asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers about the present level of disregards, as they affect their retired pensioners who are in receipt of supplementary benefits, following the recent increase in the mineworkers' pension.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers regarding the loss of supplementary benefit by unemployed coalminers as a result of their recent increase in mineworkers' pension; and if he will make a statement.

None directly, but this matter was referred to in a letter the union sent to the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission on 30th May. I understand that the increases in mineworkers' pensions, together with the recent increases in the needs allowance in the rent rebate and allowance scheme, will mean that many of the miners concerned will be better off financially by ceasing to receive supplementary benefit and paying rebated housing costs instead.

I fail to see that, because hundreds of miners living on retirement pensions, after the recent increase of £1·50 in their basic pension—making it £3—have lost all or part of their supplementary benefit. Therefore, they are, in effect, worse off.

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about a scandalous situation. It existed in 1969, when mineworkers' pensions were last increased, but on this occasion the miners will benefit from the increase in both the basic and the supplementary pension. In many cases they will also benefit from the new rent rebate arrangements. The main thing is to ensure that the miners know of this. Discussions are going on at the moment between the Supplementary Benefits Commission, the NUM, and the NCB with the intention of ensuring that all miners know of the best arrangement from their own points of view.

Is it not the case that the disregards on supplementary benefit have not been increased for some years, during which the value of money has declined considerably? If it is the policy of the Government to make adjustments to benefits to cope with inflation, ought not adjustments also to be made in the amount that can be taken by a person from other sources? If no adjustments are to be made, will not this situation undermine the incentive of employers to make adjustments in pensions and of individuals to save?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend has on a number of occasions said that there is a case for improving the disregards, which have not been changed since 1966. This, as in other matters, is a question of priorities. My right hon. Friend has thought it appropriate up to now to concentrate the resources available on improving the basic rates of benefit which help everybody, and in particular those who have no other resources to call upon.

Why does not the hon. Gentleman find out what he is talking about before making the statement that miners are benefiting from the present increase in pensions? Thousands of miners and miners' widows are getting not a penny benefit as a result of the increase negotiated between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is bitterly resented by mining communities throughout the country? Bearing in mind that on the Report stage of the National Insurance Bill on Friday the Opposition propose to move an amendment that would benefit these miners and their families along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont), will the Minister at this stage reconsider his attitude and give miners and their families some benefit from the increase in these pensions?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. The last time that the miners' pension was increased was in 1969, when the Labour Government were in office. On that occasion pensions and supplementary benefit were not increased at the same time, and the present rent rebate and allowance arrangement was not operating at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many elderly people are waiting for entry to geriatric beds in the Wessex Regional Hospital Board area.

343 at 30th April 1973.

Is the Minister aware that almost every regional hospital board has a long waiting list not only for geriatric beds but for cold surgery, dental treatment for handicapped people and a host of other things? Why do not the Government divert just some of the money that they propose to waste on Maplin towards improving National Health Service facilities?

We have made very sharp increases in the capital allocations to regional hospital boards to improve the service in this, above all, of the very many capital needs in the hospital service.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Southampton area the building strike of last year had a very serious effect on the provision of hospital beds and that in some way that may have been a cause of this problem?

I am glad to say that the waiting list for the area covered by the Southampton Hospital Management Committee has, in this category, fallen in recent months.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list of hospitals in each of the regions in England where from April 1970 until April 1972 no charges were collected from private non-resident patients for the use of operating theatre facilities, the number of instances when theatre facilities were used for private patients, and his estimate of the loss to the National Health Service which has resulted from the loss of such fees.

No, Sir. Information about the use of operating theatre facilities by private non-resident patients is not recorded centrally and could not be obtained without extensive inquiries of hospital authorities. I am, however, aware that such cases have occurred and in accordance with the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee I am arranging for a review of the relevant control procedures.

Will the Secretary of State arrange to have the auditors' reports on hospitals centrally examined? Of the cases that he has mentioned, in the Salisbury Hospital, for example, there were 140 uses of the theatre and 360 consultations in two years, of which only 25 were charged for? Is not it now time that each hospital had a standardised method of recording so that auditors can get at such figures?

