asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the value of clothing grants paid by her Department in the latest year for which figures are available.

In the 12 months ending 4th December 1973, 808,000 exceptional needs payments were made at a total cost of £9·3 million. I regret that the value of grants for particular items is not available and could not be obtained without inordinate cost.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Bearing in mind that this is a highly discriminatory grant, may I ask him to consider publishing the guide concerning the adequacy of clothing stocks, which is used by his Department in leaflet form, and to make it available at the offices of the Department, instead of having the information hidden away in a publication which has to be bought from the Stationery Office and which is not even in stock at some branches of the Stationery Office?

I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says. The weekly supplementary benefit scale rates are intended to cover the normal replacement of clothing and footwear, and the commission has published details of the circumstances in which exceptional needs payments for clothing will normally arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement about her discussions with the medical profession in connection with her intention to introduce a free family planning service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the arrangements that have been concluded for the implementation of free family planning facilities through the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement about discussions with representatives of general practitioners in connection with the introduction of a free family planning service.

I have nothing to add to what I said during the debate on the Budget on 28th March. As I said then, until discussions with the profession are concluded new health authorities will operate within the terms of the previous arrangements and during this period will not be expected to expand deliberately the work being done in hospitals. General practitioners also will continue to provide family planning services on the same basis as at present.—[Vol. 871, c. 653–57.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the country want to see this policy carried out with the greatest urgency? If the doctors are standing out for better pay for carrying out this service, will my right hon. Friend point out to them that they will have a much easier life if her policy is carried out properly?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's desire to see this service extended to the general practitioners. As I told the House previously, the review body has been examining the question of payment for the service, and I understand that very shortly it will be reporting to the Prime Minister.

Is the right hon. Lady likely to accept the recommendations of the review body?

The review body's report is made to the Prime Minister, and when he has received it the matter will be considered.

Will the right hon. Lady admit that it was a mistake to go ahead with this scheme without coming to an arrangement with the family practitioners, and acknowledge that the present situation is unfair to family practitioners?

If it were a mistake—which I do not accept—it is one that was about to be perpetrated by my predecessor.

indicated dissent.

The arrangements that I have undertaken had been worked out in detail by him, and all I had to decide was whether a prescription charge should be levied.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her last reply? Is she aware that the previous Secretary of State was not going ahead until he had come to an arrangement with the medical profession as a whole?

It could be that the hon. Gentleman knows more about the secret thoughts of my predecessor than I do. I can only say that my predecessor had already started discussions with the hospital doctors and knew perfectly well that because of the need for discussion with the general practitioners they should not be brought in at the same time as the clinics. It was certainly always my understanding that he intended to proceed with the clinics on 1st April.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated deficit in the National Insurance Fund at the end of the 1974–75 financial year.

None, Sir.

Is it intended that the impending deficit in the National Insurance Fund in the financial year 1975–76, announced by the Secretary of State on 27th March, should be met by a further increase in employees' national insurance contributions?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the statement on that matter which my right hon. Friend will be making in due course.

Does the Secretary of State intend to increase the Exchequer contribution, as she proposed so strongly when in opposition?

I can only repeat my answer to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley).

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us on this side of the House would welcome an increase in the Exchequer contribution as it would be a useful redistributive step?

I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. All these matters have been and will continue to be kept under review.

While dealing with the question of the possible deficit in the National Insurance Fund, will the hon. Gentleman say what is the position in relation to the expected payment of increased benefits on 22nd July? The Secretary of State told the old-age pensioners' conference last week that she was anxious that there should be as little delay as possible in payment. The whole House is anxious that that should be the case. May we be told the position in the light of reports concerning disagreement about this within the service?

As I made clear in my answer, a deficit is not expected during the financial year 1974–75; and my right hon. Friend will be making a statement about the position during 1975–76. As for the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I realise that the whole House will want the most up-to-date information on the implementation of the pension increases on 22nd July. However, that does not arise on this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will pay an official visit to Bolton to hear local opinion on the Lane Report.

I have no plans to do so at present.

Has the right hon. Lady any idea of the depth of feeling that exists among ordinary decent people—perhaps not very vocal people—on the subject of abortion? Does she realise that they regard the Lane Committee's terms of reference as being totally wrong and that they urgently want legislation on the subject? If she cannot promise legislation and if she cannot visit Bolton, may we at least have a debate in this House so that those opinions may be expressed?

