asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reconsider his decision not to issue family allowances from the date of birth in respect of children born to unmarried parents, such children having been maintained since birth as members of the existing family of either parent.

No, Sir. In most of these cases full family allowances are already payable. It is only where there is a mixed family, with some of the children issue of the man only and others issue of the woman, that family allowances are payable for one less child. This situation stems from the basic rules for family allowances which are founded on blood ties; moral considerations are not involved.

Since the Under-Secretary of State says that they are founded only on blood ties, why is it that adoptive parents can draw family allowances? If there are only relatively few cases of this kind, why should illegitimacy, as it is called, be penalised in a scheme designed to help all children except the first child? If it is necessary, can the law be amended?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in a particular case which has now been resolved, and family allowance is being paid for the child concerned.

Why not to the birth date?

The main reason is that were we to have different arrangements it would involve delicate inquiries having to be made, whereas the value of the present arrangements is that they are extremely simple, and the millions of families who draw family allowances have only the minimum of questions to answer in drawing these allowances. This matter will be completely resolved under the tax credit arrangements, because child credits will be payable for every child.

Retrospectively?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider dealing with what is a very difficult problem in the interval of time before any tax credit scheme may or may not come into existence? The total number of illegitimate births as a percentage of total births, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is about 7 per cent. We are dealing with an extremely small fraction of that 7 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a great deal of miscarriage of justice—if one takes it that way—can be caused on this basis. Should it not be possible, therefore, for mothers to claim? That would avoid the kind of delicate question about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly worried.

I shall certainly consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. However, it would be difficult to adopt the sort of suggestion that he has made, because it would almost certainly mean that in the case of every family applying for family allowances we should have to ask a great many more questions than we have to at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to enable supplementary benefit to be continued to be paid to women who it is alleged have been cohabiting until the case has been adjudicated by an independent tribunal.

No, Sir. It is right that questions of entitlement to benefit should be determined in the first instance by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Is it not monstrous that a woman who is faced with a situation like this should have her benefit cut off, often simply on the say-so of an investigating officer who may have based his findings on hearsay, as I and no doubt other hon. Members have found on numerous occasions? Would it not be fairer if a tribunal were to adjudicate on the evidence and then make its decision upon the evidence?

No. The commission's officers do not make a cohabitation decision in the first place without carefully considering all the evidence. However, once they have concluded that cohabitation exists, benefit has to be withdrawn, as, on the face of it, no entitlement exists.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no official definition of "cohabitation"? Although I think most people would agree that a widow, divorcee or unmarried woman living with a man as his wife, should not get social benefit, at the moment because of this unclear indication of the cohabitation rule a large number of widows who take in bona fide lodgers are being harassed by the officials.

I hope my hon. Friend will send me names of any cases where he thinks there is harassment. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has published a leaflet seeking to define cohabitation as it understands it. I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of that publication.

Will the right hon. Member bear in mind that a woman may have to wait eight to 16 weeks before she can appeal and that she would not, I believe, be allowed legal aid? It is wrong that she should suffer financial hardship—and possibly her children as well—waiting for an appeal against a law which is imprecise, when the facts are often extremely hard to obtain.

By hypothesis, in cases where the commission's officers have evidence that cohabitation exists, there are resources coming into the household, and often have been for some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now introduce legislation to increase retirement pensions to £10 a week for a single person and £16 a week for a married couple.

No, Sir. Retirement pensions were increased by almost 15 per cent. from the beginning of last month. They will be reviewed again next year.

Is the Minister aware that, because of the dramatic increase in the price of food, many pensioners, despite recent pension increases, are finding it more and more difficult to get enough to eat? If the Government can find money for expensive projects such as Maplin and the Channel Tunnel, why cannot they find enough to give our pensioners a decent standard of living?

Since the last increase in pensions just over 12 months ago prices have increased by 7·8 per cent. and the pension has been increased by almost 15 per cent.—a substantial margin of improvement. Furthermore, when the hon. Gentleman makes that kind of criticism I am bound to remind him that when the Labour Party was in office it managed to increase the real value of pensions on an annual basis by 2½ per cent. We have increased it by over 3¼ per cent. per annum.