I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The March 1972 audit revealed a dozen cases of hospital authorities where patients had been or appeared to have been treated as private, non-resident patients, not necessarily using the operating theatre, without adequate records of the facilities provided or without having paid the appropriate charges. I am considering the position.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a possibility of increased abuse in this matter? When he makes an investigation, will he be good enough to examine the situation of National Health Service doctors and nurses who, if charges of abuse occur in this matter, might be implicated in something of which they are innocent?

I doubt whether there is a case for using the word "abuse". There may be neglect of necessary procedures, and that could be partly my fault for not seeing that the procedures are easily carried out. That is why I am making an inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the proposals for further relief for the disabled that he has currently under examination.

I cannot at this stage usefully add to my answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) on 8th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 178–80.]

Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the decision of the other place on the Social Security Bill on similar lines to an amendment that I moved in this House? Does he accept the necessity for the Government to produce a concrete plan for the relief of the disabled? Will he commit himself to publishing a Green Paper on this subject at the earliest possible date?

No. As I have explained to my hon. Friend, the commitment to publish a Green Paper might delay getting on with action for priority groups of the disabled, for which we are all impatient and on which the Government are now carrying out urgent studies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give a definite date for the publication of Baroness Sharp's report on vehicle services for physically disabled people? Will he ensure that the report is made available to the House before any definitive decisions are reached by the Government?

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has tabled Question No. 11 on that very subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will ascertain and publish the number of children in care of local authorities who have been in care of foster parents for five years or more.

I regret that this information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only by a special inquiry.

Will the Minister let the House know of his feelings and what his recommendations will be regarding the suggestion in the Houghton Report on fostering and adoption about the availability of children in that category for adoption by their foster parents? Will he also assure the House that, in view of that suggestion and many other far-reaching suggestions in the Houghton Report, a White Paper will be issued on this matter to allow full and free debate before any Bill is introduced?

I am in the midst of studying the Houghton Report and the comments on it, which are coming in from bodies concerned with the subject. The lack of central statistics does not mean that we need persuading that the particular subject is of great importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of people now on social security, at the latest date, compared to June 1970.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to supplementary benefit. The number of people receiving regular payments of supplementary benefit on 15th May 1973 was about 2,819,000 compared with 2,689,000 in May 1970.

Is not that an admission that 140,000 more people are on supplementary benefit? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the Prime Minister's speech yesterday about a booming Britain with the figures that he has just announced? Is it not booming poverty that we have been seeing over the last three years, with more people on social security?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The percentage of people in receipt of benefit is much the same as it was in June 1970. The numbers have risen partly because we unproved the benefits in real terms but also because the number of people likely to be eligible for benefit, particularly pensioners, has also risen during that period.

Is not it true that as the level of pensions is increased so the level of supplementary benefits is increased, and so the number of people on supplementary benefit will be increased? Is that not to the credit of the present Government?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What the Labour Party must answer is the question whether it wishes to see the real value of the benefits for those who are most vulnerable in our community, and those most in need, being increased. If it wishes to see them increased, the number of people becoming eligible for these benefits will also tend to increase.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that what is highly unsatisfactory about the figures is that nearly 2 million people of the total number of people on supplementary benefit are retirement pensioners or people over retirement age? Is not the tragedy and condemnation of the Government the fact that they have introduced legislation which will mean that not only the present generation of pensioners but also retirement pensioners far into the future, even into the next century, will continue to be dependent on means-tested supplementary benefit in order to be able to live at all?

On the contrary, the present Government are the first Government to introduce a tax credit scheme which fill provide more help than anything that any Government have done since the war by reducing substantially the number of pensioners dependent on supplementary benefit.

Will my hon. Friend consider the advisability of suggesting to officials in social security offices that it might be a good thing if they drew people's attention to the fact that, in some cases, although they might wish to come off social security and take a job, they would be better off continuing to receive social security and, therefore, that the officials should advise them not to take a job?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. There is a difficult area on the margin here, particularly where a large number of young dependent children is involved.

asked the Secretary of of State for Social Services what have been the annual percentage increases or decreases in retirement pensions for a married couple, adjusted in the retail price index, in the autumn of each of the last eight years; and what have been the average annual increases on the same basis, between October 1964 and June 1970, and between June 1970 and October 1972.

