asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she will announce her new pension proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation she is having with the insurance industry over her new pension proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is the Government's intention to abolish the married women's option.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will seek a meeting with the National Association of Pension Funds.

We shall publish a White Paper setting out the Government's pension proposals as soon as possible, and those proposals will form the basis for consultation and discussion. As far as the details of our plans are concerned, I must ask the House to await the White Paper.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm that the broad basis upon which these proposals will come forward will be that of a second pension, as suggested in the Social Security Act 1973? Can he further confirm reports that the proposals will include a better deal for women and a faster accrual rate for older people? If those assumptions are correct, can he confirm that this can be achieved only by a substantially increased rate of contribution and a degree of cross-subsidisation to those already retired?

I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the White Paper.

Before bringing in any new scheme, will the Secretary of State consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to giving tax relief on contributions to the national scheme or tax exemption for the pensions paid?

I am aware of these matters, which will be receiving, as they are already receiving, along with all other matters, the closest consideration.

While one understands why the investigation into the Government's pension scheme is taking such a long time and that it is harming many people who would otherwise, from next April, be in the second pension scheme, may I ask the Minister to confirm that he will continue with the married woman's option, from which 3 million women benefit? Does he propose to bring forward during this Parliament the Bill to increase considerably the contributions for the married woman's option without giving her any better benefits?

On the last question relating to Bills this Session, the House will be aware that there is already a Bill which deals with the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised. On the question of the married woman's option and our intentions in the long-term pension proposals, I must ask the hon. Gentleman also to await publication of the White Paper. When he complains that we are taking a long time to bring forward proposals, I would point out that after his Government scrapped the Crossman proposals it took them over two years to bring forward their proposals. We shall do it much more quickly than that.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us on this side are far more anxious that the Government should not rush this matter but should produce a progressive pension scheme which will stand the test of time? Will he accept that in producing this sort of scheme he must think in terms of making proposals, which necessarily must become law, for the next 20 years and that the pension scheme should be designed to stand that sort of test?

This Government are moving with a speedy efficiency on pension proposals which was not characteristic of the last Government. On my hon. Friend's second question, I hope that the proposals we bring forward for consideration and consultation in the White Paper will lead to the setting up of a structure which will stand for a long time.

But is the Minister aware that he has already dropped enough hints, in the House, in the Press and to the pensions world, for us to know that he is contemplating the introduction of a Crossman-type scheme of big earnings-related contributions to pay for grandiose promises of earnings-related benefits in future? Is he also aware that as his party has had so much practice in preparing pension schemes over the past few years we suspect that he is toying with the idea of holding the scheme back until after an election because of the unpopularity of any such proposal with the occupational pensions industry and with all those whose savings and deferred pay are in schemes which will be threatened by what he has in mind?

I have not dropped hints; I have thrown bricks at the proposals of the last Government. They put forward a pension scheme which not even their friends are prepared to defend. From his attendance at meetings of his own back-bench committee on this subject, the hon. Gentleman must know the views of some of his hon. Friends on the proposals that his Government brought forward. If he likes, I can expand on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in view of the wide variations in boarding-out allowances paid by local authorities to foster-parents in respect of children boarded out with them, whether she will consider compiling a set of national advisory scales.

The Working Party on Fostering Practice is looking into the factors which are taken into account in determining rates of boarding-out allowance, which vary considerably. I should have its guidance by the spring and will consider its findings.

May I first declare a minor interest as a foster-parent? Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still many children in the care of local authorities who would benefit from being boarded out with good foster-parents and that if all local authorities adopted realistic scales this would encourage many more people to become foster-parents? It is not realistic for local authority scales to range from as much as £10 per five-year-old in the North-East of England to as little as £4·70 in the North-West.

I agree that there are many children presently receiving institutional care who could go into families if there were more foster-parents. I shall do everything possible to encourage that. Inasmuch as rates of boarding-out allowances have a bearing on this matter, I shall be prepared to look at them.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very wide variation among local authorities in the percentage of children who are boarded with foster-parents and that there is some correlation between those wide variations and the variations in the boarding-out allowances paid by local authorities?

I agree that this is a factor. Rates vary, sometimes for understandable reasons such as paying a higher amount for a handicapped or disturbed child. These are factors that the House understands. Despite that, however, there is considerable variation between local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will now recommend setting up a Royal Commission on poverty.