The terms of reference of the Lane Committee were drawn up by my predecessor, who appointed the committee. I have now published the report—I lost no time in doing so—and I shall consult widely on the recommendations contained in it. I am sure that the House will wish me to give very careful consideration to the recommendations in the light of those consultations, and we shall welcome views from any organisation or from any part of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people who opposed the Abortion Act 1967 welcomed the setting up of the Lane Committee and that simply because they do not like its conclusions they now describe them as "whitewashing"?

I must wait and see what are the reactions to the report before I can entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. I am sure the House will agree that I should take time for consultations and consider the views expressed, from whatever direction they may come.

Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) and tell us whether we may look forward to a debate on the report at some stage?

The hon. Lady is well aware that any question of a debate is a matter for the usual channels. The Opposition have their opportunities.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to those involved in industrial disputes and to their dependants respectively since the establishment of legal limits on wage settlements; and what is the amount of strike pay received from union funds by strikers over this period and taken into account by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in calculating entitlement to benefit.

Between 30th November 1972 and 26th March 1974, approximately £47,000 and £4·8 million respectively. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.

I found the second part of that answer incomprehensible. The Supplementary Benefits Commission must have figures of the amount of strike pay provided by the unions which had to be taken into account in reckoning people's entitlement to supplementary benefits in industrial disputes. Will the hon. Gentleman please not shelter behind that sort of nonsense? Is it not high time that the unions were required to finance the strikes they organise rather than reserve their funds for £250 dinner parties for union bosses?

The hon. Gentleman's saga on this subject continues. It is possible to have increasingly detailed information if we are prepared to increase substantially the number of civil servants employed on it. I thought it was the hon. Gentleman's view and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends that not only should there be no such increase but that there should be a reduction in the number. However, it is simply not true, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has implied on a number of occasions, that trade unions do not pay benefits to their members on strike. I give some examples. The AUEW, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the ETU and NALGO made payments to their members involved in industrial disputes last year. The average size of payments varied between £5 and £6.

Is it not a fact that the number of days lost because of industrial accidents far exceeds the number lost because of industrial disputes, and is not the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of a good industrial injuries scheme and the magnitude of one problem as set against another. If the present Government were to follow the broader policies of the previous administration and to add to them the demands of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), we should be back to the industrial chaos that we inherited when we took office.

Does any other country pay cash benefits to strikers or their dependants? If so, which country is it?

If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer on that specific point he should put down a Question, which I should be pleased to answer. However, it should be a matter of pride to hon. Members on both sides of the House that our supplementary benefits system is more sophisticated and gives a better range of coverage to many poor people who need it than that of any other country in the world.

In any event, does not the cost to public funds approximate to the cost of the civil servants involved in answering these ever-recurring Questions to both Governments—Labour and Conservative—who are never able to do anything about them?

I was answering Questions on this subject to the hon. Member for South Angus almost unceasingly in 1969 and 1970, and he has been asking them ever since. This is an area in which there could be valuable cuts in Government expenditure if the hon. Gentleman were to drop the practice and concentrate on bringing industrial peace to the country rather than the reverse.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

How many times has the hon. Gentleman raised it on the Adjournment?

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she can yet state her conclusions on the Finer Committee's report on one-parent families.

No, Sir. I have had this long and comprehensive report for only a matter of weeks and it has not yet been published. Although consideration of the report by the various Departments concerned has begun, an early statement cannot therefore be expected.

When the Secretary of State gives her conclusions on the report, will she pay special attention to the views of the Gingerbread organisation which represents people with personal experience of the problem?

When the report is published, I shall be glad to have the views of any organisation upon it, especially those which have taken a special interest in these matters.

When the right hon. Lady looks at the problem of one-parent families, will she remember that an unmarried mother cannot qualify for maternity grant on the father's national insurance contributions? Since payment of maternity grant is aimed at providing for the baby and since the needs of babies are identical irrespective of the marital status of parents, will the Secretary of State look at this problem in advance of any other considerations?

I cannot commit myself, but I shall look at that point.

The right hon. Lady has already taken credit for the expedition with which she published the Lane Report. In view of the importance of the report of the Finer Committee, which has already been studied by the Prime Minister, as he told the House last week, can the Secretary of State say that she will be publishing that report at an early date, and, if so, when?

Yes. I put the report's publication in train immediately. It is a vast and comprehensive report and contains a great deal of reading. The printing will take a little time, but I hope that the report will be available by the end of next month.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she intends to continue with checks on the issue of National Insurance cards to prevent them being issued to illegal immigrants and to others not entitled to them; and whether she will make a statement.