The average annual increases, adjusted for changes in the general index of retail prices, in the value of the retirement pension for a married couple for the periods October 1964 to June 1970 and June 1970 to October 1972 were respectively 2·4 per cent. and 5 per cent. I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the annual increase or decrease for each of the eight years.

Can my hon. Friend give me any reason why any old-age pensioner should ever again vote for a Labour Government?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The figures speak clearly for themselves and there is little doubt that the pensioners are more interested in effective action by this Government than in extravagant promises from the Labour Party.

Everyone in the country, including the Minister, knows that old-age pensioners spend the overwhelming bulk of their income on food—if they can afford it. As food has doubled and trebled in price, and is continuing to rise, will the Minister say exactly what is happening and give the figures in the reply which he is to publish, showing how much food has increased since the Government have been in office?

I take the hon. Member's point. Food is one of the most important items in the budget of any pensioner. I can assure him, however, that the increase in food prices, or in other prices, is fully taken into account when the level of the pension increases is determined. Since the Government came to office pensions have increased by 35 per cent. and prices have gone up by just over 26 per cent. In other words, there is a substantial margin of real improvement.

Not all National Insurance pensioners living in private rented accommodation are applying for the sometimes very generous benefits that are available to them under the Housing Finance Act. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider some administrative measure which will encourage these pensioners to apply for their benefits?

All this came out clearly in the earlier Question on miners' pensions. We shall do all we can to build up close links between our Department and the housing departments of the local authorities.

We all appreciate that statistics are most interesting, but will the Minister do the House a favour? Will he go along to a shopping centre at the weekend and take specific note of old-age pensioners scratching around to get sufficient food to last them over the weekend, knowing full well that they will not have sufficient to eat by the end of the following week?

Of course we are all concerned to do more for pensioners than we have been able to do in the past. Comments of the kind uttered by the hon. Member, however, come very ill from him, because he had responsibility for these matters long before this Government introduced an annual increase in pensions.

Does not the Under-Secretary agree that the retirement pension today represents a larger proportion of average national earnings than it did in 1967 and that it is likely that by October this year it will have reached an all-time low?

The proportion has not altered significantly over recent years, but the proportion of pensioners in the population has continued to increase. We should take much more notice of what the right hon. Gentleman said were we to have more support from him for our counter-inflation policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many and what proportion of applications for full attendance allowances in respect of children have been refused during the last 12-month period for which records are available.

It is estimated that in the 12-month period to May 1973, 2,300 applications for attendance allowance in respect of children were rejected representing approximately 30 per cent. of the claims made for children.

Is the Minister aware that this is a sad figure and that there are far too many rejections in cases of real need? Hon. Members on all sides have signed in great numbers a motion in my name deploring the procedures of the Attendance Allowance Board. What does the Minister propose to do about it?

I regret the criticisms that the hon. and learned Gentleman continues to make about the board. It has done a first-class job in a short time. Over 70 per cent. of the applications for children have been successful. More than 24,000 awards have been made and the new lower rate allowance for children will come into operation on 1st October this year and will bring in another group of children.

I do not doubt that the attendance allowance board is doing its best in difficult circumstances, but does my hon. Friend recognise that many of us on both sides of the House feel that certain cases prove that the board is interpreting the rules very strictly?

There are difficult cases on the borderline, and I accept what my hon. and learned Friend said. It is for that reason that we are now pressing as fast as we can to bring the allowance to additional groups. The allowance, which started towards the end of 1971, is already bringing new help to more than 90,000 hard-pressed families who hitherto were getting no allowance.

Will the Minister consider the case of children who are living with foster parents and who, if they were living with their normal parents, would qualify for the attendance allowance? Will he write to the local authorities about cases such as this and suggest that they make an additional payment to foster parents in such cases?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I shall consider any individual case that he has in mind. In many cases where fostering is arranged through local authorities it is more advantageous to the parents to have a foster allowance from the local authority than it is to have an allowance in this form. I shall be glad to consider individual cases.

