asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she now expects to receive Professor Bell's report on the operation of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals.

My right hon. Friend received it on 26th June and it is now being studied. We are very grateful to Professor Bell for her report.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that publication of the Bell Report is eagerly awaited by all those interested in the operation of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals? Does he accept that many of us hope and expect the report to recommend the introduction of a second-tier appeal authority, which would do much to improve the general standard and consistency of tribunals? Will he give an assurance that if the report makes such a recommendation the Government will act on it speedily?

The report is a research study in four volumes and much of the material is confidential. I hope to arrange, with Professor Bell's agreement, for a summary of her findings and recommendations to be published as soon as it can be arranged. On my hon. Friend's second point, we shall certainly consider very carefully any recommendation Professor Bell has made and the evidence underlying it. The Government will certainly not waste any time in considering these matters carefully and coming to a conclusion on the report.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement on the short-term risk to the health service to which she referred in her circular requesting regional and area health authorities to take steps as a matter of urgency to reduce and, where practicable, eliminate the use of nurses' agencies by the National Health Service.

There may be places where it does not prove possible immediately to replace agency nurses by a similar number of directly employed staff—many of whom, I hope, will be recruited from the agencies. We shall be better able to assess the risk when we have received the detailed plans of the health authorities.

As the Secretary of State on her own admission is deliberately creating a new risk for the care of patients, is it reasonable to close nursing agencies at a time when nursing standards are falling and when more than 11,000 beds are empty because of a shortage of nurses? Is she aware that most people will regard this action as unfeeling and medically irresponsible?

It has been the policy of successive Governments to try to remove our dependence on agency nurses and it is a question of balance. The situation in the Thames area, where more than 20 per cent. of the nursing staff comes from agencies, is not one which guarantees a good standard of care for patients in the National Health Service.

Is the Minister aware that we are likely to lose many women from nursing? Has he any proposals to stop nurses in agencies leaving the profession altogether as they have done on occasions in the past?

One way to meet this difficulty is to introduce flexibility of hours as far as possible within the NHS. We envisage the creation of nurse banks on a much wider scale and are trying to provide these flexible hours, but we must strike a balance with those who have to provide the service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her policy on dentists outside the health service using health centre facilities for the treatment of private patients.

As the hon. Member will recall from my reply to his Question on 16th June—[Vol. 893, c. 374]—a small element of private practice in health centres is allowed only to general dental practitioners engaged almost exclusively in providing NHS general dental services in those health centres.

I am grateful for that answer, but does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a community in my constituency without a dentist but with a fully equipped surgery? Is he aware that a private dentist is prepared to undertake dental practice? May I ask the Minister to budge from his ludicrous stand for the sake of my constituents and to allow a man who is willing to do work which must be done to get on and do it?

Health centres are provided by public funds. If there was a complete ban on private practice the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "ludicrous" would not be unreasonable, but we do not have that situation. We say that the majority of the needs of the NHS should be met first and that private practice should be a smaller element. There is no change of policy in this matter. We are following what has been done in previous years.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on her policy for licensing private hospitals and nursing homes.

Not yet, Sir. I am at present preparing for the consultations I undertook to initiate with those most directly concerned.

As regards the licensing of private hospitals, will the Secretary of State's criterion be the test of quantity as well as quality? If so, will she admit that this is yet another example of a Socialist Government taking away freedom from the individual?

As I said in my statement to the House on this matter, it is the Government's intention to consider the extent and scope as well as the quality of these facilities. I am not in a position to give any further details because, as I told the House, it is right that we should have consultations with the profession at a formative stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a further statement on her plans to abolish pay beds.

As soon as consultations with those directly affected by the Government's detailed proposals are complete.

Does not the Minister agree that it is rather short-sighted to press ahead with these plans when it appears that spending on the hospital services will be severely curtailed over the next few years? Would it not be wiser to shelve these plans in the meantime, and will the right hon. Lady explain what possible advantage can accrue to the general public from the policy which she is advancing?

I do not accept that there is a conflict here between our policy of phasing pay beds out of the National Health Service and the economic needs of the service. The Conservatives seem consistently to overlook the fact that this policy would make about 3,000 more beds available for the use of NHS patients.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the public would regard the abolition of pay beds as desirable and as something that should be done as rapidly as possible? However, pay beds formed part of the original terms of service negotiated by the late Aneurin Bevan with the medical profession. Will she therefore treat this as a matter for careful negotiation of compensation for those who will be adversely affected?

I accept that this is a matter for careful negotiation, and that is something we have always been willing to do. Our proposals were put in the document of the Owen joint working party many months ago. It was not our fault that the discussions in the working party were brought to an end. We did not end them. I am only too willing to have the consultations which have been asked for, and in those consultations it will be open to those involved to raise any question they wish.