For the reasons I gave to the hon. Member in replying to his Question of 7th May, I do not consider that any new general inquiry into poverty is required at the present time.—[Vol. 873, c. 192–3.]

Since that Question the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to give me a Written Answer setting out some of the excellent research that is being undertaken in his Department. Does he not accept, however, that research into individual aspects of poverty is not the answer to my Question and that as a society we have still failed to tackle poverty? Is there not a case for an inquiry of an all-embracing and powerful kind?

I consider the hon. Gentleman's Question very sympathetically and without prejudice. But I believe that we know enough of the scope and the extent of poverty in the country at present to know that what is most important is to bring forward financial measures to relieve that poverty. That is what the Government will be doing in the coming months.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that an immediate short-term solution to this problem would be an increase in the family allowance, and particularly the introduction of an allowance for the first child?

I understand very well the point raised by my hon. Friend. These are matters which the Government will examine as resources become available. On the part of the question relating to the first child, my hon. Friend will know that we have a manifesto commitment to introduce a family endowment system, including payment for the first child. This matter, with all our other manifesto commitments, is at present being considered by the Government. The present Government, as my hon. Friend will know, keep their manifesto promises.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government have now repented of their dilatoriness about the tax credit scheme and will proceed to implement a scheme based upon the tax credit idea, which would be the most effective way of relieving poverty and has already been devised and considered by the House?

I have already explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at previous Question Times that we have rejected the tax credit scheme put forward by the previous administration. I ask him to await the policy proposals which will be put forward by the Government. He can then judge, as the nation will judge, how effective our total antipoverty strategy is.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further action she is taking to deal with the battered baby problem.

Following a multi-disciplinary conference which we held last month to discuss problems of early diagnosis and of management, we are studying further ways of increasing awareness of the problem, helping professional workers concerned with it and promoting co-operation between them. We are paying particular attention to methods of obtaining and recording information, and its use. I very much welcome the inter-disciplinary seminars and conferences that are being held throughout the country, in a number of which professional advisers from my Department have participated. A grant has been made of £112,000 over three years to the NSPCC for development of special units and for research, and discussions are at an advanced stage on a number of other research proposals in this field. I have asked directors of social services to report to me by the end of the year progress made on the setting up of inter-disciplinary area review teams and on the handling of the programme in the areas.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that action by the end of the year is not quick enough for many people in the House? Will she consider the possibility of doing something to enable doctors to safeguard their very young patients instead of, as at present, sending them back to their homes, where they may be battered, because doctors do not have sufficient powers to ensure always that they go to a place of safety?

I am sure that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the very detailed reply I gave her on what I agree with her is a very important and urgent matter. I was not talking about waiting for action until the end of the year. I said that I have asked the authorities to let me have by the end of the year a report of the action which they had already taken to set up these area review teams. It is the purpose of these teams to make absolutely sure that a child does not fall between the net because it passes from the doctor to no particular area of responsibility. I think that the answer to the hon. Lady's point is that the doctor should be part of this multidisciplinary teamwork.

We on the Government side of the House understand my right hon. Friend's statement. It is very warm and compassionate and we welcome it. I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, in relation to the Select Committee proposed on the subject of battered wives, will there be a special sector dealing with battered babies? Second, in view of the Max Piazzani case, with which my right hon. Friend is acquainted, could not a model emerge from this which would show the nature of the way in which the Department acts immediately following an indication that there has been a serious case?

I do not immediately see the desirability of extending the Select Committee on battered wives to this area, although if links were established between the two issues it would be possible to consider doing that. We must see how this Select Committee progresses. I shall certainly bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend about the Piazzani case.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans she has in relation to restoring the cuts on her Department's expenditure imposed by the previous Government.

As the House will know, the Government have given priority to increased expenditure on pensions, food subsidies and housing. We have been unable at the same time to restore the reductions made by the previous Government in the expenditure planned in 1974–75. However, I announced last week that I shall be seeking Supplementary Estimates in order to make an additional £40 million of current expenditure available to health authorities in England to meet price rises and to cover a more up-to-date assessment of the level of spending on former local authority health services. Supplementary Estimates totalling £50 million in respect of pay awards have already been presented.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I assure her that on these benches at least we were delighted to hear that she was able to find £40 million to replace some of the savage cuts inflicted on her Department by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer? The sum of £111 million was cut from her Department. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Expenditure Committee is now investigating the effect of those cuts on hospital services and on local authority services and that we are quite appalled by the evidence of the damage done by the previous administration? Is my right hon. Friend further aware—

Order. That is enough.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has already managed to say.