I am extremely grateful to the Attendance Allowance Board for the help it has given in many cases in my constituency, but may I ask the board, through my hon. Friend, if it will be so good as to look a little more generously at the claims made for children?

It seems a little unfair to blame the board. The conditions in which it operates were laid down by Parliament, and the Government take responsibility for that. The early stage of the allowance was made fairly stringent because we felt that this was the only way we could get the allowance most speedily to those who were most in need.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to increase the supply of kidneys available for transplant.

This is fundamentally a question of education and attitudes. It was for this reason that in November we started the kidney donor scheme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the kidney donor cards introduced by his Department have no legal validity unless they are signed not only by the potential donor but by the next of kin? Will the Secretary of State seek to amend the cards so that in an emergency valuable time is not spent by hospitals searching for the next of kin?

Quite apart from what the legal position is or may be, I believe it is appropriate to consult the next of kin before kidneys are removed for transplantation.

May I remind my right hon. Friend of the early-day motion which ran for nearly a year in the last Session, in which it was proposed that the wishes of the potential kidney donor should be made known through some form of identity disc which could be worn? Once those wishes had been made known, that would give the matter legal authority and it would then be most unlikely that relatives would wish to countermand the donor's wishes.

It still remains sensible and humane, whatever the wishes expressed by the next of kin, for the doctor concerned to consult the next of kin before the transplantation takes place. It is, however, vitally important that the next of kin should have been consulted by the potential donor so that the next of kin will be ready for the question and ready to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is causing the delay in the report of Baroness Sharp on vehicles for the disabled.

Lady Sharp is pressing on with her inquiry as quickly as possible and hopes to complete it within the next few months.

As the report was originally hoped for in February, may we hope that the delay will lead to fundamental rethinking about the provision of vehicles for the disabled? Will the report be published? If it is, will there then be time for interested people to express their views before the Government make up their mind on what they will do?

No doubt we shall engage in consultations when the report is to hand. The extra length of time taken by Lady Sharp is commensurate with the effort and attention to detail that she is putting into it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish her to take as much time as is necessary for a comprehensive report.

I am a very warm supporter of the campaign being run by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for disabled drivers, but will the Minister heed the warning that there is a serious danger that people even more seriously disabled than disabled drivers, people so disabled that they cannot drive, will be overlooked by the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those who have to pay to be driven around will be given the same consideration by the Government as those who deserve and need four-wheeled cars?

This is the perennial dilemma in the invalid vehicle service, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Lady Sharp is considering the question of priorities against the background of that problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the vehicles are dangerous? They are very difficult to manoeuvre, and susceptible to the wind. They are not the sort of vehicle that invalids should drive. Is it not possible to provide a vehicle that would enable the rest of the family to enjoy time spent with the driver?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's allegation that the vehicle is dangerous or unstable. Even to suggest that it is is to do a grave disservice to the 18,000 invalid vehicle users who are happily and regularly using the vehicles. The proof of the vehicles is the readiness of the insurers to offer rates fully competitive with those for other kinds of vehicles.

Is the Minister aware that the main point of my earlier question was to ensure that his right hon. Friend will lay the Lady Sharp report before the House before the Government reach any conclusions on its recommendations? His reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) will be regarded as one of deep complacency, and one that many of us hope that Lady Sharp, at least, will ignore.

We must wait and see what Lady Sharp says. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that her report will be published and that every hon. Member will have an opportunity to study and consider it and ask questions about it before any decisions about implementation are taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make provision to ensure that students for the teaching profession who previously paid National Insurance contributions shall have their entitlement to benefits protected until such time as they resume normal employment; and if he will make a statement.

There are already arrangements under which mature students can pay National Insurance contributions voluntarily to protect their benefit entitlement. It would not be right to single out student teachers for a special concession.

But they cannot afford it. Does not the Minister agree that a National Insurance contributor whose employment is interrupted by unemployment or sickness should have his insurance card franked or credited and have not only his benefits but those of his wife and family protected? Why cannot there be a similar arrangement to mark the cards of those whose employment is interrupted because they elect to engage in a full-time course of educational study to assist this country to overcome the teaching shortage?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think I know the case to which he is referring. I hope that he will agree that a scheme dealing with many millions of people must try to ensure that one group does not subsidise another. The fact is that students rightly receive preferential arrangements within the National Insurance Scheme already.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he proposes to take further to strengthen his campaign against cigarette smoking, with special reference to the damaging effects on health.