I am considering the arrangements mentioned by my predecessor in his reply to the hon. Member's Question of 22nd January 1974.—[Vol. 867, c. 1431–2.]

Does the Secretary of State agree that in the past case after case showed that it was easy for an illegal immigrant both to get a job and to obtain a national insurance card? Therefore, would not an effective check remove the incentive to illegal immigrants to come to this country?

My concern is to ensure the proper operation of my Department. Problems arise in terms of the difficulties in understanding language, getting names clear and all the rest. That is the sort of matter in which I am interested and at which I am looking.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that her Department will look carefully at this matter and refuse to be part of any witch-hunt or hounding of people who work in this country, who are new Commonwealth citizens and whose sole crime seems to be that they are benefiting the British economy?

I repeat to my hon. Friend that my Department's responsibility is to ensure the discharge of the legal liability on insured persons to pay national insurance contributions in the right way and at the right time. That is my sole concern, regardless of who may be involved.

If the Government are in earnest in countering both over-staying and illegal immigration, will the Secretary of State take this matter very seriously? Will she bear in mind that the limited arrangements started by the Conservative Government—which I hope she will develop sensibly—do not involve a witch hunt, have already proved their worth and involve no breach of individual confidentiality?

The limited arrangements announced by my predecessor in January had not come into operation by the time the election was held, but I am considering my predecessor's proposals and hope to be able to make my decision known before long.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to reduce the incidence of cases of people receiving supplementary benefit unnecessarily and unwillingly because they are unable to move from accommodation larger than they need; and whether she will make a statement.

I am not aware that this is a substantial problem but will gladly consider, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, any evidence that the hon. Member may like to send me.

If in consequence of the breakdown of a marriage someone is left with a dwelling beyond his or her means or needs, will the housing authorities be encouraged to take over the dwelling in the general interest and in the interest of the individual concerned?

In the case of council houses, local authorities usually do all they can to ensure that people have accommodation suitable to their needs. For people in privately-owned accommodation who cannot reduce their commitments by moving elsewhere, schemes of rebated rates and rents are available for those who do not want to claim supplementary benefit or who are not entitled to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence she has of the relationship between the free issue of contraceptives and the number of illegitimate births, the number of abortions and the incidence of venereal disease.

There is no clear-cut evidence as to how these things are related, but it was clear from the extensive debates on the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 that the still increasing numbers of illegitimate births and also of abortions were a major source of concern and that both Houses considered that an expansion of the family planning services under the National Health Service was needed in order to attempt to reduce them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he not realise, however, that the evidence from Aberdeen shows that although there has been liberal abortion for a period of over 17 years and a free contraceptive service since 1966, the number of illegitimate pregnancies as a proportion of total pregnancies doubled between 1961 and 1971 to a figure of one in two of the total pregnancies, the highest proportion in Scotland? Is he also aware that the extent of venereal disease in Aberdeen during that time has quadrupled? Does this not indicate that, despite easy abortions and a free contraceptive service, the problems have increased and that perhaps a national campaign for self-control might be more useful?

The hon. Gentleman is an educationist and must know that it is dangerous to attempt to draw general conclusions from experience in any one city.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the commonsense attitude on this topic is surely that free contraceptives would result in fewer rather that more illegitimate children?

It was surely that reason which led hon. Members in all parts of the House to agree that free contraceptive advice should be available. Since in recent months there has been much speculation on this topic, it would be as well for Conservative Members to remember that 54 Conservative Members of Parliament signed an early-day motion asking for a free family planning service and that the Conservative Government were twice defeated on that matter in the House of Lords.

Does the Minister agree that the provision of this service places a great financial burden on the Exchequer? Is it in line with Labour policy to pour taxpayers' money into the coffers of private contraceptive manufacturers?

I do not think the cost of the service will be as great as the hon. Gentleman seems to think. Many people believe that this will be balanced by savings in the considerable cost of illegitimate births and abortions as a consequence of not having readily available family planning advice.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what studies her Department has undertaken to assess the relationship between the mental relapse rate and the scope of community care.

It will be difficult to establish a specific relation between mental relapse and community care, but my Department is sponsoring the evaluation of major psychiatric service developments at Worcester and Southampton. We are also supporting psychiatric case registers at Camberwell and Salford which are used as a basis for the study of community psychiatric problems.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying what has been done. On the specific matter dealt with in the Question, I think it can be said that the reply given 10 years ago caused some disquiet but that at the present time such a reply would be an affront to the House and to those working in mental health. Will my hon. Friend give consideration to a specific project aimed at examining the nature of a relapse, with particular reference to community care?