Is the Secretary of State saying that at a time when the Government are insisting upon public expenditure cuts affecting the health service and the social services she will continue with a policy which can serve only to increase public expenditure by millions of pounds? How does she reconcile her policy with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Very easily, because the Government's policy is that it would be impossible and unfair to call upon sections of the population in this country, often the least well paid, to make sacrifices in pay claims at a time when we are having to promote an unequal society. That is something which the Conservatives cannot understand. They believe in wage restraint plus privilege, and we do not.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that virtually every question from the Conservative benches is motivated by keeping wealth and privilege for those with the biggest purses? The answers which my right hon. Friend has given so far are backed not merely by our right hon. and hon. Friends but by the bulk of the British people, who want her to go even further than she has gone in defending the mass of the people.

I agree. There are sections of opinion which would like to go further than our policy seeks to go in merely phasing pay beds out of the National Health Service. Some people would like to see the abolition of private practice altogether, but that is not our policy. Our policy is not abolition but separation. We desire to restore to the National Health Service its basic intention, namely, to give access to its facilities purely on grounds of medical priorities.

Does not the Secretary of State understand that it is not a bit of use having more and more beds if there is no money to enable them to be occupied by people in need? She should by now have made some assessment of how she is to replace the money which private patients have hitherto put into the service, not only in fees but in wills and gifts. Frequently we hear of plans for much-needed improvements being scrapped because of the shortage of money. How does the right hon. Lady align these two points with the fact that she is turning away a great deal of money when there is such a clear need for things to be done?

Obviously, to the extent that we can save on capital expenditure for health service patients there are more resources available for revenue and current expenditure. Until my recent circular there were, in National Health Service hospitals authorised for the use of private patients, some 4,500 beds, many of which have an occupancy rate of about 50 per cent. It is clearly to the advantage of the NHS—an advantage gained very cheaply—if those beds are made available purely on the basis of medical priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on her policy for ensuring that children in families on supplementary benefit are provided with all their requirements in school clothing including physical education and games kit.

Supplementary benefit scale rates are regarded as covering all normal needs including the normal repair and replacement of clothing and footwear. The Supplementary Benefits Commission will consider the award of a lump sum payment for essential items of clothing and footwear where there is an exceptional need but does not provide for distinctive school uniforms, physical education or games kit, in respect of which local education authorities have power to assist.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many applications by families in need in respect of school clothing have been referred from education welfare to supplementary benefit offices where a family is on supplementary benefit? Subsequently applications for games and physical education equipment have been refused. In those circumstances the chil- dren concerned are deprived of the opportunity of being supplied with the necessary physical education and games kit to carry out part of the normal timetable at school. Is not this a scandal which would create very serious difficulties for such children in the sense that they would by comparison be deprived? Will my hon. Friend ensure that instructions are given to the Supplementary Benefits Commission in cases of this sort to ensure that physical education and games equipment is provided?

I accept that there is clearly a degree of confusion about responsibility here, but the responsibility is very much one of the Department of Education and Science. It has responsibilities under the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 to provide necessary clothing and, specifically, clothing for physical recreation and training. It also has powers under the Education Act 1944 to provide for distinctive clothing like school uniform.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she can now give any information as a result of the inquiry into inducement of birth, which was commenced in December 1974.

So far studies have been completed at only five of the eight hospitals to be visited: the delay followed the hospital consultants' dispute. The inquiry should now be completed in the autumn. I shall then also have the results of the pilot survey of attitudes by the Institute for Social Studies in Medical Care.

Will my hon. Friend accept that this is a matter which is causing a great deal of worry to many women and that many of us believe it to be extremely urgent? In view of the delay, will he advise hospitals that the use of this process should not be increased since the birth process is not suitable for more mechanisation and pregnant women are not on the production line? Many of us think that interfering with this process with insufficient knowledge is very reprehensible.

I share the concern of my hon. Friend, which is widespread, particularly among women. I honestly think that I would be wrong to intervene until I have at least received the initial information. However, I shall consider the possibility of issuing guidance in the light of information that we shall receive in the late autumn.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she now has the figures showing the number of local health authorities which provide in-and out-patient facilities for vasectomy operations within the National Health Service; and if she will enumerate those which do not.

All but two of the 90 area health authorities provide facilities, although sometimes on a limited basis. Fifty-two do so wholly or in part through their family planning clinics. With permission, I will circulate in the Official Report details of those without any facilities and of those without facilities in their clinics for vasectomy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that as there are still a number of area health authorities which do not provide these services through out-patient clinics, there are serious waiting lists in many areas? What is the Department proposing to do about that?

