asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what grounds she has extended the cohabitation rule to the disabled.

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals in the Social Security Benefits Bill relating to non-contributory in-valdity pension and invalid care allowance, under which a woman who is living with a man as his wife would be treated in the same way as a married woman who is living with her husband. I am sure that this parallel treatment is right in principle.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that is an unsatisfactory, if not a disgraceful, answer? It demonstrates the male chauvinist assumption that only the man can be the breadwinner. Is he aware that this unwarranted discrimination against women fits ill with the Equal Pay Act and the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to introduce an anti-discrimination Bill? Will he ensure that in these proposals men and women will qualify for the benefits as of right by reason of their disability and not their marital status?

I said it was right in principle because it would be wrong to treat the co-habitee preferentially compared with the married woman.

Hear, hear.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in a letter,

"We readily accept that there is a desire to make progress beyond the limits of those changes"—

"which we hope to introduce in the near future."

Is the Minister aware that this universally-disliked cohabitation rule would have been totally redundant had the Labour Party followed the proposals of the Conservative Party and included the disabled housewife in the Bill which the Government have brought forward?

We hope to provide for the disabled housewife after the introduction of the non-contributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. The cohabitation rule applies across the system and not to this area alone.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps she is taking to ensure sufficient secure accommodation is provided for disturbed young boys and girls.

We have already given, and will continue to give, the highest possible priority to secure units in community homes. Construction of two new youth treatment centres, which are to be administered by the Department for children in local authority care who require special facilities, is planned to begin in 1975 and 1976 respectively, and the existing centre is to be enlarged.

Is the Minister fully aware of the gravity of the situation? It is nothing short of a national scandal that 425 boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 are in adult prisons and remand homes because of the lack of secure accommodation provided by local authorities.

I am well aware of the problem. The House discussed it and related issues yesterday, but it is very complex and the Government are treating it with great seriousness.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the directors of social services have already protested at the effect of the December 1973 cuts on their building programme for secure homes? It is essential to restore this capital expenditure as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend is right. We have restored the December cuts of the previous Government. We have given an extra £1·5 million to these projects. I regret that they have not included as large a number of secure units as I had hoped. We had to be selective, and we could not give aid in other areas where we are equally pressed.

Will the Secretary of State make money available by way of direct grant rather than through the rate support scheme, in which the money tends to be lost and to be used for other purposes?

Capital expenditure is already a key sector allocation for the social services. Revenue is dealt with through the rate support grant. If the hon. Gentleman studies the formula to be applied for next year, he will see that we have made special provision for children. I hope that it will be enough. We are sensitive to the demands made on local authorities by the rise in juvenile delinquency.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm figures given to me to the effect that the number of places available in community homes at the end of June this year was about 2,000 fewer than at the end of March last year, and that the number of places occupied in community homes at the end of June this year was 200 fewer than at the end of March last year? Will he also confirm that this reduction may be due to the laudable intention to raise staffing standards in community homes but that it is dangerous to try to press too far in that direction if the consequence is to increase the number of young people held in prison?

I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the exact figures. There has been the trend he indicates, and we shall have to examine the question of balance between standards and providing accommodation. The issue was discussed with the regional planning committees when I met them in the summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the Government's view on payments in kind rather than cash to retirement pensioners.

The Government's view is that it is better as a general rule to provide pensioners with income in cash, which they can spend as they wish, rather than to make payments in kind.

I am delighted to hear that, but does not the right hon. Lady feel that with concessionary bus fares and beef tokens, and now the pressure for free television licences, we are running the risk of telling the old people what they should do with their own money? Would it not be far better if the right hon. Lady and any future Government were to review pensions as often as possible, pay as much as possible and end the somewhat charity-type attitude that seems to indicate that we know better than the old people how to spend their money?

I am a little surprised to hear that from the hon. Gentleman, whose party saddled us with the butter token scheme—one of the most absurd pieces of means-tested payments in kind at high administrative cost that one could ever hope to dream up.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a great deal of animosity has been created among old-age pensioners over television licences, especially among those who do not live in homes or in good warden schemes, where the old people have a television licence for about 5p a year? Other poor pensioners, without all the amenities that are a tremendous help to people in such homes and schemes, have to pay the full licence fee.