I am advised by the Chief Scientist in my Department, who will look at any specific proposals in this area.

Does the Minister agree that on this subject it is crucial to have the closest co-operation between the National Health Service and local authorities? Will he assure the House that he will take a close interest in this matter and will look specifically at the operation of health care planning teams?

Yes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worse than useless to discharge patients from mental hospitals if there is nowhere suitable for them to go, so that eventually their condition gets worse and they have to return to hospital? What action will he take to reverse the Conservative Government's expenditure cuts and refusals of loan sanction which have done so much to discourage local authorities from caring for these people?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is easy to talk about community care and then not to give the facilities and resources that are needed. At a time of scarce financial resources we should concentrate help where it is most needed. I believe that strong priority should be given to the development of community services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she now expects to sanction the building of the health centre at Long Eaton.

The health centre at Long Eaton is among the 85 centres which my right hon. Friend is considering for further development in the current financial year. I am not yet able to confirm whether the Long Eaton centre will be approved for development in 1974–75.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Long Eaton, which has a population of over 30.000, there is not even an accident centre and that the people in the area are desperately anxious to have at least some facilities in the area so that emergency cases can be treated urgently?

These are the kind of factors that will be borne in mind when deciding where health centres are to be built. Again, at a time of shortage of financial resources we need to be selective and to put health centres in areas where there is the greatest need.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will set up an inquiry into poverty and the needs of the socially inadequate.

I do not consider that any new general inquiry is required at the present time. My Department's research programme includes a number of on-going studies concerned with different aspects of poverty and the needs of the socially inadequate.

Does the Minister think it regrettable that in the relatively affluent mid-1970s we as a society have still failed to tackle the problem of poverty, despite measures introduced by successive Governments? Does he think that a high-level inquiry outside the realm of the Government might be useful?

I have sympathy with the motives behind the hon. Gentleman's question and the way he has put it, but the major problem affecting poverty and deprivation is not so much lack of knowledge as lack of the enormous resources that we would need to cope with it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department already allocates substantial resources to the kind of research he has in mind.

Will the Minister indicate when the results of the departmental study into poverty might be brought before the House? We on this side, and I am sure Members on the Government side, need information from the study. Perhaps the inquiries which are being undertaken could be revealed to the House at an early date.

I am not sure to which study the hon. Lady relates her question. A number of research projects are going forward under the aegis of the Department—for example, through the Social Services Research Council, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and a number of other organisations—in addition to the work that is done on an on-going basis in the Department. If the hon. Lady wishes to ask a Question on any particular item of that research, I shall be pleased to answer it.

While accepting my hon. Friend's sympathetic attitude towards this matter, may I ask whether it is worth looking at again? Might there not be something to be gained from a study of this nature, particularly into the position of educationally subnormal people? Is my hon. Friend aware that I have arranged for the University of Aston in my constituency to carry out a pilot scheme on those lines? Would he be interested in having the results of that scheme when it has been completed?

Of course I would. If my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members believe that there are aspects of research into poverty and deprivation that need investigating, they would be doing a service to the House and to the community by bringing those suggestions forward.

Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that the present Government have seen fit not to introduce a tax credit system, which by and large would eliminate a great deal of poverty?

That matter does not arise from this Question. The totality of policies which will be implemented and introduced by this Government will deal radically with the problem of poverty and deprivation much more effectively than anything brought forward by the previous Government.

Nevertheless will the hon. Gentleman accept and act upon his acceptance of the fact that many hon. Members, not on this side of the House alone, are very concerned about the Government's failure to take any steps towards the implementation of a tax credit scheme or something along those lines as a well-designed vehicle to tackle part of the problem?

If that is so, I can only say that no representations have been made to me other than those made in the House this afternoon by Opposition Members. I can only repeat that there were fundamental defects and flaws in the tax credit system that the previous Government announced they were to implement later in the 1970s and that the present Government felt unable and unwilling to implement such a policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will initiate a study into the cost and the economic and social effects of reducing the pensionable age of men to 60.

My right hon. Friend will bear in mind this suggestion as we come to develop our proposals for longterm social security provision. But I must tell my hon. Friend that it is already clear that the cost of any reduction in the minimum pensionable age for men would be very heavy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that literally hundreds of people have written to me supporting this proposal? There might be financial difficulties in introducing such a proposal at this early stage, but will he today give support in principle to this humanitarian step which is a basic part of establishing equality between the sexes?

