrived, I shall be able to advance the arguments relevant to this new clause and Amendment No. 131, which is the other amendment grouped here for which I have primary responsibility. My name is added to other amendments but these are two which deal with the reserve pension scheme. The other amendments grouped here deal with occupational pension schemes.

To use the attractive language of an hon. Lady who has a letter in The Times this morning, 7 million people under the Social Security Bill will be "relegated"—I quote the hon. Lady—to the reserve pension scheme. This idea of relegation to that scheme is, of course, the baste Government concept about the scheme. It is that it is a fallback scheme and by its nature a very unattractive scheme. Indeed, one might say that never before in human history has a Government cried "stinking fish" so frequently and so enthusiastically about any product of its own conception as this Government have about the reserve pension scheme.

Nevertheless, the odd fact is that, bad as it is, for many people it will be better than the occupational scheme at minimum levels. There will, for example, be pressure from younger people to be in the reserve pension scheme, and one of the reasons why the Government oppose tax relief on contributions to the reserve pension scheme is that they believe their strategy to be in danger of a choice between the reserve pension scheme and an occupational scheme, which is already very finely balanced. They feel, therefore, that if a tax rebate is given, the balance will fall very much more strongly, for many people in favour of the reserve pension scheme. But in any case, whether or not the figure of 7 million which the Government have estimated for the reserve pension scheme turns out to be the figure, or whether it is a larger figure, the Government tell us that these people are to be relegated to it.

The question is, and the question when the Committee was discussing Part III of the Bill was simply, is there any way in which the reserve pension scheme can be improved? We tried in Committee to improve the reserve pension scheme but the Government were very resistant to the idea of improving it. They said that it was a fallback and that, indeed almost as a matter of principle, it must not be improved. But occupational pension schemes, they said, might be improved. The pressure of members might lead to improvement of the occupational pension scheme but the Minister's view of the reserve pension scheme was that it must not be improved. We had only one success in trying to improve the reserve pension scheme. That was in response to an amendment I moved about enhancement if retirement is deferred.

Later I shall have something more to say about Government Amendment No. 91, which is relevant to the new clause and the amendment to which at present I am speaking. Amendment No. 91 makes this new clause or Amendment No. 131 more necessary than before if fairness is to be done.

But the Government so far have resisted all other pressures to improve the reserve pension scheme and I can tell them there will be pressure to do so from at least 7 million people. There will be pressure from Members of Parliament to improve it, again if for no other reason than that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) in the speech that he made a few moments ago—that many constituents will be deeply aggrieved by the nature of the reserve pension scheme. Therefore the Government might as well listen now.

One of the facts about the reserve pension scheme is its discrimination against women. An important question in Committee was whether there was anything we could do which would, at small cost, go some way towards reducing the discrimination against women. I made a proposal in Committee that we should eliminate the present tables in Schedule 18, on page 180 of the Bill, which are divided between men and women and different retirement ages of 65 and 60. I said that we should eliminate that method of showing age and reckonable contribution and that we should insert instead actuarially calculated tables depending simply on the age at which reckonable contributions are made, as they are in Schedule 18, but—and this is the difference—depending also on the age at which actual retirement takes place, those ages being between 60 and 65. Instead of the tables here, there would be not a table for men and a table for women but tables for each age of retirement—at 61, 62, 63, 64 or 65—with the earnings per reckonable contribution depending, as in Schedule 18, upon the age at which they were made. That would be the basis of the table in Schedule 18, and not sex discrimination.

The table would be based on the age of contribution and the age of retirement, not tables for men and women, depending on different ages of retirement. In other words, if one takes the position that would then arise, women could still retire at 60, as most women will want to do. I have written a provision into the new clause guaranteeing —though that is not a question here— that they can still retire at 60. On the other hand, they could work on voluntarily if they wished to do so and if they saw reason to do so. They would then benefit from it fully according to the contribution which they had made and the pension they had earned.

Here I make a preliminary remark about Amendment No. 91, to which no doubt we shall return. We shall return to it in the light of what the Government say about my new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 131, because if we accept Amendment No. 91 without some such system as is written into my new clause and my amendment and without, in other words, changing the table in Schedule 18—if Amendment No. 91 is based on the table in that schedule— then actuarially, which is what the Government are concerned with in their reserve pension scheme, women will be "diddled" by Amendment No. 91 instead of benefiting from it. They will get less for their contributions than men would get in equivalent circumstances. The very fact that the Government have put down Amendment No. 91 in response to pleas made to them on all sides of the Committee reinforces the need for new Clause 1 and for Amendment No. 131.

There are many reasons why women might want to work on after the age of 60. They might want to earn a higher pension, which will be particularly important to single women, or they might want to retire at the same time as their husbands. These are the advantages that would accrue for women if the Government accept my arguments.