Will my hon. Friend estimate by how much the weekly contribution would have to be increased if the suggested increased pensions were to be wholly financed from that source?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle). For the substantial proportion of the working population it would mean an increase in contribution of more than 30p per week, and for many it would mean an increase of more than 50p per week.

Everyone in the House knows, including the Minister, that old-age pensioners need certain essential basic foodstuffs, and it is the cost of those that has gone up. Is the Minister aware that many old-age pensioners cannot now afford gas and electricity, and are having to turn to paraffin for heating and its price has risen so drastically that it is almost as much as petrol? As we know that prices are going up again, will the Minister do something to help?

We all recognise that pensioners suffer first and most when prices rise. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms would carry much more conviction if we had support from him for the Government's counter-inflation policy.

What counter-inflation policy—when chairmen of nationalised boards are being paid £12,000 a year?

We keep a careful watch on foodstuffs. The national food survey for the second quarter of 1973 shows that pensioners are purchasing more cheese, eggs, sugar, jam, fresh green vegetables and bread than a year ago, and more butter.

Are there not invalids, particularly those who suffer from multiple sclerosis, whose just needs far exceed those of a fit and active 65-year-old? If there are any further £10 notes going at any time in future, will the Minister bear in mind that justice demands that these invalids should get them, perhaps even more so than retirement pensioners?

Yes, but I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the invalidity pension introduced by the present Government and which has been uprated proportionately more than the increase in other benefits has been of substantial help to the chronically sick. To the disabled we shall be paying in attendance allowance no less than £35 million this year when nothing was paid at all during the Labour administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make financial assistance available to deaf persons who are unable to use the National Health Service deaf aid.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend would not feel justified in extending national health services in this way.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that, while the Medresco aid has helped large numbers of deaf people and that the new hearing aid envisaged will help many more, there is still a significant number of the deaf who, through no fault of their own, cannot use these hearing aids? Is is fair that these people should have to supply themselves completely with hearing aids and not be able to get any help from the State?

In many cases I believe that if these deaf people went through the full range of diagnosis, assessment, treatment and rehabilitation which we provide through the hospital service, it might be found that some of the National Health Service aids could help them. I admit that there are gaps in the technology and I am glad to say that the Medical Research Council is helping to see whether we can improve what can be done for these people.

I recognise that only a small percentage of people cannot use the Medresco aid, but will the Secretary of State address himself to the problems of those working in professions where there is a need for a slightly extra hearing ability? Will he consider, first, giving some priority on that type of ground when the new behind-the-ear aids are issued and, secondly, discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of tax relief on aids as being tools for a job in instances where it can be proven that they are needed in order to continue employment in a profession?

I shall certainly consider the moderate and constructive proposals which the hon. Gentleman has made, but without commitment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to provide for more beds for the young chronic sick in North Staffordshire.

The regional hospital board has no immediate plans to increase the number of beds in North Staffordshire but is keeping in mind the needs of the area in the light of regional priorities. The long-term plans for the development of district general hospital facilities at Stoke will reflect the national policy of including provision for the young chronic sick.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents, on reaching the age of 65, has been transferred from a chronic sick unit—the Fanny Deakin—to a geriatric hospital at Bradwell? Is he further aware that she has been confined in a ward which, because of steps, she cannot leave unaided in her wheelchair; that the ward is also occupied by three old people who cannot communicate; and that there is no occupational therapy? This has produced a great trauma for the lady concerned.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to this case and I shall certainly examine it. I share deeply the heartfelt sympathy that the hon. Gentleman has expressed for the lady in question. It must be remembered, nevertheless, that there are some occasions when, in spite of the large number of special units that have been introduced during the last two or three years, there is some merit in folk being a little closer to home, even it is means that they are in a different type of unit.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will seek powers to subsidise the Meals on Wheels service so that it may be made available on a seven-day-a-week basis to all those elderly and disabled people who need it.