I expect to publish about the end of the year a revised list of the tar and nicotine yields of brands of cigarettes on sale in the United Kingdom. Arrangements have been made with the industry for hints on less dangerous ways of smoking to be placed on cigarette packet inserts. The money made available by the Government to the Health Education Council for smoking and health during the current financial year is likely to exceed the £380,000 made available last year. The Hunter Committee will shortly begin work on the scientific aspects of smoking and health including consideration of research into less dangerous smoking and of testing systems for the health effects of tobacco and tobacco substitutes.

Cannot my right hon. Friend be required to read that answer at a reasonable pace, so that the questioner and others can absorb the nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker? May we have it read again?

I apologise to my hon. Friend and the House, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend's Question required a long answer, and I did my best to shorten it. I thought it right to read it at a fast pace because there are many facts about Government activity to explain to the House.

Mr. Edelman.

rose—

Order. I have called the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman).

Will the Secretary of State give his view of those cigarette manufacturers who cash in on the public interest in athletics for the purpose of promoting tournaments where, while professing to encourage good health, they are advertising the means to speedy disease?

I think that that is unfair to the manufacturers. I have drawn to their attention the need to avoid advertising brands of cigarettes whilst sponsoring sporting activities. Although they are co-operating fully, if the hon. Gentleman has an example to the contrary perhaps he will let me know.

I will give the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) the chance to ask a short and quick supplementary question.

I will ask my normal supplementary question, which is both short and quick, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend read the Question? Is it not a fact that statistical evidence now provided shows that in 1972 cigarette smoking increased by 6½ per cent., and that therefore the position is worse among cigarette smokers than it was when he introduced his preventive measures two years ago?

Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir. We must therefore now put a lot of hope in the voluntary movement of the smoking public towards less dangerous cigarettes and the possible prospects of smoking-substitutes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will encourage local social services departments to promote good neighbour contact schemes, with the aid of volunteer workers to guard the welfare of the old and disabled.

I have done so on a number of occasions, and I am sending to the hon. Member copies of three circulars issued to local authorities which are particularly relevant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been some lonely and even undiscovered—and, therefore, extremely distressing—deaths in Sheffield, which have not involved only the old? Therefore, will he go further than he has gone and reinforce the attempts of those in Sheffield and elsewhere whose aim is to establish one good neighbour in every street or part of a street to keep an eye on the welfare of the old, backed up by the professional bodies and all linked up with the social services departments?

I certainly wish to encourage to the full all such admirable activities. I know that there are a number in Sheffield. But quite a number of the people whose deaths we deplore when they are discovered some weeks later have had offers of help which they have refused—not all, but many of them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a wealth of talent and workers to be tapped among students, particularly in universities and colleges in inner city areas? Will he see that his Department makes a personal approach to see whether they will help to look after the old and disabled who live very near to them?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall take an opportunity to pass on that advice. which I am sure is familiar to the directors of social services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider as a basis for action the report commissioned from the Economist Intelligence Unit by the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases, entitled "Care with Dignity", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 24th May.—[Vol. 857, c. 122–3.]

The best is the enemy of the good. What is required for the disabled and the aged is the best. At present we are not supplying it. The public should be convinced by education and publicity of the need to spend a great deal more money to provide people with good domiciliary services, with adequate home helps, adequate supplies of food, adequate money and plenty of technical back-up. Will the right hon. Gentleman please give priority to this matter?

The neglect of generations has left us short of services to support the disabled and their families in their homes and services to look after people who cannot go on living in their homes. It is not a question of "either/ or". We want plenty more of each.

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has done for the benefit of disabled people, but I emphasise the evidence produced in the report which shows that it is more economical and satisfactory for disabled people to live at home with their families than in institutions.