I realise that there are anomalies. It is always the anomalies that seem to cause the greatest sense of frustration rather than the lack of a particular facility. But the question of television licence fees is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

I welcome what the right hon. Lady said in general terms, but I ask her to reconsider the question of bus travel for old people, which creates considerable difficulties in constituencies such as mine where authorities overlap. Is there not a case for a uniform system of bus passes, particularly for those living in rural areas?

The concessionary fares scheme is a matter for the local authorities concerned. I do not think that this is an appropriate moment to make it mandatory.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that most of us on the Government benches will welcome her preference for cash rather than other supplementary benefits? Does she agree, however, that there may be a need in the short term to expand supplementary benefits, largely due to the devaluation of the pensioners' status in the years of Conservative government?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There has been a devaluation not only of the pensioners' status but of their income. That is why we gave priority, and will continue to give priority, to effective cash increases in the pension. The contrast is there to be seen. The large increase we gave in July still represents a real increase of 10 per cent. in terms of the October price level, whereas the value of the increase by our predecessors in October 1973 had disappeared at the end of four months.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the steps she intends to take to provide complete insurance cover for all nursing and other personnel within the National Health Service in the course of their employment.

The existing arrangements for paid sick leave and payment of injury benefits to National Health Service staff apply to cases of personal injury occurring in the course of employment. Third party claims are normally met by NHS employing authorities which may be held to be vicariously liable for the negligence—other than criminal negligence—of their employees in the course of the employment. Such claims are met from voted moneys and no insurance arrangements are necessary.

I am not sure what that answer means. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the promise made by the late Dick Crossman a few years ago about the coverage of nurses involved in accidents while travelling in ambulances, for instance, will be honoured? They were not covered, and a specific case was raised at that time by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Price). The unions are very concerned that in such circumstances the young people in question should be covered within the health service.

I can well understand my hon. Friend's saying that he could not understand the answer. I must confess that I had considerable difficulty in understanding his Question. I would not want to be held responsible for any promise made by Mr. Richard Crossman at any time throughout his life. The best way of dealing with the matter is for my hon. Friend to put down a Question dealing with the specific point or to write to me, or he might prefer to come to see me about it.

If my hon. Friend the Minister wants to understand the problem, will he consider seeing the leaders of the various organisations representing the staff, such as the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which will be able to explain the problem in detail? They will no doubt also be able to advise my hon. Friend what legislation he should introduce to cover the problem now facing the nursing and auxiliary staffs in the health service.

I am aware of the problem. My difficulty was in understanding the wording of the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I am prepared at all times to meet representatives of those employed in the health service on this or any other issue that worries them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she has any early plans to improve the services for the mentally handicapped; and whether she will publish such plans.

I have recently issued guidelines to local authorities for their capital planning for the financial years 1975/76–1977/78. I had hoped to make a more comprehensive statement about mental handicap services around the end of the year, but it may now take a little longer.

Do I correctly understand from my hon. Friend that one of the inhibiting factors is the lack of resources available to the Department? Does he consider that it might be useful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used her position within the Cabinet to ensure that more resources were allocated from defence to social service provision of the type with which the Question deals?

The question of cost is somewhat wider, but I can say that my right hon. Friend has already used her influence within the past few weeks. An additional £1·5 million has been made available for local authority mentally-handicapped building projects, which will restore about half the cut made in December 1973. We have also stressed in the guidance to local authorities that we attach considerable importance to trying to achieve the target figures set out in "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped".

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to amend the Fire Precautions Act so that adequate access to public buildings is provided for disabled persons.

Amendment of the Fire Precautions Act would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am concerned to promote the fullest possible access for disabled people to public and social buildings. I understand that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for the Environment have this question of access to public buildings under active consideration at present. They are keeping me in close touch with developments.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that there are grave anomalies, for example where disabled people have to be removed from wheelchairs in cinemas or theatres and put into seats and are not allowed to remain in their wheelchairs in the gangways? Is he also aware that other disabled people are not allowed to use the lifts by themselves in concert halls and other public buildings when for years they have been accustomed to using the lifts? Will he press the Home Secretary to relax the strict interpretation of the rules under the Fire Precautions Act to allow disabled people to continue to have increasing access to public buildings?

I shall do everything possible to help. There was a meeting on access yesterday between officials of the Department of the Environment and of the Central Council for the Disabled. This followed a meeting in July. The Department is also consulting the Central Council for the Disabled on the draft of a design code on means of escape from fire for buildings not covered by the existing Building Regulations, and I have asked to be kept closely in touch with the outcome of the discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice she has received from her special advisers on the early detection of breast cancer as to the viability of a screening programme for women at risk using the new diagnostic techniques which are now available; and if she will make a statement.