Local authorities' expenditure on meals services is already subsidised through rate support grant arrangements. In a number of areas a daily meals service is being provided for some people.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that for many people, the elderly and disabled in particular, Meals on Wheels provides not merely food but their only contact with the world? It is at weekends and Christmas, when most of them do not get the service, that they need it most. What do the Government propose to do about it?

The Government propose to follow the pattern of increases which has already been registered. For example, the number of people known to be receiving the service on a seven-days-a-week basis has increased from 1,361 in 1970, to no fewer than 2,343 in 1972—a rise of nearly 100 per cent. Nevertheless, quite properly the choice remains with local authorities—which have complete command over the resources—whether they give a number of meals to a larger number of people on fewer days a week or a seven-days-a-week service to fewer people.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a deeply important question? Why should elderly and severely disabled people be left high and dry, and hungry, as well as lonely, often at weekends? If further Exchequer support is required, will the Secretary of State make urgent representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the Exchequer support which goes to local authorities is a matter for the rate support grant negotiations which are going on at present. Within the global sums allocated, it is up to local authorities to take note of precisely the point made by the hon. Gentleman—that there may be merit in increasing the number of weekend services at the cost of some other service, which would have to be cut back. The choice lies with the local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present provision of electrically-powered invalid cars to the disabled.

Yes, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who have these vehicles have their mobility severely restricted by the lack of adequate service stations? He will recollect that I sent him details of a constituent in Derby who cannot get his car to the nearest service station in Long Eaton and back on maximum fresh charge of the vehicle. Will these matters be looked at in the Sharp report?

The Sharp report will certainly examine the general question of the vehicle service, but individual cases are best considered on their merits. Since there are relatively few users of this kind of vehicle, we try to make special arrangements to meet particular circumstances.

When is the Sharp report expected?

That is another, if subtly introduced, question.

I do not wish to anticipate a later Question on the Order Paper which may or may not be reached, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the report of Lady Sharp's inquiry is anxiously awaited in the House and by disabled people everywhere? Will the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that the House will have the report at an early date?

In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, and with apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for not being more forthcoming initially, I can say that my right hon. Friend has Lady Sharp's report but it is a long and complex document which must be studied by the Department. It will certainly be made available to the House as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further action he is taking to safeguard the interests of small children and babies who are subjected to deliberate injury by their parents and others.

We seek to help by promoting co-ordination between the various services concerned in order to secure the earliest diagnosis and treatment of the child first, and where possible the parents as well; by promoting research, and discussion between those concerned with the direction of these services; by disseminating new ideas; and by ensuring so far as possible that established methods are not lost sight of.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that there are about 4,600 of these cases annually in the United Kingdom? Will he therefore take steps to ensure that every case is referred to a hospital and is the subject of co-ordinated action between the general practitioner, the hospital, the social services, and the police? Although this may cause considerable expense and work, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many children's lives are at stake and thousands of children are being subjected to hideous cruelty?

Yes. I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House an assurance that it is the Government's intention, expressed to all those concerned, that every case should be identified and brought before the large team of disciplines and skills that are involved in constructive treatment.

What is my right hon. Friend doing to protect the interests of babies of five and six months' gestation destroyed under the Abortion Act?

My hon. Friend will, I believe, accept that though both these subjects rightly give rise to great emotion, they are separate, and call for separate treatment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) raised the subject, which is not new but which the Government take with intense seriousness.

Is the Minister aware that if his own speech is accurate there have been thousands of children battered by their parents and scores of children literally killed by their parents and that therefore there have been no public inquiries where many children have been killed? Does the Minister agree that that is a great scandal? Will he ensure dint in every case where a child is killed by its parent there will be an automatic public inquiry?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is at all exaggerating. It may even be that hundreds are being killed by their parents each year. The complex situation behind such incidents is immense, almost intractable.

I realise that.

I know the hon. Member realises that. My fear is that inquiries in every case would choke off the very information that doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, teachers, police, magistrates and all the other disciplines need if we are to help the families and children concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet approved any plans for the treatment of juvenile offenders in London.