There are, then, the arguments for men, because I am not simply putting forward a case for women. Men will still be able to retire at 65 but if for a variety of reasons they retired early they would be able to get their reserve pension at the time they retired. Let us take a typical example which the Government foresee arising with the dual system of occupational and reserve pensions. The Government see many people who work for most of their lives under the occupational pension system spending part of their working lives paying for the reserve pension. In addition to their occupational entitlement they will have a reserve entitlement.

In many occupational pension schemes people are required to retire earlier than 65—at 62, 60 or even earlier than that. What will be the position of the man who retires before 65 and gets the benefit of his occupational pension when, as the Bill is now drawn, his reserve pension entitlement can be obtained only at the age of 65? It would be very much better for men to be able to claim their reserve entitlement before the age of 65 if it coincides with age of retirement under an occupational pension scheme. My proposal would meet the needs of men in that respect.

I do not see that the Government can conceivably object as a matter of principle to what I am proposing. It in no way conflicts with the money purchase basis of the reserve scheme. There are genuine reasons for having a flexible reirement age for men as well as women. For women it helps to overcome discrimination against them and it is the only way of dealing with the pension problem created by different retirement ages. For men it enables questions of individual family and health circumstances to be considered. Because the Government cannot object to this in principle, therefore, I offer it to them again to see whether they have any better-informed comments to make on the idea than the Minister brought forward in Committee.

As usual, in order to encourage them a little in my direction I offer the Government a compromise. I always offer them a compromise and I always try to encourage them forward little by little to try to overcome their resistance to improving the reserve scheme. I offer them Amendment No. 131 or new Clause 1. The amendment provides that the change should be made now, written into the Bill now. The clause says that if the Government do not want to do it now, but if they want to wait a little and think about it, they should take the power to do it by regulation at such time as they think right. The clause gives the Government the power to introduce changes in Schedule 18 by regulation in accordance with the principles I am advancing.

There is only one possible objection to the proposal—cost, and, in particular, it is sometimes argued, the cost to men. The Under-Secretary in Committee in replying to a debate which I initiated in moving an amendment dedicated to the same purpose as the new clause and the amendment now before us, gave a cost which was totally irrelevant to the argument I was presenting. Indeed, he tried to attribute his answer to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), but it was irrelevant to anything that my hon. Friend said. The Under-Secretary said that the cost would be increased by no less than half. He said—

"despite their"—

that is women—

"earlier retirement age"—

in other words he was referring to a situation in which women retired earlier—

"… the cost of providing the benefit on women's contributions would be increased by no less than half."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th April 1973; c. 1559.]

That is not what I was proposing and it is not what I am proposing now. There is no such cost. The figure which the Under-Secretary gave was irrelevant, and when I challenged him to give an accurate cost for my proposal he failed to do so.

4.15 p.m.

Under my proposal the pension depends on the contribution and age of retirement, irrespective of sex. The cost of my proposal is very small simply because the additional cost of women's pensions is affected far more by early retirement than it is by a longer life. Ninety per cent. of the difference is accounted for by earlier retirement. A 4 per cent. contribution buys only slightly more pension for a man, including his widow's pension, than it buys for a woman, provided the retirement age is the same.

In other words, the small amount of transfer that would take place between men and women would be no greater than the transfer which in any case takes place between manual workers and non-manual workers who have different lengths of life, or between people who live in Rochdale and people who live in Brighton who have different lengths of life. This is the measure of the sort of transfer that would take place between men and women if my proposal were adopted. Therefore it is possible for a small cost to make a major advance in overcoming the pension problem created by different retirement ages for men and women. I see no ground of principle and I hope that the Government will not say there is a ground of cost on which they can reject my proposals.

First may I say how welcome it is to see the Secretary of State here on Report. We missed him sadly during the Committee proceedings during which we fought out long, far-reaching questions of principle affecting the whole foundation of his social security strategy. Nobly as the Under-Secretary has battled on in the right hon. Gentleman's absence, it would have been deplorable for the House to have gone ahead to finish the Bill without the Secretary of State having listened to and, I hope, personally answered a number of the detailed points of principle which we thrashed out in Committee for so long.

I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) not only on the way in which he moved his new clause but on the ingenuity he displayed in approaching one of the central problems and deficiencies of the Bill, namely the problem faced by women under the Government's social security proposals. His proposal shows what can be done in overcoming administrative and actuarial difficulties in the way of complete equality if only one starts passionately motivated by the right principle.

The trouble is that the Government have approached the needs of women in exactly the opposite way and that is why the Bill as it stands and, if it passes the Report stage unamended, as it will stand is an insult and an injury to the women of this country—and insult and injury of which they are becoming increasingly and angrily aware. This large group of amendments continues the battle for equal pension rights for women which we conducted throughout the Committee. It deals with only a part of the battle because grouped here are amendments dealing with occupational pension schemes and with the State reserve scheme.