I have not said it all yet.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is of great importance to the National Health Service that the Government have been able to prove by the allocation of the £40 million that they have no intention of allowing any reduction in the services due to the process of inflation and other difficulties that have been causing such anxiety. I share my hon. Friend's desire to be able to restore the expenditure cuts which I inherited from the previous administration, and the Government as a whole are anxious to do that.

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, contrary to what her hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) appears to understand, the full £40 million made available last week is directed solely to compensating health authorities for the effect of rising prices? Will she also accept that, far from her Government having inherited savage cuts at the hands of the last administration, during the period of the last administration capital expenditure on the National Health Service was running in each year 30 per cent. in real terms above what it was at the time of the previous Labour Government, that revenue expenditure in each year during the time of the last administration was running at 15 per cent. in real terms above the level during the previous Labour Government and that she inherited a substantially improved health service with higher general spending programmes?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly aware that there has been upward progression over the years and that in December last that upward progression was levelled off by the cuts that were then made. He must be aware that those cuts have caused widespread anxiety among those who are having to run not only hospital services but personal social services also affected by the cuts. Case after case is coming to me from both sides of the House on this matter. That is why I consider that it is urgent for us to restore the cuts as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further plans she has, if any, for meeting representatives from branches of the medical profession.

My Department is constantly in touch with the medical profession on a wide range of matters. and I am myself available when necessary. The Prime Minister has told the British Medical Association that I will be glad to resume discussions with it about the future development of pay arrangements after the ending of statutory controls.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Will she withdraw the unconstructive remark she made recently about consultants playing politics. and will she realise that protest is not the prerogative of the Left and that consultants are seriously concerned with their own position within the National Health Service, which she would do well to take seriously herself?

No, Sir, I will not withdraw that remark. Of course I am aware of consultants' concern. That is why within weeks I responded constructively to their request for a joint working party to be set up under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend to examine consultants' contracts and their difficulties.

May I be assured that the first question which my right hon. Friend puts to the medical authorities will be why they laughed at her extra £40 million when they did nothing about the £111 million cut?

That has been puzzling me as well.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that since she took office there has been a tragic deterioration in relations in the health service? Will she once more repeat that the £40 million has absolutely nothing to do with restoring cuts made last December? Will she acknowledge that the tone of her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Ancram) just now indicates why relations are becoming so bad?

No, Sir. I do not accept a single word of what the hon. Gentleman says. As soon as I took over this job I was told by all concerned that the morale of the National Health Service had never been at such a low ebb. There have been years of pent-up frustration and bitterness among nurses, radiographers, medical laboratory technicians. physical measurement technicians and a whole range of workers who have since been showing such disquiet and unrest. This arises completely and directly from the pay policy of the previous Government. The first step we took was to reverse that policy not only generally but also in its effect on the groups I have mentioned.

Order. I remind the House that this is not debating time; it is Question Time.

It is also—

What I said applies to both sides of the House.

It is also important for the House and all those who want to restore morale in the National Health Service to realise that when the pay increases are delivered to the nurses and others the extra money will be found to meet those increases. The Government have made this clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is now in a position to make a statement on her proposals on the Sharp Report.

As the hon. Member knows, the Government are now considering the views of a wide range of interested organisations on the recommendations in the report. I recognise the concern over this matter and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Can the Minister say when the consultations with the outside bodies will be concluded and when he estimates that he is likely to make a statement? Will it be before we rise for the recess, and shall we get a chance to debate the Government's findings before they arrive at a conclusion?

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for conveying his personal views on the recommendations in the report. It is difficult to say exactly when we shall be in a position to announce conclusions on our consultations with a wide range of organisations. I shall do so at the earliest possible date with the point made by the hon. Member very much in mind.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the needs of the disabled passenger as well as those of the disabled driver should be borne in mind? They should be dealt with identically in the review, because these people are having difficulty getting about since they cannot use public transport.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. There are problems not only of methods and aims but of priority as between the disabled driver and the disabled passenger. I shall certainly bear very much in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make provision for the funds of community health councils to be allocated directly to them and not drawn from the allocations of regional health authorities.