We are short of services for those who live at home and of homes for those who cannot live at home, and we need more of both.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to an earlier reply to me. Is he aware that I found that reply unconstructive and deeply disappointing? Will he at least agree to meet representatives of the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases to discuss the recommendations of the report?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman used the words "at least". I seldom, if ever, refuse an opportunity to meet those who are interested in the subjects for which I have responsibility. Of course I will meet the representatives if they ask me to do so, but they have not asked.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are not doing enough research into crippling diseases and that far too many children are being born disabled who might have had a normal life were the maternity services of the National Health Service brought up to the standards which operate in the private service?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's contrast between the public and private service. Advances are beginning to be made which may increase the potential for prevention, but they are not such possibilities that can be used wholesale at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the social services committees of the newly elected metropolitan borough councils.

None at present, Sir.

In the newly formed metropolitan borough councils there has been a joining together of authorities with good records for providing services for disabled people and authorities with poor records. Will not the right hon. Gentleman seek to impress upon the chairmen of the social services committees of the new authorities the importance of spending as much money as possible to improve services for the disabled in their areas?

I shall be addressing the joint social service conference of the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations next October, when I shall be speaking on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of speech therapists, including part-timers expressed as a decimal, employed in the City of Birmingham; how this figure compares with that for two years before; and what plans there are for any increase.

By hospital authorities 8·1 and by the education authority 4·8; and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that three more are due to take up their appointments shortly. Figures for 1971 were 8·1 and 9·4 for the hospital and education services respectively. Recruitment in particular localities is a matter for the individual authorities. The general need for more speech therapists is one of the recommendations in the Quirk Report currently under consideration.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that there are competing demands on the social and educational services, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that one important problem in the so-called socially deprived areas is getting at what specialists call the under-functioning children? Is not there a prior claim for this sort of expense on the social services?

We readily admit that the figures of shortfall indicated by the Quirk Report represent a considerable need, and we certainly support the efforts that are being made to increase the numbers coming through from the schools. We hope to see a substantial improvement within the Quirk 20-year period.

Does the Minister realise that the future of many thousands of people depends upon the availability of speech therapists? Is he aware of the great shortage of speech therapists throughout the country? Will he say something about the future of people who are suffering from loss of speech due to brain injury, of whom there are a great many?

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to my hon. Friend. We readily admit that, as the Quirk Report shows, we are short of speech therapists. Following the publication of the report we are considering, in consultation with interested parties, what we should do to try to increase the number of speech therapists.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that present precautions are sufficient to prevent National Insurance cards being issued to illegal immigrants; and whether he will make a statement.

National Insurance cards must be issued to all persons, including immigrants, who became insurable under the National Insurance Acts and apply for them. However, I am introducing generally a procedure whereby applicants who should hold passports will be asked to produce them, or, in the case of EEC nationals, an identity document. The primary purpose will be to confirm the accuracy of personal particulars required for National Insurance purposes, but if any irregularities are noticed which give rise to suspicion of illegal entry or presence the Home Office Immigration Service will be informed.

That announcement will be much welcomed. Has it not been shown on several occasions that once an illegal immigrant gets into the country he is able to get not only a job but a National Insurance card? If this position were changed, would not the prospects of success of illegal immigrants be dramatically changed?

I am not able to answer that. I repeat that, under the statutes, the job of my Department is to issue insurance cards to the people who apply for jobs. That is the primary reason for seeking more details about their identity before issuing the card.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an official invitation to visit The Hague.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Does the fact that the French Government have flouted the International Court at The Hague by not turning up suggest to the Prime Minister that he should talk directly to President Pompidou about it?

The decision whether or not to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court beyond the international affairs on which it has been previously accepted is always a matter for the country itself.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the talks he had with President Pompidou; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his meeting with President Pompidou.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding his recent visit to President Pompidou.

I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) on 24th May.—[Vol. 857, c. 129.]

As the Prime Minister has presided over a massive increase of about 35 per cent. in food prices since June 1970, has he mentioned to President Pompidou the desirability of Britain's reverting to a policy of substantial food subsidies? Bearing in mind that that would represent a derogation from the EEC rules, what response to that suggestion does the right hon. Gentleman think that he would get from President Pompidou?

All I was able to discuss with President Pompidou was the decision of Ministers of Agriculture to review the whole operation of the common agricultural policy and, in particular to try to increase the food supplies of Europe, because it is basic shortages that lie at the root of the problem.