The London authorities' scheme for intermediate treatment came into operation with my approval on 1st November. It provides facilities for boys and girls who are under a court order for supervision by a local authority or a probation officer to take part in various activities if the supervisor directs.

Has the Secretary of State studied the Lancashire experiment, financed by the Gulbenkian Foundation, for attaching social workers to schools, which has reduced juvenile crime by one-third? Secondly, what provision is being made for children who are refused admission to community schools? Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to finance any experiments in professional foster parents for highly disturbed teenagers who find it difficult to get on even in a community home or in local authority care?

I am ashamed to say—and I am a good reader—that I do not think I have read the document about the Lancashire experiment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall make it my business to read it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he has reduced the number of teams in the Hospital Advisory Service.

Because of the need to ease the pressure of work for hospital service management in the period around the reorganisation of the National Health Service.

Is it not particularly during a period of reorganisation, with upheavals, that long-stay patients may need special attention and protection? Is the Secretary of State aware of the excellent work being done by these teams in helping to improve hospital conditions, and will he reconsider the decision he has taken?

I am aware of the excelent work being done, but the hon. Gentleman may not realise that about a year's effort by a large number of officers is involved in preparing for a Hospital Advisory Service visit, during the visit, and in the follow-up. During the time of the enormous extra burden of reorganisation it is not reasonable to keep the advisory service at its original level, and the proposal to run it down for the moment was agreed with both the original and the new director of the service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement of the amount spent in informing people of benefits and grants available, and details of ways in which the money is spent.

The amount spent by the Department this financial year on advertising benefits and grants is estimated at £335,000. In addition, in 1972–3 about £217,000 was spent on printing leaflets explaining benefits and a further £95,000 was paid to the Post Office for distributing them.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that the most effective way to see that people receive the benefits and grants to which they are entitled is by personal contact? Will he take kindly to the suggestion I put to him some months ago, that housewives working part-time and students working during holiday time should be encouraged to visit the elderly in their areas to ensure that they are receiving benefits.

I remember my hon. Friend's valuable suggestion. I agree that personal contact with people at risk is immensely valuable and is being increasingly organised in many parts of the country. I utter one warning note. Some elderly people do not wish to be visited. When visits take place it is important that the person who is visiting knows what the problems are and what services are available. If that is not done the visit sometimes does not have the right effect.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question of reimbursement of expenses to voluntary or charitable organisations that carry out work which councils are unwilling or unable to do and which they are authorised to do under the 1970 Act?

Certainly I shall. The central Government and local authorities have power to assist voluntary organisations in the valuable work they are doing. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind where there is difficulty perhaps he will let me know about it and I will look into it.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that one of the problems he has to face is that even when people are aware of the grants they may receive, as, for example, under family income supplement, the take-up is still very disappointing? The take-up under FIS is only 50 per cent. Does it not follow that the root problem is not a lack of knowledge of the grants available but the unwillingness of people to submit themselves to the means test?

It is much more complicated than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. In the case of the family income supplement, for example, the best information we have is that those entitled to £2 or more take up the benefit to a much greater extent than 50 per cent., whereas some of those who are entitled to smaller amounts may well feel that it is not worth making the application, because the amount of benefit to which they are entitled is very small. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point. One of the problems of a means-tested benefit is take-up. That is why we are constantly considering our methods, trying to improve them, and trying to encourage those who are entitled to benefits to claim them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he has sent to the letter which he has received from the Chairman of the Lea Castle Hospital Parents and Friends Association about the death of John Curran; and whether, in consequence, he will take steps to increase the numbers of staff in hospitals for people who are mentally subnormal.

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply. Improvement of staffing in hospitals for the mentally handicapped was one of the objectives of the White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" (Cmnd. 4683) and of the additional resources provided. Considerable progress in this direction is being made both nationally and at Lea Castle Hospital itself.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the inquest this young man's tragic death was attributed partly to the shortage of staff, and that on the night in question there was only one nurse for 41 patients? Is he further aware that the medical director of Lea Castle Hospital said at the inquest, "We are short of staff; we have been short of staff and we still are."? What hope can the parents and friends of patients at Lea Castle and similar hospitals have that there will be an immediate improvement in the staffing situation?