No, Sir. The National Health Service (Community Health Councils) Regulations 1973 lay this responsibility, on the "establishing authority" which in England is the regional health authority. I will of course consider carefully the views of community health councils in the light of experience.

In doing so will the Minister recognise that the community health councils are about the only voice patients have in the bureaucratic system which was bequeathed to him—without our support—and that if they have to compete for their finances with the clinical requirements for which regional health authorities are trying to cater they will be in an even weaker position?

I agree with the hon. Member, and we share the belief that the community health councils play an important part in the health service. That is why we published proposals for consultation on democracy in the health service to strengthen these councils and why I shall be listening carefully to the views of the councils as they develop.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will undertake to make available in the autumn more money to cover the shortfall in health expenditure in the Dorset Area Health Authority amounting to £750,000 or if, in the alternative, she will make a recommendation as to which of the services should be withdrawn.

This is a matter for the Wessex Regional Health Authority in the light of the funds available to it.

Does the Minister accept that all possible economies, including even the stopping of maintenance of hospitals, have already been effected and that no further economies are possible? What share of the global sum will come to Dorset, and will the Minister have some part in taking what must be a very difficult decision?

The announcement by my right hon. Friend about the extra £40 million was made to the regional health authority chairmen. I can assure the House that the chairmen considered it to be a major step towards restoring the shortfall, and of course the Wessex Regional Health Authority chairman was at the meeting.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will consider resiting an office of the Department of Health and Social Security in the Kingswood constituency, a service which was withdrawn by the previous Government.

An adequate service over the full range of social security benefits for people in the Kingswood area is provided from the office at Fishponds Road, Bristol.

To get to the office in Bristol involves people in making two and sometimes three changes of buses, and since many of those who have to go there are sick or elderly they are presented with a considerable problem. Will my hon. Friend look at the position again? If the office in Kingswood could be opened for even a couple of half-days a week, this would help many of my constituents.

Since the Fishponds Road office was established the Department has received no reports of particular difficulties being experienced by those who live within the area it serves. Part-time offices are extremely costly in terms of manpower and overheads, and they are established only in areas remote from a parent office where there is clear evidence of need for such a service. That is not the case at Kingswood. However, the Department maintains a close watch on the needs of an area served by a local office and if it becomes evident that the service at Kingswood should be reviewed this will be given due consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement about recruitment of nurses and ancillary staff in the National Health Service.

The total number, in whole-time equivalent terms, of nursing and midwifery staff in the National Health Service in England rose from 286,000 to 291,000 in the year ended 30th September 1973, the latest date for which figures are available. In the same period there was a small reduction in the numbers of ancillary staff from 164,000 to 163,000.

Notwithstanding the existing low state of morale, especially in this vital element of the health service, and notwithstanding the inquiries which Lord Halsbury is conducting, it is vital that nurses and ancillary staff should be given fresh hope after the damage caused to their aspirations by the previous administration. Will my hon. Friend consider in consultation with the Secretary of State, meeting representatives of all the staff associations to see whether the general form of negotiation can be considerably streamlined to avoid the cumbersome methods which already exist?

We have already expressed our readiness to look at the whole Whitley negotiating machinery, but the approach here must essentially be one of agreement between staff and management sides. I share my hon. Friend's concern that there is room for improvement. On the question of the morale of staff, particularly in the case of the nurses, the Government on taking office talked to staff representatives and it was in response to their request that we established an independent inquiry. I hope that the result of that inquiry will be not only improved recruiting but improved morale.

Does the Minister take as lightly as it would seem the reduction in ancillary staff numbers in some hospitals? In the Birmingham area in particular, radiographers are in such short supply that three are having to do the work of eight or nine. This is not a matter which can be regarded lightly.

Radiographers are a profession supplementary to medicine. One of the reasons for the fall in the numbers of ancillary workers in recent years has been the installation of incentive bonus schemes which involve to some extent the reduction of staff numbers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that unless something is done about phasing local weighting allowances for nurses, we shall be losing nurses and not recruiting them? In the Peace Memorial Hospital at Watford nurses do not get a local weighting allowance whereas staff in the town hall 50 yards away get an allowance. Will my hon. Friend do his best to redress these anomalies?

As my hon. Friend knows, the report on London weighting has been published—

There is nothing in it about a local weighting for Watford.

I regret that my hon. Friend's constituency does not seem to derive any benefit, but this is a difficult subject and is a matter of close relationship between the negotiations on London weighting for local government and the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to increase the Supplementary Benefits Commission's disregard of £2 from weekly earned income; and if she will make a statement.