I have not yet received the report of the joint working group set up by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to advise on screening for breast cancer. I have promised my hon. Friend that I will keep her informed of the conclusions we reach.

Is it not unfortunate that the Department's special adviser should make such a pessimistic broadcast just at the time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is preparing a White Paper on preventive medicine? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the views of those who are pressing for more early diagnostic clinics with up-to-date techniques for all women at risk will equally be taken into account in the White Paper when it is published?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are hoping to produce a consultative document on all aspects of preventive medicine some time next year and we will be looking at this matter, but I hope to make a statement on the specific problem of breast screening rather earlier than that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her Department's definition of cohabitation as it affects social benefits.

What has to be decided is whether the relationship between a man and a woman who live together is such that they are to be regarded as living as man and wife.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the application of this rule is causing great bitterness and hardship in many cases? Can he make clear to social security staff that their only concern is whether there is financial support between one person and the other and that the personal and emotional relationships between two people are no business of theirs at all?

I am aware of the concern which exists in some quarters regarding the cohabitation rule. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred the whole question of the cohabitation rule to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which is now considering it.

Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that all documents giving advice to officials in DHSS offices regarding the criteria they should use in arbitrating on this matter will be published? Surely no secrecy is justified in this matter.

There is no secret about what the criteria are. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has published in its handbook some of the major considerations which are taken into account when a decision has to be made on the cohabitation rule. What I think the House would regard as significant and helpful is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not only understood and listened to the complaints made about the cohabitation rule, both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, but has acted on the matter and has referred the question for detailed and thorough examination by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has gone on in this House for far too long and that common sense tells us that this is an irritant? Is it not the case that the rule does not apply the other way round to men? Cannot he give an assurance, in spite of the fact that this matter has been referred to the Supplementary Benefits Commission that there is determination by his Department to get rid of this obnoxious scheme as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been concern in the House for some years about the operation of the cohabitation rule, but until my right hon. Friend became Secretary of State nothing was done about it. The present Government have acted and have referred the whole matter to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I am sure that the whole House will accept that it would clearly be foolish to come to any conclusions before we have the detailed report of the commission's consideration of the matter.

While that reference is taking place, are not the Government prepared to act on the recommendations of the Finer Committee, following on those of the Fisher Committee, to the effect that where a woman has been drawing benefit for an established period and denies the facts upon which it is to be withdrawn, the benefit should remain in payment until the matter has been considered by a tribunal?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made a statement about the Finer Committee. No doubt the House will return to that at some future date. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is sensible that the whole question of the cohabitation rule should be considered when we have the detailed report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement on the progress made so far with the Supplementary Benefits Commission's experimental exercise in issuing to some new claimants for supplementary benefit a precise statement of how their benefit is calculated.

The experiment began in 19 offices on 9th October and is expected to continue for about six months.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many supplementary benefit claimants have no idea how their benefit is calculated and accordingly have the impression that it is fixed arbitrarily? Does he realise that this is one of the major reasons for the feeling of grievance and suspicion which many claimants have towards the system? Will he therefore apply to all claimants as soon as practicable the lessons to be learned from the pilot scheme?

This is the reason why the pilot scheme is under way. It is important that we deal with this matter in the way my hon. Friend suggests, and it is desperately important that whatever we do we make the forms issued to claimants clearly understandable to them, otherwise we are no better off.

Since the scheme can apply only to a sample number of claimants, will my hon. Friend consider publishing the A Code so that all claimants can work out their entitlement to benefit and Members of Parliament can better advise them? Does he appreciate that if legal aid is extended to the appeals tribunals, as recommended by the Law Society, solicitors will not for long tolerate a situation in which the principles on which Supplementary Benefits Commission officers exercise their discretion remain secret?

With due respect to my hon. Friend, his supplementary question is not related to the investigation now taking place as referred to in the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the aggregate cost to public funds of supplementary benefit paid to those involved in industrial disputes up to the latest date for which figures are available, expressed at an annual rate; and what were the corresponding figures for each of the last 10 years.

Up to 26th November 1974, a provisional total of £4,862,275 had been paid out this year in supplementary benefit during trade disputes. It will be misleading to express figures for less than a full year as an annual rate. With permission, I will circulate the rest of the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does the Minister recall telling me on 21st November in this House that men on strike had never received benefit on their own behalf? Does he not agree that single men often receive benefits on their own behalf when they are on strike and that because rent and hire-purchase payments are paid to married men they also can be said to receive payments? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the House and the country should be properly informed on this subject?