Implementation has been delayed because of the need to negotiate a payment structure for this in hospital services with hospital consultants. We are currently doing this and I am hopeful that we shall be able to reach agreement. This should allow an expansion of the hospital-based family planning scheme for vasectomy operations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she can now give an estimate of the extent to which the emigration of doctors is increasing.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she can now quantify the rate at which the emigration of doctors is increasing.

Migration of British doctors is two-way. In recent years about 800 have left in a year, some only temporarily, whilst about 500 return annually. Provisional figures suggest that migration in the year ending 30th September 1974 was similar. More recently, returns of those who say that they intend to emigrate on leaving the National Health Service are suggesting some increase in emigration.

Is not the tragedy of this situation that many of the doctors and consultants who have emigrated or who are considering emigration have worked for many years in the National Health Service and would like to continue? Does not the alarming rate of emigration reflect the crisis of morale within the medical profession? Has not the time come for the right hon. Lady to start listening to the medical profession rather than riding rough-shod over it?

What the hon. Gentleman conveniently overlooks is that I, with the help of my colleagues, gave the medical profession the biggest increase it had had for a long time. We did this under the recent review body procedure. However, when I took over this job I found that morale was indeed very low due to the treatment by the previous Conservative Government of consultants and other people in the medical profession over pay. I have been mending the damaged morale which I inherited.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although many doctors are genuinely concerned about the future of the health service, this old threat of leaving Great Britain and going elsewhere has been going on ever since the service was created? Some members of the medical profession who have carried out their threat have had to appeal to the State to be bailed out and brought back home. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that reports have been circulating today which give members of the medical profession cause for great consternation, because they claim that certain diktats of the EEC may deny members of the medical profession their status? Will my right hon. Friend look into this and, when she thinks it necessary, come to the House and make a statement?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he is quite right that often alarmist reports are spread which exaggerate the situation. There is cause for concern if emigration increases, but there is certainly not a crisis at present. It is also important to remember that the National Health Service does not employ all doctors in the country. The statistics that we have for earlier years suggest that less than half of those emigrating at any one time do so from the National Health Service. I shall certainly consider the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the wholly unnecessary row about the continuation of private practice is adding to the emigration rate?

No, I do not accept that for one moment. One of the problems we face—and we all have to accept this —is that very often doctors and other members of the medical profession are attracted by superior facilities that may be available elsewhere. That is why it is in the interests of all of us to preserve, strengthen and extend the National Health Service.

Will my right hon. Friend recall that the General Secretary of the British Medical Association saw the Common Market as an opportunity for doctors to escape from the sot-called shackles of the National Health Service? However, will she also accept that it is very strange for the Opposition to call on miners, dockers and railwaymen to be patriotic and work for the country but never to apply this doctrine to doctors, whom they seem to be encouraging to leave the country? Will my right hon. Friend ask her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make to the doctors the speech that he has just made to the miners, to encourage them to be patriotic, to stay in this country and to work for the National Health Service?

My hon. Friend has admirably summed up the hypocrisy of Conservative Members.

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that one of the most disturbing features of the emigration of doctors is the increase in the number of consultants who are going abroad? Can she give figures for the number of consultants who have left this country in the past two years, because they are the anchor of the health service in Britain?

No, I cannot without notice give that breakdown. However, I repeat that many of these reports are over-sensationalised. For example, a recent report to the effect that 4,500 British doctors arrived in South Africa in the first three months of 1974 was obviously nonsense, because if it were true the National Health Service would have closed down.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will now introduce legislation to ban cigarette advertising.

There is good evidence that cigarette advertising increases cigarette smoking and it is a fact that cigarettes kill many people each year. The most recent estimate is 50,000 premature deaths per year in Great Britain. The Government have not made any decisions as to whether or not to legislate but they are currently reviewing all the health aspects of cigarette smoking.

Does the hon. Gen-man recall that as long ago as 1967 the Labour Government indicated some willingness to introduce legislation? Does he realise that the longer he delays trying to work out what may well be an ineffective voluntary agreement, the more young people will be induced by advertising to take up smoking and thereby to risk shortening their lives? Does he not recognise that we need rapid action at the very least to deal with the disguised television advertising of cigarettes which is taking place even now?

I have never hidden from the House my view that this is a serious health hazard. Many people hoped that as a result of the discussions and decision in 1967 the industry would reduce its promotional activities and that there would be a reduction in cigarette smoking. We entered into negotiations with the industry in a serious attempt to make a voluntary agreement stick. I have had to write to the industry recently on its most recent response saying that I still think its response is inadequate.

May I urge my hon. Friend to support any move for such legislation and, in view of the increase in alcoholism among young people, to include prohibition of advertisements for alcoholic drinks, particularly as—

Order. The Question refers to cigarette advertising. I do not think that it is right to bring alcohol into it.

All aspects of preventive health are important. As my hon. Friend may know, the Government will produce a consultative paper on this subject which will cover not only cigarette smoking but also some other health hazards.