I understand that many people, particularly in heavy manual employment, would prefer to retire before the age of 65. I have two points to put to my hon. Friend. First, it would not help people if they retired under a structure and system of pensions that involved means-testing and a sharp reduction in their living standards. Therefore, any reduction in pensionable age would not help people in those circumstances.

Secondly, the cost of such a proposal—putting the minimum age of retirement for men down to 60—would be substantial and would take away resources needed for the present generation of retirement pensioners.

Does my hon. Friend accept that most people want freedom to choose the date of their retirement between the ages of 60 and 70? Will he assure the House that in the amendments to the Social Security Bill which the Government will be considering serious consideration will be given to introducing more freedom of that kind?

In my answer I said that we would bear in mind the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), but I must tell the House that the cost of a reduction in the minimum pensionable age to 60, or even the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend, could mean the imposition of an extremely large burden on the working population.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she can now say what action she proposes to take on the Sharp Report's recommendation for the replacement of three-wheeled vehicles for the disabled, in view of the importance to many disabled people of carrying passengers.

I have nothing at present to add to what I said during the debate on 1st May.—[Vol. 872, c. 1238–44, 1281–5.]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement. Is he aware of the special difficulties of disabled mothers whose children go to school some distance from where they live? They are virtually forced into the distasteful choice of breaking the law by carrying their children in vehicles not designed or insured for that purpose or of letting them travel over long distances on main roads, which they are reluctant to do. Will the hon. Gentleman take a positive step to ensure that this category of person qualifies for a four-wheel vehicle as soon as possible?

This is one of the problems of which we were deeply aware in the debate on 1st May. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are consulting a large range of organisations representing disabled people. For my part, I shall have the point that he has made very much in mind in the course of that consultation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the best social and economic decision would be to provide the best and most suitable vehicle for all people to suit their individual needs arising from their disabilities? This may range from the ordinary four-wheeler to the three-wheeler which now exists and possibly, in some cases, a milk float. If those types of vehicle are not acceptable, I suggest that my hon. Friend should give these people a special mobility grant if no suitable vehicle is available.

In the debate on 1st May we considered the particular needs of different categories of the disabled. We have not previously considered giving them milk floats. Nevertheless that point was made by my hon. Friend. We are looking into the individual needs of the disabled and shall do everything we can to help in announcing our decision after the consultation.

Will the hon. Gentleman clear up the confusion in the minds of some of the disabled concerning the fact that the Government might withdraw permission to use the existing three-wheel vehicle in favour of the four-wheeler? Some people are anxious that this permission will be withdrawn. Will the hon. Gentleman clear up this point?

In the debate I referred to the residual demand that we expect from severely disabled people who feel that they cannot drive any vehicle other than a three-wheeler. I gave the assurance, which I now repeat, that we want to provide a vehicle service suited to the needs of all disabled people.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the campaign in the House for four-wheel vehicles has been going on for 25 years to my knowledge, so that this is nothing new? We have had blank refusals from Conservative Ministers to 12 deputations at which I have been present. I urge my hon. Friend that now is the time the Government should be considering the question, not simply for one specific class of invalid people but for the whole body of invalid people, including paraplegics and everybody else involved.

I know that my hon. Friend will have been pleased that we were able to publish the Sharp Report so soon after becoming the Government. I am aware of the problems of the disabled passenger. In last week's debate we said that the needs of the disabled passenger must be considered at the same time as we consider the needs of disabled drivers. I appreciate that mobility is a priceless asset which perhaps can be fully appreciated only by those who have lost it.

Will the Under-Secretary now make it quite clear something which he did not manage to make absolutely clear at the end of our debate on the Sharp Report, namely, whether the Government definitely reject the Sharp criteria for eligibility as a basis for future action?

We tried to clarify the position at the end of the debate. We are not prepared to exclude categories of disabled people who are now entitled.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why the Weston Favell district health centre has been removed from her capital programme for Northamptonshire, in view of the development area in which it is situated and the health needs of the growing population.

I regret that my right hon. Friend has been unable to authorise a start in the 1974–75 programme on many deserving schemes, including that at Weston Favell.

Is the Minister aware that there are already 8,000 people in this area all of whom have come from either Birmingham or London overspill and that the ultimate figure is scheduled to be 40,000? Is not the Minister's answer simply another example of Northampton being asked to shoulder the burden of expansions from London and Birmingham without being given the means to do so?