Certainly there is full information available, because hon. Members, including one hon. Gentleman who has since lost his seat, have asked Questions on this subject since 1966. The purpose of almost all the Questions has been a desire to use the withdrawal of supplementary benefit as a weapon against men on strike through starving their wives and children.

Will my hon. Friend remember too that many single women who are laid off as a result of industrial disputes in which they have not participated find great difficulty in obtaining any money by way of supplementary benefit? Will he do something to alter the rules to enable women in this situa- tion to withstand the financial burdens which they then have to bear?

I understand the concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friends over a numbers of years about the operation of this provision and its application indirectly to the payment of supplementary benefit. In recognising the problem which my hon. and learned Friend has put forward, all I can say is that we are considering improvements in the overall level of social security payments against a background of severe public expenditure restraint. All of these items will therefore have to be put into a proper list of priorities for possible action at some time in future.

Leaving on one side the question of the miners' strike, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm that benefit is payable under this system to, for example, the dustmen in London who are now on strike in protest against the simple fact that some of their colleagues are facing charges under the law? Does he not recognise that the continuation of this system without any willingness on the part of himself and his colleagues even to consider that it gives rise to feelings of injustice on the part of taxpayers and ratepayers is becoming increasingly intolerable?

I can understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanting to forget the miners' strike and the industrial legislation with which he has been concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This is yet another example in the House of the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman has deliberately turned away from and spurned the policies followed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). We are operating the payment of supplementary benefit to strikers under legislation passed through this House when his right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Social Services between 1970 and 1974. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any complaints, he should be complaining about that legislation and not the operations of the present Government.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in her consideration of the policy of phasing out private beds from the National Health Service, if she will consider the merits of an annual tax refund for those patients who do not use or choose to use the National Health Service.

No, Sir. In my view this would be neither right nor practicable.

Will the right hon. Lady consider allowing the patient who chooses to take medical treatment in private hospitals to use some of the expensive specialist equipment found in National Health Service hospitals? Will these patients be allowed to use such equipment quite freely?

I am sorry if I have not understood the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that it was not a purely private defect of my own. It is a fundamental principle of the National Health Service that its services are available to all in this country who need them. Many patients who seek private treatment for some purposes none the less rely totally on the health service for other purposes, such as accident situations, emergencies or long-term and more profound problems. Therefore, since the service has to be financed out of taxation, it is only right that everybody should contribute.

Will not my right hon. Friend accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion gladly, provided that all pri- vate patients pay a considerable levy towards the training under the State system of doctors who treat them as private patients? Would not this continue to ensure that the private sector contributes to the amount of subsidy it gets from the National Health Service?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that private patients get a very good deal from the National Health Service since they do not pay any levy towards the benefits they enjoy. They continue to receive the best of both worlds. That is why we think something should be done about it.

When the right hon. Lady considers the number of wards which are closed and the facilities not available because of a shortage of staff, and when she reflects on the possible dangers to mothers as a result of the premature inducement of birth because staff cannot be persuaded to provide 24-hour cover for maternity units, does she think that this is the right moment to starve the hospital budget of the £30 million contributed from the private side?

I certainly think that this is the right moment for us to proceed under a phased programme, which we are now negotiating, to make available to National Health Service patients the beds currently earmarked for private patients in the NHS. The occupancy rate of these is well below what it ought to be if we are to get the full use of resources which we need.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations she has had with the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the abolition of the wage stop rule; and if she will make a statement.

In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on 19th November—[Vol. 881, c. 373]—it was explained that my right hon. Friend would keep this suggestion under consideration. At present she has no statement to make. My right hon. Friend is, however, in close touch with the Supplementary Benefits Commission on this as on other matters concerning supplementary benefits.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that faint gleam of hope. In carrying out this consultation with the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will my hon. Friend convey to it the reply he gave to a recent Question of mine which showed that the great majority of those who were wage stopped had been unemployed for more than a year? How does my hon. Friend justify the existence of a rule which notoriously discriminates against the long-term unemployed, the disabled and those who have large families when they are precisely the groups which the Department ought to try to help most?