Although not dissenting in any way from the Minister's views on the health hazards concerned, may I ask whether he does not agree that there have been some rather curious results in countries which have imposed a total ban on cigarette advertising and that this matter needs to be examined seriously? In countries where there has been a total ban on cigarette advertising, there has been a paradoxical effect—an increase, not a decrease, in smoking. Will the Minister look into this?

This only emphasises the necessity to tackle this problem across a broad range of policies. It involves not only advertising but other aspects of promotion and also—most important of all—a positive message to help people to give up the smoking habit. We need to recognise it is an addiction and that a purely censorious attitude is not sufficient. There is a big job for health education. A whole series of measures needs to be examined.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that far from the advertising of cigarettes decreasing in the last few years, it has actually increased with the sponsoring of sporting activities by the cigarette companies, which reaches into millions of homes every day of the week? Will he take up this matter with the sporting authorities?

This is obvously one aspect of the problem and a most serious abuse, which I have publicly mentioned. It raises the question of how a ban on television advertising can be overcome by using a sporting occasion—particularly, perhaps, the application of this in motor racing.

Will the Minister lay before the House the results of any research which the Department has done showing what has been achieved so far by way of reducing cigarette smoking as a result of warning notices and the steps which have been taken? Does he not agree that before we rush ahead into even more drastic measures we should be assured that we are doing some actual good to public health, bearing in mind the damage that might be done to newspapers and the few remaining cinemas, and the importance of the loss of sponsorship to popular sport, such as cricket, tennis and motor racing, to which he has referred?

I am disappointed if that is the official Opposition's view on the subject. When the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was responsible for these matters, he took a very serious view of the health hazard of cigarette smoking and spent a great deal of time and effort doing his utmost to try to convince the industry of the need to have a voluntary agreement. I shall gladly put before the House any information on this matter, including the paper by McGuinness and Cowling of Warwick University. There are a number of other areas. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the views of the Health Education Council, which is constantly calling for stronger measures.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will publish the text of the letter sent recently by the Chief Medical Officer to the Department of Health to regional medical officers concerning the appointment of doctors who will not undertake abortion operations.

A copy has been placed in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that though the wording of the letter is extremely ambiguous, its meaning is perfectly clear—that doctors who object to carrying out abortion operations will not be appointed to hospital positions? How does this square with the conscience clause in the 1967 Act? Is it not the fact that even when the country faces possible extinction in a war, conscientious objectors are, quite rightly, not forced to fight? How, then, can it be right that young obstetricians have to choose between a job and their conscience?

I am advised that there is no conflict. Section 4 of the Abortion Act ensures that an individual who has conscientious objections to abortion may not be compelled to take part in abortion operations, except in cases of medical emergency. It is not any breach of this for the Chief Medical Officer to give advice relating to selection procedures with a view to ensuring, where appropriate, the provision of a service with relation to termination of pregnancy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned not only to safeguard the rights of doctors who have conscientious objections to performing abortions but also to safeguard the rights of women entitled to an abortion under the 1967 Act to equal facilities, wherever they live in the country? Is he aware that we greatly welcome any steps taken by the Department to improve this service nationally?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a responsibility for the nation and particularly in those areas in which it is extremely difficult to achieve abortion. We also have a responsibility to doctors to respect their conscience clause. I think that the two can be married together, and it was an attempt sensibly to do this that resulted in discussions with the medical profession, when the Chief Medical Officer sent out the letter that he did in February.

Is it not a fact that members of the medical profession have been prejudiced and are being prejudiced in their careers because of these conscientious objections, which I fully accept the Government wish to retain?

It is a very difficult question of balance. What we are dealing with here is the question of the selection procedures. It is invidious for a consultant to be questioned on his particular religious views. There is also an obligation on the health service, in some areas in which consultants are not ready to undertake termination and who are already using the conscience clause objection—which I can perfectly well understand—to try to ensure that the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) is met: that there are some facilities available for women who wish to take advantage of the Act.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a matter of very great concern, which was reported on by the Lane Committee, and that where doctors claim the protection of the conscience clause in the Act they should also be required to refer their patients, upon whom they are not willing to operate, to doctors who do not have the same conscience objections as they have?

That would be normal good practice. If any doctor, because of conscience objections, felt unable to use the Act, he or she would wish to refer the patient to another doctor. The problem that exists in some areas is that there are no doctors who are willing to undertake operations under the Abortion Act. That is the biggest problem we face.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will consider overhauling the grading arrangements of staff within the school health service.

This is a matter in the first instance for the appropriate negotiating bodies.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, and does he not agree, that discrimination among members of the staff of the National Health Service who have identical qualifications must be wrong, and that the situation of nurses within the school nurse service is not merely anomalous but is wholly unjust? Ought he not to undertake a full investigation into this situation, which is not merely causing irritation and annoyance but could also prove deleterious to that aspect of the service?