Northamptonshire County Council has made good progress in recent years. Seven health centres have been completed, including the one at Weston Favell at Lumbertubs used by two general practitioners. Two are under construction. I welcome the fact that Opposition Members also are enthusiastic about health centres. We will spend as much money as we have available from scarce resources and increase the spending if we can.

Will my hon. Friend instruct the Department to remember at all times that the population of Northamptonshire is increasing because of overspill more rapidly than that of any county?

My right hon. Friend is quite right, and this is one of the factors that we weigh very heavily in making decisions. Increased population trends are a major factor.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will consider extending the pensioners' £10 Christmas bonus to recipients of invalidity benefits where such benefits constitute the sole income of either a single person or married couple.

The question of a possible Christmas bonus and of those who should benefit from it will be considered in due course.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply. Will she recognise when she reviews the £10 Christmas bonus that the amount of money involved for the category of people I have mentioned would be very small and would be greatly appreciated amongst the other range of benefits which the present Government have increased and which are also widely appreciated?

I am well aware that there is a very strong feeling among the disabled and the chronically sick that they should not be excluded from these bonuses as they were under the Conservative scheme. Therefore, this is one of the matters that we have to consider very seriously in deciding what our policy should be.

As the right hon. Lady is criticising the scheme introduced by the Conservatives, can we have her assurance that she will do better?

As I have already said in answer to my hon. Friend, the scheme, its date of introduction and its extension are matters which I am considering, and I shall report in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will consider the exemption from prescription charges for chronic sick who show evidence of their need for continuous medication by having a current six-monthly or annual prepayment certificate.

I am now looking in detail at ways of exempting people with chronic illnesses front prescription charges. There are innumerable practical difficulties. My hon. Friend's suggestion would, I fear, produce serious anomalies.

As only £¾ million is received from subscribers to these certificates, does not my hon. Friend agree that this amount could be saved in administrative charges?

I agree that the sum which would be saved is currently estimated to be about £¾ million. Our problem is that many patients in need of frequent prescriptions are not prepayment certificate holders. This is perhaps our major problem. We need to involve more people who are chronically sick. This must be considered in any exemption scheme.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the Caribbean.

I have no plans to visit the Caribbean at present, Sir.

Does not the change in world sugar prices make nonsense of the right hon. Gentleman's Government's proposals for the so-called renegotiation of the terms of entry into the Common Market? Is not this renegotiation really a sacrifice of the country's future prospects on the altar of Labour Party solidarity? Will the Prime Minister say whether any Caribbean Government have made a specific approach to him for renegotiation of the terms for sugar?

I will immediately say "No" to the hon. Gentleman's elucidation of the motives in the matter of renegotiation. The temporary movement of sugar prices does not affect the fact that for 20 years and more Caribbean and other developing Commonwealth countries have gained enormously from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is my view and that of the Government—it was our view in opposition—that terms which do not provide for an adequate entreé into the Common Market, including Britain, if that is the result of the negotiations, are absolutely inimical to the interests of the Commonwealth and of Britain.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he could save himself a lot of time and find out all he wanted to know about the Caribbean if he would pay another visit to Brixton?

I well remember that visit to commemorate something—I cannot quite remember what, but it was something worth commemorating. I remember particularly the tributes paid on all sides by Caribbeans and their descendants to my hon. Friend.

Will the Prime Minister pay a nostalgic visit to Anguilla? If he does, will he reassure the leaders of Anguilla that when the constitutional talks have been held the people of Anguilla will have a referendum on whether they stay with St. Kitts or secede from St. Kitts and have a direct link with the British Crown?

I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. As regards nostalgia and more recent events, some of the questions I hear from some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues suggest to me that should we be looking for a new Governor of Anguilla, I can think of one or two of his hon. Friends who deserve the Anguilla I remember.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I think that only twice in the last 20 years since the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement has been in operation until the present time has the price of sugar which the sugar-producing countries in the Commonwealth have been getting been exceeded by world prices? However, there is now no indication that this is a purely temporary phenomenon, which is what the right hon. Gentleman said it was.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the last Government were able by special arrangement, after the Prime Minister of Jamaica came to see me, to supplement the incomes of these countries following the very grave blow which had been struck to the Caribbean countries because of the increased world price of oil? The price which they can now get in the world is much higher than the Community price. I believe, as the Prime Minister is aware, that the negotiation of 1·4 million tons was satisfactory. If this situation is to be maintained, it is important to bring the Caribbean countries to realise that they must maintain their sugar supplies to this country, otherwise the position of any British Government in the Community will be undermined.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very fair point. I had discussions recently with the Prime Minister of Jamaica on this question. Since the right hon. Gentleman went back 20 years, which I had not done, perhaps I might say that the sugar agreement was negotiated by the Board of Trade when I was President. I have always been proud of it, and what it has achieved has been worth maintaining. I would not assume—nor do I think the right hon. Gentleman assumes—that for the next 20 years the present temporary arrangements about sugar prices will continue. What I cannot accept and what I do not think most of us concerned with the matter can accept is that the aura à coeur formula is an adequate criterion either for Commonwealth sugar producers or for those in this country who are engaged in the production of sugar from cane sugar imported from the Commonwealth.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has agreed to meet representatives of the livestock and glasshouse sectors of agriculture as requested by the President of the National Farmers' Union.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had several meetings with leaders of the industry and is fully in touch with the situation.