I will ensure that the point made by my hon. Friend is conveyed to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I realise that the subject of the wage stop is one of the irritants to which many hon. Members have referred on numerous occasions. When we consider this matter we ought to be considering it as part of the general problem associated with low wages and family support.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations she has received from the College of Speech Therapists about the implementation of the Quirk Report; and what reply she has sent.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) on 3rd December.—[Vol. 882, c. 418.]

Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that he could be a bit more communicative to the House, in all corners of which there is deep concern about this question? Does he not recognise that it has been bad enough to have a serious shortage of speech therapists but that the administrative delay in obtaining the organisation of speech therapists through the appointment of area speech therapists is making matters worse? Can he act more quickly?

My reply of 3rd September was communicative. My right hon. Friend wrote at great length to the college on 26th November. I understand the hon. Member's insistence about urgency. We shall move as rapidly as we can.

Will my hon. Friend accept that my hon. Friends and I are very well satisfied with the efforts made by his Department and himself to increase the number of speech therapists? Will he bear in mind that there are still a good many young children waiting for speech training and that once we can get them trained they will be able to earn their living rather than be a burden on the State? Will he push matters as hard as he can to make sure that we have more speech therapists?

Yes, Sir. The Quirk Report envisaged a near trebling of the number of speech therapists in addition to the recruitment of a large number of aides to assist those therapists in their work. I am extremely conscious of the point made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what new categories of adult patients are now admitted to Calderstones Hospital, Whalley, Lancashire; and what categories are allowed outside the hospital unsupervised.

No new categories of patients are being admitted. Patients are allowed outside the hospital unsupervised only at the discretion of the responsible medical officer. I will, of course, be prepared to look at any individual case which may be causing concern to the hon. Member.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I must bring to his notice the local situation and ask whether he is aware that in the last 12 months there has been an increase in the number of incidents of vandalism, indecency and trespass which, were it not for the tolerance of the local population, might well have become matters for the courts and the police.

I recognise that these hospitals sometimes put strains on local communities, but broadly speaking there are good relationships between the local community and the hospital. I will look at the specific incidents mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what examination she has made of the number of mentally and physically handicapped people who did not qualify for a £10 Christmas bonus in 1974, evidence of which had been supplied to her by the hon. Member for Cannock; what steps she was taking to ensure that all disabled people received this 1974 Christmas bonus; and if she will make a statement.

Disabled people who received one of the qualifying benefits for the relevant week were entitled to the Christmas bonus. I will write to my hon. Friend about the individual case he has brought to my attention.

Although all Government supporters believe that the extension of the £10 bonus is a compassionate step, does not my right hon. Friend agree that many thousands of disabled persons, including the one about whom I wrote to her, have been confused, as hon. and right hon. Members undoubtedly have been, by the advertisement? Those disabled people felt that they qualified for the bonus and were bitterly disappointed to find that they did not. Will my right hon. Friend, even at this eleventh hour, extend the bonus to all categories of disabled people?

It was always made clear, in our manifesto and during the election and in the Department's advertisements, that the bonus was to be applied to a list of qualifying benefits, including the invalidity pension and the attendance allowance. In the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention the difficulty is that the person concerned is dependent on supplementary benefit. There would be great difficulties in extending the bonus to supplementary beneficiaries. If we were to extend the coverage to long-term supplementary beneficiaries who qualify for the long-term scale rate, our local officers would have to scrutinise nearly a million individual cases, and this would impose an enormous burden in terms of administrative time, extra staff and administrative cost. If the non-contributory invalidity pension for which we are legislating this Session had been in operation by this Christmas the person to whom my hon. Friend has drawn my attention would in all probability have been receiving a qualifying benefit and would, therefore, have been entitled to the bonus. That shows how important it is to give disabled people, who at present depend on supplementary benefit, a benefit as of right. That is the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the additional total sum which will be raised from married women by the increase in contributions from 0·6 per cent. to 2 per cent. in the "married women's option" contained in the Social Security Amendment Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much extra money it is estimated will be raised in 1975–76 from the higher national insurance rates proposed in the Social Security Amendment Bill; and what the estimated increase in the Exchequer contribution will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much extra money it is estimated will be raised in 1975–76 from the alterations in the national insurance rates for employees proposed in the Social Security Amendment Bill.

Since the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It shows that the additional income of £610 million in 1975–76 includes £47 million from opted-out married women, £83 million from other employees and £21 million from the self-employed.