I recognise the truth of what my hon. Friend has said about the effect of the Halsbury decision. The problem has arisen simply because in simplify- ing the pay structure Halsbury placed the school nurse without the health visitor certificate along with others of the same qualification rather than upgrading her, as with the school nurse and others with the health certificate who had been placed at the higher level of nursing sister first grade. My hon. Friend is quite right that the gap has widened considerably as a result of this and this has led to a great deal of unrest. We recognise that. We are certainly considering further representations made to us on this point by the staff side. Without prejudice to the conclusions of that consideration, my right hon. Friend will be writing to the staff side shortly.

While the Minister is looking at the grading arrangements for school nurses, perhaps he would also take a look at the grading arrangements for tuberculosis nurses in chest clinics. Is he aware that discrimination is exactly the same there as it is in the school nurse service?

Yes, I am aware that they are a group. There are five, I think, and that is the second one where probably there are grounds for further consideration. I appreciate that when most of them received their qualifications the health visitor certificate had not been introduced. It was introduced afterwards, in 1962. There are grounds for reconsideration of that matter.

Is the Minister aware that the Whitley machinery is not proving satisfactory for resolving this problem, and that many nurses with a great many years of experience and skill are now finding themselves not only reduced in their relative salaries but very much reduced in their status?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that there are any nurses who, as a result of the Halsbury recommendations, will find themselves on a lower salary. We are talking about the widening of certain relativities in the grading structure which improves the situation for almost all those within it. Let me make it quite clear that Halsbury received full representations from both the management and the staff side and that when the committee's initial recommendation was made and the Whitley Council agreed to accept it, when the staff side made further representations the committee declined, in the supplement to the report, to accept the new representations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied that doctors who retire at an early date from the Armed Services or from industry and with the aid of the resultant pension are anxious to obtain a practice with less than the normal number of patients, have their particular needs sufficiently taken into account by the Medical Practices Committee and the family practitioner committees.

Generally speaking, such doctors would apply not for single-handed practices but for appointments as part-time partners, locums or assistants. The selection of doctors for such appointments is a matter not for the Medical Practices Committee and family practitioner committees but for the existing doctors of the practice.

Is the Minister aware that the two committees seem only anxious to allow practices to remain independent if the number of patients amounts to 2,500 or 3,000, and that as a result the skills of many doctors who have perhaps retired from the Services or from industry at an early stage with a pension, and who would be quite happy with a practice much smaller than the size to which I have referred—for example, a practice of 1,000 patients—are being lost to the nation? Will the Minister look into this matter?

I shall gladly look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest indication of the amount of secure accommodation being made available for children in care.

In March this year there was a total of 193 secure places in the community home system and 25 in my Department's youth treatment centre at Brentwood. There are 586 additional places planned. Provisional approval is being given in the revised local authority capital programme for 1975–76 for 106 places in community home schemes. We shall start building 40 youth treatment centre places later this year. The decision to take powers in the Children Bill to give direct grants for secure accommodation should help local authorities for future years.

Would the Minister care to comment upon the inability of the Stockport local authority to contain a young boy in the accommodation provided, which has now resulted in his being detained in a prison situation, and upon the situation which causes local magistrates to express alarm at the inadequate security afforded to protect the public from the rampages of a 13-year-old boy?

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the situation both as regards the particular case that he has mentioned and in general. We have had discussions on this matter in the past and I regret to tell the House that there are far too many children who are still having to be detained in prison awaiting placement. This is a complex and difficult problem. We need more provision, we need more secure accommodation and we need more people prepared to undertake this difficult work. We must recognise that although the age of these children leads one to describe them as children, their physical build and record of violence—this often applies to young adolescent girls—are considerable, which makes them extremely difficult to treat.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that many of the 4,000 children who are juveniles and in prison establishments are not in any sense violent, thugs or mischievous? Many of them are in such establishments as a result of relatively trivial offences. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the children who are in prison as a result of resources not being available from his Department will be sprung very soon by his Department providing more resources than in the past for the building of community homes?

Unfortunately we are entering a period of restrained resources. We have to take account of the priorities of local authorities, but we are taking direct grant powers in the hope of providing more secure accommodation. We recognise the burden that has to be undertaken in this situation. The Home Office and the Department are considering the matter jointly with a view to trying to make greater provision.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children came into the care of local authorities for the three most recent years for which figures are available; and what is the proportion in each year coming into care because of homelessness, lack of day care facilities, poverty, failure of social work, and other reasons.