While one understands the Prime Minister's reluctance to meet the representatives, may I ask him how, in the absence of adequate guarantees, supplies of beef and pigmeat are to be assured in future? Is it the Government's intention to make the help given to the glasshouse growers more permanent?

It is a question not of my reluctance to meet the repre- sentatives of the NFU but of my confidence in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture's handling of these matters. He has answered many Questions in the House on these subjects. He has announced, I agree, a temporary subsidy for the glasshouse producers. The House will be debating these matters fully tomorrow, when my right hon. Friend will state the Government's position.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Selkirkshire.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him last Thursday.—[Vol. 872, c. 1315.]

While I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman cannot visit Selkirkshire, may I ask him whether he would consider visiting, elsewhere in the country, at least one or two livestock farms and looking at the books, to satisfy himself that the case that the livestock farmers are making about their losses is genuine and serious?

That was encompassed in my answer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on the previous Question.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Social Services, Education and Science, and the Scottish Office on the provision of adequate education and other facilities for handicapped children.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we recognise that inquiries are being made on this matter? Does he agree that this is one of the social problems which have been most neglected, certainly since the war? We do not know even the size of the problem. Will he say how we are to ascertain the size of the problem as regards educational handicap, social handicap and physical handicap and when we might have a White Paper or some other means of getting to know the Government's policy on this matter?

I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to certain inquiries which are going on at present. He and the House know what they are. He is right to say that in present circumstances we do not know the size of the problem. This was a difficult problem on which I spent a lot of time when I was previously Prime Minister. I know that my successor and predecessor, the present Leader of the Opposition, was also concerned with it. It is very difficult to be certain that one has the right answer in departmental arrangements. I think that we have the right answer, and we now have a junior Minister with full responsibility for the problems of the handicapped within his departmental responsibility. He has recently been given a considerable remit for co-ordination with other Departments concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in consequence of his Government's decision to cut the rate support grant to the Trafford district of Manchester by more than £8 million this year, there will be many mentally handicapped children who will be unable this summer to go on holiday paid for by the local authority? Is he willing to look at this question again?

The rate support grant has been debated in the House. We had to operate within the general total laid down by the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported and, I think, voted for on these questions. Certainly some districts, as a result of the very rough justice—the hon. Member may think it rough injustice—that had to be introduced, are worse off in this and other respects while others are better off. In the country as a whole, however, the position which the hon. Member supported under the previous Government was just as bad as what he is now describing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said that no council need put a penny on the rates and that the large increase in his own constituency must be the fault either of his Conservative Government or of his Conservative council?

I have not seen the right hon. Gentleman recently to find out whether he still sticks to that view.

No doubt the Prime Minister will recall that before the resignation of the last Government we had announced a committee and its chairmanship to deal with the problems of handicapped children. Do the Government propose to continue with that? If so, when will the full membership be announced?

Yes, Sir. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Warnock Committee, set up to review the educational provision for handicapped children in England, Scotland and Wales and the arrangements to equip them for adult life, we expect it to begin work in the near future and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be announcing its membership very soon.

Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter urgently? Is he not aware that many of these children could be educated to keep themselves later in life and thereby take a terrible burden off their parents, whose thoughts continually are, "What will happen to our children when we pass away?"

I agree about that, but there are problems in education over the adequacy of the numbers of teachers specialised in these very difficult fields. The problem is that we are not talking about one category of handicapped children: that is the reason for the appointment of the Warnock Committee. I have been much concerned, as have others, with the problems of autistic children, a very special and tragic category which needs a great deal of money, particularly if they are to have any sort of chance in life.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any current arrangements to make a ministerial broadcast.

No, Sir.