Does the Minister realise that three out of four married women who exercise the option will regard the payment of an additional £47 million as a great hardship? Does he recall admitting that with the present high rate of inflation the income earned by women is no longer merely a pleasant extra bit of money but is an essential part of the family budget? In these days of inflation women want to maximise their earnings and not pay £47 million for the benefit of the National Insurance Scheme.

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is too often wrong, and she is again wrong this afternoon. I think that married women will be pleased that as a result of the structure which begins to operate from April 1975 they will not be paying more. A married woman with an income of £46 a week, if she is not contracted out, will have a decrease of £1·18 on her national insurance contributions, and if she is contracted out she will have a decrease of 80p. The generality of married women will be paying far less as from April 1975. I do not see how the Opposition can make that into an increase.

Notwithstanding his remarks about married women, will the hon. Gentleman please look again at the position of the self-employed, who are getting a raw deal? Now that the other place has given the Government a chance to reflect upon the enormity of this imposition, will they at long last see sense and do something?

If it were true—we do not accept that it is—that the self-employed are getting a raw deal, it is a raw deal under the structure which the Government inherited from the previous administration. We have reduced in real terms the contributions which at least one-third and perhaps up to one-half of the self-employed will pay as from April 1975 compared with the proposals put forward under the Social Security Act 1973.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an early official visit to the West Midlands.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister, before he comes to the West Midlands, to look at paragraph 151 of the report published last week by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and thereafter come to my constituency of Perry Barr, where he will see the appalling conditions under which my constituents live as a result of motorway noise, which the commission forecasts will apply by 1980 to half the population of the country?

I know of my hon. Friend's great concern about this matter. He has raised it four or five times since he came to the House in February. Five thousand houses affected by the M6 and the M5 have been identified as being eligible for insulation. The contracts for those houses are being let as quickly as possible. In addition the noise barriers at Perry Beeches are being extended, and other barriers are being provided at suitable places. I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the paragraph in the Royal Commission's report mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Will the Leader of the House undertake that before visiting the West Midlands the Prime Minister will study the report which has recently been published by the West Midlands County Council entitled "A Time for Action"? The report expresses great concern about future economic trends in the city area and asks that the present over-dependence upon metal-using industries shall not be made worse by further use of centralised controls leading to a deterioration in the employment situation in this densely populated metropolitan county.

Certainly, I shall refer the report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC and CBI.

I have been asked to reply.

The TUC is asked to campaign for many people, including the Shrewsbury pickets, but my purpose in raising the Question today is to request my right hon. Friend to ask the Prime Minister next time he sees the TUC to urge it to campaign for disabled people. It is time that disabled people were made part of the social contract. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to take up with the TUC the welfare of disabled people, which is a major consideration in carrying out the social contract?

My hon. Friend is pushing at an open door. Disabled people are a very important part of the social contract. The social contract is concerned with all people who are unable to work or whose ability to work is impaired because of age, youth and disability. Certainly the social contract is concerned with those people, and that is why the Government have paid so much attention to them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister, when he returns, to consult him so that he may prompt the Prime Minister to make sure that when he discusses matters with the TUC he does not discuss matters which are the proper concern of this House to decide and not for the TUC to decide?

There is always the closest liaison between the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend advise the Prime Minister, when later this week he discusses with the TUC the subject of the Shrewsbury pickets, to bear in mind that there are strong feelings on the Labour benches on this matter?

I realise that there are strong feelings on this matter. The Prime Minister has agreed to see the TUC to discuss the Shrewsbury pickets because the matter is no longer sub judice. My right hon. Friend has made it clear from the start, and he has made it clear to the TUC, that this is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary. What advice he gives on prerogative is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary alone and is not a matter for the collective decision of Ministers.

Since, during the nine months the Labour Government have been in office, under the social contract the rate of price inflation has got worse and not better, the rate of wage inflation has got worse and not better, the number of days lost through strikes has got worse and not better, and the level of employment has got worse and not better, when will the Government introduce an effective economic policy, and what will it be?

The Government have got an effective economic policy. It is an economic policy which requires the support of everybody in the country, including the Leader of the Opposition.

If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce the economic policy which we propose, we would gladly support him.

If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get the country out of its difficulties, he would put his shoulder behind the social contract and not knock it.

Without dissenting from the right hon. Gentleman's view about the relationship of the Home Secretary with the exercise of the prerogative in the matter of the Shrewsbury pickets, may we take it that the Home Secretary's reply of 13 th November will represent the Government's view when the Prime Minister meets the TUC?