The number of children who came into the care of local authorities in England and Wales for the year ending 31st March 1974 was 52,700; for 1973, 53,600; and 1972, 53,400. About 5 per cent. of the children come into care each year because of homelessness. Lack of day care facilities, poverty and failure of social work cannot be distinguished as reasons for children coming into care.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far more information regarding the reason for children going into care is needed, and that still far too many children go into care unnecessarily?

A breakdown of the reasons for children going into care is available, but it does not happen to meet the specific criteria to which my hon. Friend has referred. As regards the question of the number of children going into care, local authorities are bound under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 to provide preventive and supportive services to prevent that happening. Last year local authorities were spending £2½ million with that end in view. Obviously we would like to do more to achieve this end, but there is a limit on resources.

Do not the falling birth rate, the shortage of children for adoption and the many abortions currently carried out suggest that the need for the provision of residential care for children by local authorities in future may not be as great as it was in the past?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consideration has been given to changing the situation whereby widows' benefits are taken into account in determining training grants; and if she will make a statement.

As my hon. Friend is aware, there is already provision to pay a widowed mother a training allowance of £3·50 on top of her widow's benefit. This arrangement is kept under regular review. But, as I said in my reply to my hon. Friend on 9th July 1974, I shall be glad to look into any case of particular difficulty which he may have in mind.—[Vol. 876, c. 415–16.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this case originally appeared in a Question on the Order Paper many months ago it was drawn to the attention of his Department? I refer to a widow whose employment grant was reduced fom £14·10 to £3·10 because her widow's pension was taken into account. Is it not unfair that alongside that widow there are highly-paid people who are getting the full amount? Is not that unjust? Is it not about time that we ended this discrimination?

My hon. Friend will understand the long-standing principle that payment out of public funds should not be made twice over for the same need. However, if my hon. Friend has a particular problem such as he described to me for the first time a few moments ago, I shall be pleased to look into it in detail with him.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech on economic affairs by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leicester on 21st June represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's public speech on the economy in Leicester on 21st June 1975 represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on economic policy at Leicester on 21st June 1975 represents Government policy.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is in Edinburgh today in connection with the State visit of the King of Sweden, and in his absence I have been asked to reply.

Is the Lord President aware that that speech was all about wage inflation? Is he further aware that only eight weeks ago the Prime Minister appeared on television and told the nation that in no circumstances short of war would he contemplate introducing statutory wage controls of any kind—I repeat, of any kind? On what date did war break out?

This party also said during the election that the beating of inflation was its top priority. We very much hope to reach agreement on a voluntary policy with the unions and with the CBI over the next few days.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that another statement on a particular sector of the economy was made by my right hon. Friend in this Chamber on 23rd May—namely, a statement on the textile and footwear industries? Does he recall that during that statement and in subsequent questioning the Prime Minister justified the action that he was going to take on the grounds that it would be immediate and relevant? Would my right hon. Friend care to tell the House what is his definition of "immediate and relevant" in view of the fact that there has been no action yet?

I can promise my hon. Friend and the House that there will be a statement, of which I think my hon. Friend will approve, that will contain a package of useful measures for the textile industry in the next few days.

As regards the forthcoming economic package, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what further items from the Socialist programme the Government are prepared to drop in order to achieve the Chancellor's expressed wish that all men of good will in all parties should support the Government?

I very much hope that all men and women of good will will support the Government in the measures that they propose.

I do not accept the argument put forward by Conservative Members, who themselves did a remarkable U-turn in the last period of the Conservative Government, but is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House and in the Labour movement in the country it is not expected that we should carry out a programme for statutory legislation on wages? Does he not accept that other important ideas for combating inflation must be adopted by the Government rather than a policy which, if put into operation, could tear this movement of ours to pieces? I ask my right hon. Friend at this late stage to say to the Prime Minister that he and the Government must think again.

I agree that there must be a battery of measures to combat inflation. We must put across to the people that their employment prospects are threatened by inflation. That must be tackled without delay.

How do the Government intend to make people aware of the need for a little self-discipline now rather than a lot of harsh, imposed discipline later?

Every hon. Member in the House should seek to bring home to people in the country the economic crisis and the problem of inflation. Inflation is a problem for every individual in the country and not merely for the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sense of urgency recently expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been underlined by the OECD figures published today showing that our rate of inflation is second only to that of Iceland. If under the Government's proposals employers are to be enforcement officers for the Government's pay policy, it would surely be as fruitless and unfair to expect the trade unions to be enforcement officers for the Government's pay policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government will be judged on whether they are prepared to take the initiative and are prepared to govern rather than to shuffle it off on to others?

The Government are prepared to govern. We have put forward proposals and we shall see that they are carried out. The Government are resolutely opposed to imposing criminal sanctions against workpeople. The Conservative Government tried that idea and had to call on the Official Solicitor to save them. We do not want a repetition of that fiasco.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with the TUC.