One of the difficulties that we have experienced in getting justice for women in this Bill is that the scheme is so complicated that they have no means of realising the injustice being perpetrated against them unless and until someone can explain the implications to them in very simple language. The whole purpose of these amendments, therefore, can be understood only against the background of the wider concept of women's rights at present embodied in the Bill.

Our battle for women is first, against the whole two-tier structure of pensions which the Government have introduced. The basic scheme which is to be applicable to everyone and financed by earnings-related contributions will produce only a totally inadequate flat-rate benefit. Even in its limited provisions, the scheme is deeply unequal to women anyway because it is imbued with the now out of date concept of women's dependancy. This is a point to which we shall return in the context of other amendments and which I cannot explore too deeply at this stage.

That was the starting point and, in fighting the concept of dependency in the basic scheme and the subordinate position that it gives to women, we warned that the consequence would be that inequality to women would be perpetrated throughout the rest of the Government's elaborate pensions structure. These amendments prove that our warnings were entirely justified.

No one is expected to live on the basic flat-rate scheme. For that reason everyone is to have a second earnings-related pension on top of it. As my right hon. Friend has demonstrated and as we said time and again in Committee, that second-tier pension is of two entirely different qualities.

The Government's most favoured pension scheme for the earnings-related second pension is the private occupational pension scheme. Only those unfortunate enough not to be covered by one—there will be seven or eight million of them— will, to use the famous phrase in The Times this morning already quoted by my right hon. Friend, be "relegated" to the State reserve scheme. It is remarkably significant that the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) should have chosen that word so instinctively to describe the inferior status of the State reserve scheme.

It is because women gat such a poor deal in the basic flat-rate scheme that it is all the more essential that they should get equality of treatment in the second tier. What have the Government done? To begin with, they have put all the emphasis on the occupational pension scheme. Then they have given women no statutory right to belong to it.

The Secretary of State has said in many a public speech that it is his hope and aim that eventually everyone will belong to an occupational pension scheme. However it is his intention to rely only upon persuasion. In the meantime he will do nothing to make the State reserve scheme competitive in terms of the level of benefit that it provides. Only those who get into the occupational pension scheme will get a really adequate coverage at the second tier stage.

The Opposition do not like the concept of the two-tier scheme for reasons which I do not intend to elaborate now. But if we have to have one, that second tier must give everyone equality. Above all it must not discriminate purely on sex grounds. But that in effect is what the Bill will do.

We all know that the occupational pension scheme is more likely to be introduced in those areas where the employee is strongly organised, well paid and able to assert himself. It will be the lower paid and above all the women who will be relegated to the State reserve scheme unless we give them an equal statutory right with men to belong to a private occupational one. Therefore, is not it elementary natural justice to say that women could have the right by law to belong to the better scheme? I repeat— and I can make quotations to support my assertion—that the Under-Secretary has never concealed the fact that he knows the occupational scheme is the better one.

It may be a tragedy that we have to embody these basic rights for women in the law of the land. It is a pity that we cannot leave them to negotiations across the collective bargaining table. But all our history shows that we cannot. We could not even leave to the negotiating table the establishment of that basic right for women to the same pay for the same work. We had to legislate for it. In so far as pensions are recognised as being deferred pay, so we must legislate for equality of rights for women in pensions. If we do not we shall have a continuance of the present situation where, of those in full time manual work, 17·9 per cent. of women are in occupational pension schemes compared with 46·2 per cent. of men—perhaps because the men are better organised or perhaps because the men are in better jobs. Whatever the reason, that is the fact. It will continue unless we say that where an employer introduces an occupational pension scheme for his employees, women employees must have an equal right to membership with men.

That proposition is not merely a matter of common justice. It is one of political consistency. The House will remember our debates on the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill, which I had the honour to introduce and to get on to the statute book. At the time that Bill was before the House the TUC represented to me that it would be meaningless unless it was accompanied by equal rights for women in employers' pension schemes. By the time that Bill reached its Report stage, I was under a great deal of pressure from a number of my right lion, and hon. Friends to accept an amendment giving equality of pension rights to women as part of that Bill. I announced to the House that, as I wanted to be sure to get that Bill on to the statute book without delay—and how right I was has been proved by events—I did not wish to hold up the Bill by complicating it with what would have to be very detailed consideration of what constituted equality of pension rights under any employer's pension scheme.

But I gave a pledge that the Labour Government would introduce equal pension rights for women, by legislation, before the Equal Pay Act came into full operation at the end of 1975. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, then on these benches, welcomed it, and seemed to imply what a pity it was we had not been able to incorporate that provision in the Bill itself.

The right hon. Lady is speaking now as if she gave an unqualified undertaking to the House at that time. What she said was:

"The legislation will prescribe a suitable date for equalising men's and women's pension rights, taking due account of any inherent differences between men and women in regard to pension needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1789.]

Does she deny that?