As I said, this is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister has agreed to see the TUC on this matter because these are trade unionists in gaol.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland to co-ordinate British and Irish action against terrorism.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the approval of both sides of the House at the decision of the Irish Government to seek powers for their own courts to try offenders for terrorist offences which take place in the United Kingdom? Will he inform the House what success the Government have been having in their representations to the Irish Government to extend the scope of these provisions to include major terrorist activities such as hijacking or murder committed within the United Kingdom?

I cannot say anything about the latter part of the supplementary question, but the Dail has already introduced legislation on this matter and reciprocal legislation will be introduced in this House before Christmas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of internment in Northern Ireland, started by the Conservative Government, apparently with the acquiescence of the then Opposition, has been an unmitigated disaster since it provides a breeding ground for terrorists? Does he not agree that the sooner we have a Bill of Rights for the people of Northern Ireland, the better we shall be able to break the polarisation caused by that policy and its disastrous consequences?

There are different views on many of these matters. We have a great many debates on Irish matters on orders coming up before Parliament, and the sort of matter my hon. Friend mentions can be discussed on those occasions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the evidence which he intends to give to the Royal Commission on the Press.

I have been asked to reply.

Since, however, the Lord President is answering Questions today, and since of late he has been much more understanding and flexible towards the needs of the House, will he convey that new-found flexibility to the Prime Minister and suggest to him that he should end the tailk of a smear campaign in the Press against the Prime Minister by persuading him to publish any evidence which he possesses—in other words, that he should stop his smear campaign against the Press?

The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that he believes that the appropriate way to deal with this matter is to submit his evidence to the Royal Commission. I shall be submitting mine as well.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on economic matters on 23rd November at Bromsgrove represents Government policy.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend read any of the dull, stereotyped speeches made recently by the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Does he not think that the Secretary of State would be a little better occupied it he used his time to build more schools and to replace slum schools, such as those at Whitwell in my constituency? Before the Prime Minister meets the TUC to discuss the question of the Shrewsbury pickets, might it not be advisable for him to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for a clearance certificate?

In so far as my right hon. Friend's speeches are concerned with purely domestic affairs in the Labour Party, no question of Government policy arises. With regard to the parts of my right hon. Friend's speeches which relate to Government policy, those speeches represent Government policy.

Will the Leader of the House clearly say that he endorses the views which the Secretary of State for Education and Science expressed with such courage on the issue of the Shrewsbury pickets?

I have already answered questions about the Shrewsbury pickets.

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

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

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to explain to the British people how, despite the fact that by 1980 Britain as a nation will be self-sufficient in energy terms, none the less Britain's share of the EEC's gross national product will have declined relative to that of our partners to a level of 14 per cent. under a Labour Government?

It is much too early to estimate that yet.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister's atten- tion to the growing concern among large sections of the British public about the increasing number of forays by people from Brussels, obviously at a considerable cost in money terms and other resources, seeking to brainwash the British public on the need to remain in the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend make representations on this matter?

I am sure that the British public, after having endured the British Press for so long, are much too mature to be brainwashed by anybody in Brussels.

As the Leader of the House frankly said that it is much too early yet to calculate the percentage of United Kingdom GNP in 1980 compared with that of other Community members, may we be told on what basis all the negotiations in relation to the contribution to the European budget in 1980 are being carried out?

The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well the terms on which we are renegotiating. We have spelt them out time and again, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt them out on Saturday. Does not the Leader of the Opposition agree that it is a pity that he did not insist on those terms when he had responsibility for these matters?

Will the British Government be raising with our NATO allies the serious charges made today about the waste of money and manpower within NATO arising from duplication of weapons and equipment?

I imagine that that matter will not be raised today at the meeting in Paris.

Regarding the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has just given to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask whether he is aware that the Foreign Secretary gave the figure of 14 per cent. earlier this year? Is he now repudiating that estimate?

I also recall something said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech about extrapolating trends from a hardly known past through a partly known present to an unknown future. That is what is happening in this instance.

As a result of the Lord President's answer to Question No. 2 to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to discuss a specific matter of public importance that should have urgent consideration; namely,

"the decision of the Prime Minister to meet the TUC to discuss the question of the Shrewsbury pickets ".

Obviously, the request is made at very short notice and without notice to me, but it does not come anywhere near getting within the terms of Standing Order No. 9. My answer is "No".