Does the Prime Minister recall that when he first met President Pompidou after being elected Prime Minister he came back with the so-called Common Market design? Does he recall more recently coming back from a visit to President Pompidou waving the grand regional strategy that would save the peripheral areas of this country, which has been a disaster? Would not it be better for all concerned for him to discuss the weather the next time he meets President Pompidou?

The hon. Gentleman only reveals his ignorance in not realising that regional policy is not settled in the Community.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he discussed the position of the Yaoundé associates of the EEC and the third world generally?

Yes, Sir. It is natural that on a matter that concerns particularly France and Britain—because of the number of territories that were formerly associated with both countries—we should have had a discussion about the future of the agreement and how the third world can best be helped.

Did not the Prime Minister and President Pompidou make a deal whereby the Prime Minister agreed to let our food prices reach the level of French food prices and, in return, President Pompidou agreed that he would not push too hard the stabilising of the pound? When will the Prime Minister live up to his promise to stabilise the level of our currency, so that he can stand on his feet when he meets President Pompidou and bring up the question of food subsidies?

No such arrangement has ever been made. The present Government followed their predecessors in accepting the common agricultural policy in the negotiations.

Now that we have had almost six months' experience of the Common Market, will the Prime Minister say clearly that the Government are not in favour of any move towards federalism?

I have already told the House that the argument about federalism is an entirely artificial one. We agreed at the summit to organise our institutions so as best to suit the other members of the Community. Special responsibility rests with members of the European Parliament to put forward proposals to give the European Parliament more power and influence.

Will the Prime Minister be prepared to consider making further representations to the French President about the envisaged nuclear tests, because of the increase in the volume of protest in this House and throughout the country and by the New Zealanders and the Australians? Will the Prime Minister be prepared to go back to President Pompidou and tell him that the House and the nation ally themselves with the Australians and the New Zealanders? Will he tell him that the tests should not take place, because they constitute an affront to humanity and to the peace of the world?

As I have always told the House, I found that President Pompidou was well aware of the views of the Government and their predecessors, and fully aware of the views of the Australian and New Zealand Governments.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with President Pompidou the Fifth Directive of the Common Market? If that was discussed, did President Pompidou give any indication of what the French Government think about that directive and what they propose to do about it when considering industrial relations?

Give him a job.

We did not discuss that directive in particular. We discussed the whole question of social policy for the developing Community, from the point of view not only of social services but of the relationship between management and unions in industry.

In view of the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about regional policy—he said that there had been no decision about it as yet—will be say, on the best information available to him, when he expects regional policy to be settled?

The agreement at the summit was that it would be settled and a fund established by the end of this year.

Did not one of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers indicate yesterday that there will be a final decision by the end of June?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing the position with the interim arrangement, which concerns the three acceding members or the three new members of the Community. The regional policy itself is not bound to be worked out and the fund established—in other words, the permanent policy—until the end of this year.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Home Department and the Department of Health and Social Security in the implementation of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

Yes, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to have any long-term impact on rising crime figures we can do so only by ensuring that there are adequate resources for dealing with juvenile offenders? Does he also agree that those who have to deal with children are not always responding to a crisis. Further, is he concerned about the rising number of convictions for violent crime committed by young people, which rose at an even greater rate than the 40 per cent. rise in violent crime that has taken place since the Government first came to office?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We shall be able to make real progress, or the amount of progress that the House wants to see, only when we can produce more and more resources to do so. Of course, there is concern about the number of convictions but, on the other hand, one of the matters that has exercised the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House is the age of prosecution. Action has been taken through advice to the police. I am told that 59,000 or just on 60,000 juveniles under 17 were cautioned by the police. That represents 50 per cent. of those who were prosecuted. The point I wish to make is that the numbers now being handled by way of cautions have increased considerably.

Has not one of the difficulties of the Act been the extreme reluctance on the Hart of some children's departments to send children into residential care—a policy that is not always in the interests of either the children or the public? Will my right hon. Friend say what progress is being made in the implementation of community homes?