As this seems to be the season of confessions, will the right hon. Gentleman go on television to declare his interest in sponsoring a £10 million hand-back to the unions in order to retain their position above the law of the country?

There was no such suggestion that they maintain their position above the law of the country. The House will have an opportunity of debating this matter on the Finance Bill. As I made clear in a speech, a copy of which is in the Library—the hon. Gentleman might consider it inordinately long—what we have done is give effect to the undertakings in a debate on 23rd March 1971 by the then Secretary of State for Employment that the unions need not be prejudiced. Since they have been prejudiced, we have thought to put it right and to validate the position taken up by the then Conservative Minister, for whom the hon. Gentleman voted in that division.

Since the Prime Minister does not intend to make an immediate ministerial broadcast, and since there is no notice of a statement to be made, can he say by what means—whether by the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment in today's debate I know not—the House and the country will know what are the Government's plans in the light of the threatened engineering strike, which could in its incidence be as serious to the country as the miners' strike, from which we are only just recovering?

I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman rising after the hon. Gentleman, in view of his departing statement at London Airport on the £10 million question. I welcome the fact that he voted with the Labour Opposition on that occasion and is anxious to show the House his inconsistency in this matter. On the important question that he has raised, it is likely that if my right hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, to move the Second Reading of a very important Bill which is before the House today he will refer to this matter. It is a very serious consequence of the actions of the court over the last two or three days, themselves the result, even now as the Act is dying and putrefying, of Conservative legislation. My right hon. Friend is, I think, meeting the general secretary of the union concerned later today to discuss the situation.

Will my right hon. Friend at the appropriate time consider making a ministerial broadcast in the shape of a report to the nation about how the renegotiation of our EEC entry terms is going?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and other Ministers have informed the House fully about the negotiations with the EEC, and my right hon. Friend is attending the Council of Ministers today. Clearly, with the present situation in France and now, in my view tragically, in Germany, we shall not be able to make much progress in the next week or two until certain Governments are reconstituted, after which my right hon. Friend will keep the House fully informed.

In his speech on the Industrial Relations Bill my right hon. Friend the then Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), to whom the Prime Minister has referred, indicated the ways in which, either under the Bill or outside the Bill, a trade union need not bear the burden of tax on its particular funds. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has been informed by the unions how many of them followed the procedure advised by my right hon. Friend but failed to secure exemption from taxation?

There were two procedures laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the then Member for Mitcham. One was registration under the Act, which was not a requirement under the Act but was voluntary. The second related to certain redispositions of funds. I am informed that, contrary to the legal advice given by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, a number of unions considered this matter, consulted their legal advisers and were informed that this would not secure the necessary exemption.

How many unions made the attempt and were refused?

It was not a question of making the attempt. It was a question of taking the legal advice that they were given. I should have thought that, in view of the categorical assurances given by the then Secretary of State in asking the House not to vote because there was no problem and it was an unnecessary fuss, and as he remained in office for the next three years, he would have interested himself in the situation to see what was happening and to introduce the amending legislation which he refused in our amendment.

I interest myself in this matter greatly and to the extent that no union ever informed me that it had made the attempt and had been refused.

I have said that they took legal advice and got different advice from that of the right hon. Gentleman. Why, in that case, did not the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to give effect to what he and his right hon. Friends voted for in March 1971?

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that during the passage of that legislation the then Solicitor-General promised that if any trade union at that time not so registered changed its decision and registered in future, any tax owing to it would be paid retrospectively?

There is no present ministerial responsibility for the then Solicitor-General. But the problems that we are facing today and the problems of the last three days are the direct result of the actions he took in sponsoring that Act.

As the Prime Minister was good enough to raise matters outside the supplementary question that I put to him, may I ask whether he agrees that those who, in company with him, unsuccessfully moved an amendment, as he rightly says, on the £10 million issue are in a very strong position to say that the fact that they did not like something which one Government's Finance Act or Industrial Relations Act passed is no argument for retrospectively trying to amend it in the next Government's Act? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a very dangerous precedent if an Opposition who do not like a Finance Act dip into the till when they come to power to reverse its incidence because they happen to have changed sides?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we were voting not on a Finance Bill but on the Industrial Relations Bill. I take the view that the vast majority of those who voted with me and expressed their view on that occasion will be showing their consistency in this matter, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has returned and has had time to consider these things, will recognise that while there is a general dislike of retrospective legislation in fiscal matters there is a difference between retrospective legislation to put right a wrong which has been carried out and retrospective legislation to penalise a taxpayer as compared with the position that he thought he was in when he made certain financial dispositions.