I am aware of all those factors, but the number of staff in relation to patients has risen sharply since the Government came to office, and at Lea Castle Hospital the ratio has risen much more sharply than the national average.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now prepared to classify psittacosis as a notifiable disease.

No, Sir. Transmission between humans is almost unknown and diagnosis is dependent on the results of laboratory procedures. Formal notification would add little to existing means of control of this disease.

In view of the growing public concern about this disease—a very nasty disease that humans can get from certain types of bird, such as the parrot, and that has increased fourfold since 1966—will not the Government consider consulting the Ministry of Agriculture and discussing the whole matter with the Veterinary Association? What is the objection to doing what I ask?

The objection is that we believe it to be unnecessary. We already have the means of keeping close tabs on the incidence of the disease. The increase in England is not as striking as my hon. Friend suggests. For example, the number of established cases of psittacosis was 66 in 1967 and 69 in 1972; the number of deaths is never more than one or two a year. I shall certainly carefully weigh what my hon. Friend has said, but we are satisfied at present that we have all the necessary tabs on this disease.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total capital expenditure on hospitals and old people's homes since 1st July 1970 in East Suffolk.

Capital expenditure on these hospitals in the financial years 1970–71 to 1973–74 inclusive totals £3,545,000 at current prices. Since 1st July 1970 my right hon. Friend has given East Suffolk County Council final approval for capital expenditure of approximately £412,000 on old people's homes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we enjoy a very beneficial climate in East Suffolk and that longevity is well above the national average? Therefore, we should like him to see that our grant, particularly for old people's homes, is above the national average.

I take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend said. He will note, however, from information which he is bound to have at his disposal, that there has been a sharp rate of increase of expenditure on these facilities in his distinguished constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the new smoking material being marketed by a firm whose name has been supplied to him has been fully investiated for harmful effects and if the results of the experiments carried out on this material have been examined by him; and if he is satisfied that this material does not carry an unacceptable risk to health.

I would have liked wholeheartedly to welcome a less dangerous form of smoking material. Very regretfully, I cannot yet do so in respect of the Courtaulds product which I understand my hon. Friend has in mind. We are not in that position because the necessary tests have not been fully completed. There is nothing to suggest that a smoker of this product is in greater danger than a smoker of a tobacco cigarette and reasonable hope that his risk may be less, but it is incomprehensible to me that the company should market its cigarettes before the relative safety of the product has been fully appraised as far as the tests the company itself has commissioned can do so. Responsibility for marketing rests with the company, but I understand that the Hunter Committee has urged it not to market this product before it has fully completed its present phase of testing. I repeat that I welcome any move towards a proven less dangerous form of smoking. It is with the more disappointment, therefore, that I have to say that in my view it is regrettable that the company should have chosen not to follow this advice.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his honest reply. However, does he not agree that the Hunter Committee has not had the co-operation which it might have expected from the company? Is not statutory legislation needed, rather than appeals for co-operation, so that the Hunter Committee can be assured of future co-operation, in that any drug inhaled can be just as dangerous as one swallowed, and that in medicine any new drug will have to be committed to more stringent tests?

I do not accept the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Relations between companies, the Hunter Committee and myself must be confidential.

The right hon. Gentleman's statement is most serious. It appears that the Hunter Committee's functions have been completely ignored by this firm. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his powers to institute legislation forbidding the sale of these cigarettes if he is not satisfied that they comply with the conditions laid down by the Hunter Committee?

No. The hon. Lady is mis-stating the position. I have emphasised that there is nothing to suggest that a smoker of this product is in greater danger than a smoker of a tobacco cigarette, and there is hope that his risk may be less. Successive Governments have not thought it right to take any steps, even if such steps were practicable, to make the manufacture or sale of tobacco cigarettes illegal and there seems no possible point in contemplating such a step at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further progress has been made in dealing with homelessness and the arrangements for accommodating homeless families.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend are issuing a joint circular of guidance on this subject to local authorities very shortly.