If my hon. Friend will let me or the Secretary of State for the Home Department have information of instances where this has been happening we shall gladly see whether action can be taken.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the major part of the Act is still in cold storage? Further, does he appreciate that the planning and consultation for that legislation began as early as late 1964? Does he accept that it was intended that the legislation would meet needs which were acute then and which have since increased in intensity? Is he sure that it is not possible that the right wing of the Magistrates Association, with its traditional reactionaries, might have nobbled the Government on this matter?

I cannot agree that the major part of the Act is in cold storage. That is not correct, on the information that I have before me. The Act has been substantially implemented. There are, I think, four sections which remain still to be implemented in part or in whole. I have here a list of the matters that have been implemented in the Act. I do not want to bore the House with that list. I shall either let the hon. Gentleman have a copy or put the list into the OFFICIAL REPORT to show how much has been done.

We should be concerned about crimes committed by juveniles, but we should be even more concerned about crimes committed against juveniles. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in recent years there has been a significant increase in the so-called "baby-bashing" syndrome? Does he realise that very few such cases ever come to court? Further, does he not think that there is a need to amend the law and to give babies the same protection as older children and adults?

I shall certainly have that matter investigated if the hon. Gentleman wishes. That point is not concerned with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Scotland.

I expect to do so later in the summer.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that before the Government come to a final decision in the autumn about the Hardman Report he will take the opportunity of visiting one of the Government offices that have been dispersed successfully to Scotland, with improved efficiency and lower costs? Does he appreciate that all shades of opinion in Scotland find the Hardman Report, with its proposal to disperse about 1,000 jobs to Scotland and 10,000 jobs to a new town about 50 miles from London, utterly unacceptable and a negation of regional development?

I have visited Government offices in which dispersal has already taken place in many parts of the country, including Glasgow. I did so when I was Leader of the Opposition and I have done so since I have been Prime Minister. The Government have published the Hardman Report so that there can be public discussion about it, and so that not only the House but local authorities and other organisations including the staff side of the Civil Service, which is very much affected, can express its views, and they can be taken into account. In the circumstances, my hon. Friend will not expect me to commit myself to any particular aspect or any particular place. Of the posts already dispersed, Scotland has had 20 per cent. Of those now settled and awaiting dispersal, Scotland will receive 25 per cent. and when the operation is concluded, apart from Hardman, Scotland will have had 21 per cent. of those civil servants who have been moved out of London.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that from Scotland's point of view that is very unsatisfactory? Will the Prime Minister explain, wherever and whenever he goes to Scotland, why he has failed to dissociate himself from the insulting opinion of Sir Henry Hardman that Scotland is irrelevant to the running of national government.

In fairness to all concerned, the right hon. Gentleman should read the whole of paragraph 14 of Appendix X of the report very carefully. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the position from the Scottish point of view. Administration devolved to St. Andrew's House and similarly to Wales is extremely successful, but it is working against a background in which Ministers are spending their time not where the people are devolved but at the centre of decision-taking, which is undoubtedly close to this House and has to remain so. That is the context in which Sir Henry Hardman was writing in paragraph 14 of the report.

In his consideration of the Hardman Report will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not overlook the view that has long been taken by some Government Members that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom may be even better served by the dispersal of civil servants out of the Civil Service altogether, rather than to other parts of the United Kingdom?

I am prepared to be reminded of that by my hon. Friend.

When the Prime Minister goes to Scotland will he make it clear that ministerial decision-making has very little to do with the decision or the recommendation to place the Agricultural Research Council and other units of the Agricultural Centre at Manchester, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—an office of only about 80 employees—in an urban centre such as Plymouth?

There are some individual parts of Government which can be dispersed to a wide variety of places. That is what has been happening successfully during the past 10 years. There are other parts—those parts which Sir Henry Hardman was asked to investigate—whose proximity to Ministers and to Parliament is important. What he has been trying to weigh up, and what hon. Members will accept, whether or not they agree with the proposed location of the changes, is the cost in efficiency of dispersal of those associated with the policy-making compared with the advantages of regional development. I should have thought that a report as long as his and as carefully worked out demanded the most careful consideration by hon. Members.

Question No. 5.

Business of the House—

Shame.

Order. I am not entitled to call any Question after 3.30.