I have been asked to reply.

At the recent meetings with the TUC, did the Government spokesmen react to submissions made by the TUC on rent control, food price control, the question of import surcharges and also action on foreign exchanges in respect of capital movements? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are many in the Parliamentary Labour Party who to some extent are responding to the mood of the Labour Party outside in the country and who will in no circumstances repeat the ill-fated exercise undertaken in 1966–70 and march through the Lobby to endorse interference with free collective bargaining, which we received a mandate to uphold in the last two elections?

The Government will take account of any point put to them by the TUC—indeed we always do so—and we shall discuss such matters at length with the TUC. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait for the White Paper which will be published within a few days. He will then see to what extent we have been able to reach agreement with both sides of industry.

Will the Lord President inform the Prime Minister that the people of Scotland are not prepared to accept a statutory wage policy, because we believe that the gap between the average wage in Scotland compared with England must be closed? Is he aware of the recent statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we need more restraint, and will this not give added impetus to the self-government movement in Scoland? We in Scotland have suffered far too long from low wages.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take account of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Since we in Parliament find it difficult to get any information about what is happening other than what we read in the Press, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that every commitment in the statement by the Chancellor last Tuesday still stands, particularly that which relates to a 10 per cent. pay increase limit and also cash limits as a means of controlling public expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman please say when we may expect the White Paper on this subject?

I cannot give the House the publication date of the White Paper, but we hope that it will be published within a few days. I can confirm that both the 10 per cent. limit and the cash limit proposals remain. It is a pity that the Conservative Government did not impose cash limits when they were in office.

It has taken Labour 16 months to do it.

Will my right hon. Friend stress to the Prime Minister as well as to the Cabinet, the NEDC and the TUC that, unless some better understanding is forthcoming to make sure that the country becomes more viable and productive, the only solution will probably be to see to it that we do not bring back to power the unworthwhile people in the Conservative Party who have failed the nation so often in the past?

Everybody must agree with my hon. Friend that in the last resort we shall solve our problems only by cooperation between the two sides of industry and also the Government.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for the rest of 8th July.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 8th July.

I have been asked to reply.

As the Prime Minister spent yesterday teaching the economic facts of life to the miners, will the Leader of the House try to persuade him to conduct a similar exercise with the Tribune Group tomorrow?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned yesterday and tomorrow, but his Question is about today.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister that the over whelming majority of Labour supporters are behind the Government's efforts to create an effective prices and incomes policy based on consent? Will he further inform my right hon. Friend that they would prefer decisive action this week rather than for the Government to be in a situation where they have to come back to the House for tougher policies in a few months' time?

I am sure my hon. Friend is right, and I know that his remarks will commend themselves not only to the Labour Party but to people of good will throughout the whole country.

Since the Prime Minister is visiting the capital of Scotland, will he use the opportunity to explain to the Scottish people the Government's backsliding in the establishment of a Scottish Assembly? Will he say whether this sliding away from that commitment by the Labour Government flows from the recent report of the Labour Party Research Department to the effect that the Labour Party can expect to lose a substantial number of seats to the SNP?

I am sorry to say this to the hon. Lady, but she and her colleagues in the SNP talk the most awful nonsense. Every time anybody on the Labour benches mentions devolution, we are accused of backsliding. On the question of the Assembly, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office yesterday gave a most categorical assurance. What more can we tell the hon. Lady? If she does not understand English words, I cannot do any more to help her. There is no backsliding.

While the Prime Minister is in Scotland, will he explain to the Scottish people that any proposals which may come in a White Paper will represent a major constitutional change and will have to be carefully considered? I hope he will also explain to the Scottish people the cost of the proposals. Ts it not a fact that estimates of cost are very considerable indeed?

No, Sir, the cost will not be considerable. [Interruption.] I am referring to the cost of devolving to the Scottish Assembly some of the decisions taken here. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that this is a major change in constitutional practice. I agree that the matter must be discussed at great length. There will be a White Paper in the autumn which we shall debate, and the Bill will appear later. I hope that there will be an opportunity for an extended debate in the House and outside. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that there must be the widest discussion of these matters.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an additional Minister to the Department of Employment.

I have been asked to reply.

Obviously the Secretary of State for Employment will need some help if he is to take personal authority for the administration of a statutory incomes policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Department of Employment is fully geared to deal with the massive unemployment which lies ahead because of the Government's failure to act promptly?

On the first point, I do not know what is wrong with the Scottish Members on the other side of the House, but I said earlier that we hope to have a voluntary agreement on incomes. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is premature in talking about operating a statutory policy. As to his second point, I agree that unemployment is far too high, but it has risen much less steeply in this country than in any competitor country.

We are not happy.