That is the same answer as the one I received last March. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all local authorities, particularly those in London, are fulfilling their duties under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948? If they are not, what is preventing them from doing so?

I can assure my hon. Friend that a good deal has been done since last March. For example, we have the report of the joint working party on homelessness, which suggests, among other things, that it should be primarily the responsibility of housing departments of local authorities, although the social service departments will be closely involved. We are also encouraging the Supplementary Benefits Commission to provide more places in reception centres—I opened a new one in London only yesterday—and the voluntary organisations, which do such valuable work, are also doing a great deal more with substantial help from the Government.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at any given time during the past few years between 2,500 and 3,000 young children have been in care of local authorities because of homelessness? If the Secretary of State is keen to break the cycle of deprivation—as I am sure he is—is it not essential that local authorities be instructed to ensure that children in care—who, incidentally, cost at least £20 a week each to look after, though that should not be the main consideration—are given top priority in housing with their parents?

I entirely accept what the hon. Lady has said. The new circular deals primarily with homeless single people, but it also recognises the immense importance of housing in keeping the family unit together.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Kent alone over £40,000 was spent in putting the homeless into hotels? Would not that money be better spent on reception centres and more houses?

It is for this reason that emphasis is being given to providing more places. A new reception centre will open soon in my hon. Friend's part of the country.

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the lack of homes for people who are homeless and the inability of local authorities to rehouse them, what representations is he making to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for the housing effort of the country and who has allowed local authority house building to decline to the lowest level since 1958?

The circular to which I have referred is a joint operation between my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend. The two Departments are working closely together on the problem, which concerns both of us.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many new houses are being provided in 1973–74 for the staff of the Holloway Sanatorium, Virginia Water.

Four houses have been purchased, and negotiations are in hand for 12 more; none is being built this year by the hospital authority.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the acute housing problems for hospital staff in north-west Surrey? Will he give his approval to the setting up of housing associations by the hospital group so that they can use their own land to provide more staff in areas where houses are expensive?

I understand that at present six members of the staff are awaiting accommodation. I note what my hon. Friend has suggested about housing associations. He may know that the hospital management committee has been in touch with the Hanover housing association about building some flats for retired staff on hospital land. I shall consider the possibility of extending the system in the way my hon. Friend has suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the Disablement Income Group.

I attended the annual general meeting of the group on 5th May this year.

I note that reply. Is the Minister aware of the deep sense of bitterness among disabled people because they are not to receive the £10 bonus to be paid to retired people? As paying them would cost only about £10 million, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman re-thought his decision and included disabled people and the chronically sick?

I am sure that several groups are disappointed that they are not getting the lump sum, but the Government decided that it would not be possible to arrive at a defensible position if we moved beyond the age barrier. That is why we have stuck to the elderly.

If my right hon. Friend is still unable to contemplate a disablement income as of right, will he consider the introduction of an insurance scheme to cover instances of people disabled during their working lives?

Disablement income is shorthand for a whole package of benefits needed for different sections and categor- ies of the disabled. The Government are under an obligation to produce a report on disability policy by October next year and an official from my Department went to the recent policy meeting of the Disablement Income Group at which various possibilities were discussed.

Instead of circling the subject with his usual circumspection, will the right hon. Gentleman give a specific commitment that the Government will introduce a disablement income during this Parliament? Will he use as the criterion, not loss of earnings but the degree of disability, so as to include house-wives and the congenitally disabled?

Having realised from the discussions of the disabled themselves that there are several different ways forward on this subject, I think that it would be better to wait until we produce our report for Parliament next October.

The Minister has just said that he is unable to move beyond the age limit for the Christmas bonus. How, then, does he account for the fact that a married woman who is over pensionable age is not entitled to receive this bonus if her husband is under pensionable age?

In that case her husband, on whose retirement her benefit depends—unless she has paid full contributions herself—has not yet retired.