It is our intention to review the disregard of earnings, together with the other disregards in the supplementary benefit scheme, as soon as financial and manpower considerations allow.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a housewife reported to me that she had accepted a job at £18 a week but was shocked to discover that her husband's supplementary benefit was reduced by £16? She was therefore working for only £2 a week. Since this matter is urgent and we are anxious to encourage eligible housewives to accept employment, will not my hon. Friend give a date when this miserable disregard will be increased to a more reasonable level?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the need for increasing the disregard, but the most important thing in the prevailing economic circumstances when we took office was to assist pensioners and others on supplementary benefit, and I am pleased that from next Monday pensioners and others in receipt of benefit will be getting the biggest-ever increase in the history of the pension scheme.

Could there be an interim increase fairly quickly in the disregards for one-parent families?

We are considering that.

The figure of £2 was fixed years ago and is totally ridiculous in present circumstances. Does my hon. Friend accept that the whole system of disregards within the supplementary benefit arrangements are a savage disincentive to anybody to help themselves in any way?

I do not deny for one moment that the value of disregards has fallen by approximately 43 per cent. since they were introduced by a Labour Government in 1966. Within the financial constraints that are upon us we are anxious to improve them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been paid in supplementary benefits to strikers' families in each of the last three years.

The approximate figures are £4·3 million in 1971, £8·4 million in 1972 and £0·7 million in 1973.

Now that the hon. Gentleman is in government himself, will he take us into his confidence and give us some indication of the difficulties which he and his colleagues anticipate having in governing the country during the next six months, bearing in mind that taxpayers are potentially subsidising large numbers of their fellow citizens who are holding the country to ransom?

To the extent that the country became ungovernable, that took place during the last months of the last Tory Government. To the extent that there has been an improvement, that has been the result of the policies of the present administration. If the hon. Gentleman has any complaints to make about the level of the figures which I have given, he should remember that the figures are the direct result of Tory industrial relations policies. The figures are nearly 14 times higher for the three years that I have mentioned than those for the three full years of a Labour administration between 1967 and 1969. In that period the total cost under Labour was about £1·4 million. For the three full years of a Tory Government it was about £14 million. That figure reflects the success of Tory policies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that instead of dealing with the spiteful trivia raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon) it is much better to consider what any successful Government should do, and what the present Government are doing—namely, keeping the work-force healthy and creating industrial harmony so that we do not have the sort of strikes which ultimately led to the three-day week, which nearly paralysed the nation? To raise social questions of this nature on the Floor of the House is reprehensible in the context of the manner in which the previous Government administered.

Of course my hon. Friend is right. Conservative Members who persist in following this subject at Question Time should remember that what they are criticising is not Labour Government legislation but the Social Security Act 1971, which was introduced by the last Conservative Government. As these criticisms are being made of the activities of the previous Government, it will be interesting to know whether the present Conservative Front Bench is disavowing the policies followed by the previous Tory administration in 1971 and whether it is now prepared to assume even more vicious policies towards men on strike.

Will the Minister explain how it came about that he told the House about a month ago that the total cost of the strike subsidy this year had run to £4 million when the cost of the strike subsidy in the Ulster situation alone amounted to £5 million? Further, will he explain what legislative authority there was from this House for the payment of £5 million in Northern Ireland in what I believe even the Labour Party regards as a political strike?

I think it is right that the hon. Gentleman should spotlight the expenditure of £4·4 million so far this year. That spotlights the miners' strike which was caused by the policies of the previous administration. The Northern Ireland situation is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many well-woman and other clinics are now screening women for breast cancer; and what progress is being made in research to provide an adequate breast-cancer screening programme for all women at risk.

Examination of women for breast cancer is widely available from general practitioners and in hospitals and clinics run by area health authorities.

As so many women still die of this disease and as many others live in dread of it, whereas a dramatic decrease of 33 per cent. in the mortality rate of the over-50s has been shown by a recent study in America, will my hon. Friend keep up the pressure on his Department to ensure that it gives adequate priority to the helpful advances in early detection and early treatment?

We are aware of the work that has been done in America, and particularly in New York. My hon. Friend is right; 17,759 new cases of breast cancer were identified in 1969. This is a major public health problem. This Government will put resources into preventive medicine.