The hon. Member says he is not happy about that. I am extremely happy about it. The unemployment figure is far too high, but the differential between regions like Scotland and North. East England has been considerably reduced over the past year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, and does he not agree, that the principle of consultation in industrial relations is to be preferred to the foolhardiness of confrontation? Will he not further agree that the statements made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by Mr. Joe Gormley, the miners' leader, and the great debate that the miners are having must show that "jaw jaw" in industrial relations today is better than "war war"? Is not that the sort of way in which we ought to proceed rather than end up in an industrial war which would damage not only any particular industry but also the entire nation, as happened under the last Tory administration?

Of course, and my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is no way out of our problems in this country except by consent and consensus, and I too would pay tribute to the leadership being shown by so many trade union and CBI leaders at the present time. I refuse to believe that in this great country the two sides of industry and the Government cannot come together to work out a voluntary agreement to get us out of our present difficulties and to reduce our inflation to the level of that of our major competitors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to my hon. Friend was complacent in the extreme and that it is not good enough for the Government to say that our present unemployment levels are lower than those of other countries, when all of us can clearly see that our unemployment figures are going up and those of other countries are going down? In particular, what is he going to do to bring extra help to the thousands of school leavers who will be out of a job this summer and who will be bitterly resenting that they or their parents ever had anything to do with a Labour Government?

My reply to a member of the Front Bench who was a member of a Government who allowed unemployment to rise to 2 million during the three-day working week, and to 1 million before that, is that I am not at all complacent. I said in reply to a question that unemployment is far too high—tragically high—but that the increase has been lower than the increase in most Western industrialised countries. I also said, and I take some pride in the fact, that the differential between the unemployment figure in industrial Scotland and in the North-East of England and some of the other older industrial regions in the United Kingdom has been reduced. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would want to pay tribute to that.

Has the Lord President of the Council read a report in the Daily Express this week about a large number of people allegedly drawing money to which they were not entitled and then transferring the money to IRA funds? Has he any evidence as to the truthfulness of that report? If there is any truth in it, might it not be a good idea to appoint an additional Minister to the Department of Employment, as suggested in the Question, in order to prevent this practice?

I understand that the Department of Health and Social Security has stated that there is no evidence for this at all but that it is inquiring into the facts alleged in the Daily Express. That is all I can say about it at the moment.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement last Tuesday was infinitely preferable to the massive cuts in public expenditure which have been called for quite prominently by the Opposition? If the country really wants to see a voluntary policy accepted by large sections of the trade union movement, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government have to show much more determination on prices and investment, which are equally part of the economic crisis affecting the country?

Yes, Sir, I agree. Certainly the call for massive public expenditure cuts by the Conservative Party is a call for unemployment to solve our inflationary problems. This Government reject unemployment as a weapon to solve inflationary problems, and undoubtedly we shall not use unemployment to solve our inflationary difficulties.

Does the Lord President of the Council agree that a primary function of the trade union movement is to increase wages, and is he not living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he suggests that over any prolonged period the trade union movement will co-operate in reducing wages? Have not we reached the point at which consultation with the trade unions, the CBI or anybody else is now seen as an effort by the Government simply to shovel responsibility on to somebody else, and is it not time that the Government faced their own responsibilities and showed more political courage than they have so far shown?

The Government will certainly show political courage, as they have always shown and as Labour Governments always do, but the hon. Gentleman is living in a world which no longer exists. Today we can function only by consent, and it is that consent that we shall be trying to achieve over the next few days.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland once said that he would resign if Scottish unemployment went over 100,000? Will he confirm to the House that he has received that resignation?

The receiving of resignations is a matter for the Prime Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that a voluntary arrangement is in line with the promises that the Labour Party made in February and October 1974? Will he also accept that there is far too much emphasis on wages as a primary cause of inflation and that the recent devaluation of sterling was a very large cause of the increase in costs that working people have had to bear? Will he urge upon his colleagues in the Cabinet that action is needed to control speculators, as we on the Government benches are a bit tired of Labour Governments being at the mercy of international speculators and unable to carry out the policy on which they are elected?

But the recent Price Commission report stated that 50 to 60 per cent. of recent price increases was due to labour costs. We cannot get over that fact, and this has to be borne in mind.

If local authorities do not follow the guidelines laid down by the Government in their pay policy, will the Lord President tell us, from his considerable experience of local government, whether the sanctions will bear upon councillors?

That is a matter at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment would be looking.

If what the Lord President said in one of his early replies today about public expenditure is right, does he agree that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last Tuesday about using cash limits to control public expenditure in the short term is wrong? Which is correct?

The right hon. Lady, as I understand it, wants to make massive cuts in public expenditure. Perhaps in one of her weekend speeches at some country house or other she will tell us which public expenditure cuts she would propose to make and what would be the employment consequences of the cuts she has in mind.