asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals in the Wessex area are likely to be closed in the next five years as a result of Her Majesty's Government's current policy.

This information is not available. Health authorities are presently undertaking a comprehensive review of their existing plans, which might lead to proposals regarding closures. The area health authorities concerned would, of course, consult their local community health council on any such proposals.

Is the Minister aware that the announcement over the weekend that the Government are reviewing the policy of hospital construction so as to revert to a policy of retaining and even building smaller hospitals will be very welcome to many of my constituents? Will he make a further announcement on that subject today? If it is so, will he confirm that no hospitals that might have been closed if present policy had remained unchanged will be closed if there is this change of policy? Will he also give me today, or in writing, soon, a specific pledge that Lymington Hospital will in no circumstances be closed?

I understand that Hampshire Area Health Authority has no plans at the present time to close Lymington Hospital.

In the light of the Minister's speech at the weekend and his welcome conversion to the cause of local hospitals, will he confirm that this really is now the Government's policy, and will he have all plans for district general hospitals abandoned? Will he also let us know whether there are definite plans for community hospitals and, if so, how many are likely to be built?

It was this Government who published the paper on community hospitals, though I recognise that work had gone on under successive Administrations. There is a general recognition that there is a place for the smaller hospital. I think, however, that the relationship of the smaller community hospital does not always mean that it has to be purpose-built. It is a question of achieving a balance between the acute hospital, intensively used, and the active community hospital with rehabilitation services—not just long-stay geriatric hospitals and some smaller hospitals in rural areas. This is a question for area health authorities themselves to decide, and the balance of their district general hospital building programme will depend on the limited amount of capital available.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to reduce the complexity of means tests for social security benefits.

Not all means tests are complex. Where it exists, complexity stems from the need to respond as fairly as possible to many different family and personal circumstances. In view of this constraint, there are limits to further simplification. If, however, my hon. Friend has anything in mind, I shall be glad to look at it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole field of social security benefits has now become a jungle in which only the expert patrols of the Child Poverty Action Group and similar people can find their way? Is there not a real problem here, and a need for a system that ordinary people can understand?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the supplementary benefit system and means-tested benefits, to which this Question refers, can often be complex and confusing to the layman. Nevertheless, the Government have tried to help in this matter, as did the previous Administration, by the use of a 12-months' award for various types of benefits, and by the system of passporting.

Is the Minister aware that there is a man in my constituency who is now entitled to £102 a week in State benefits, tax-free? Is he further aware that this has caused great offence to many poorly-off people who find it very difficult to get the requisite amount of grant? In the name of all conscience, is it not time that the system was overhauled?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has not looked carefully at the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley), which is concerned with means testing. As I understand the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the benefits payable were national insurance rather than means-tested benefits. Under successive Governments, it has not been found possible to tax short-term benefits, and for that reason there can be only a very small number of cases, where there are large numbers of children in a family, in which a high level of total benefit is payable. The level of benefits payable in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been settled and agreed in this House under successive Governments.

We welcome what the Minister said about the pilot scheme in Shropshire, but has his Department any plans to extend the scheme to other areas? When does he expect a report about the scheme, so that he can introduce a multi-purpose form for general use?

It is too soon yet to say how long we shall need to run this on an experimental basis. However, the idea of multi-purpose means testing, which, if it could be operated successfully, is clearly desirable, was first conceived under the previous Labour Administration. When I left the Department in 1970, it was under way. When I returned in 1974, I found that no progress had been made. It is since the coming to power of this Government that we have introduced this scheme, and I hope that valuable lessons will be learned from it.

Referring back to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith), is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern amongst many old-age pensioners who have contributed 30 and 40 years for their old-age pensions and who, when they try to get a few shillings or a few pence extra, find that they cannot get it, whereas people who have come to this country and have never contributed a halfpenny—or, at the most, have contributed for one or two years—are able, month after month, to get hundreds of pounds? This cannot be fair, and it causes trouble. Will not my right hon. Friend look into it?

Before Opposition Members, wanting to make cheap party political capital out of this, start cheering and jeering, perhaps they will do me the courtesy of listening to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Successive Governments have expressed concern at abuses of the social security system, and quite properly so. This Government take an identical view to that of the last Government in their efforts to combat abuses of the system wherever they are found. The previous Government commissioned the Fisher Report on abuse. This Government, since February 1974, has successively implemented the recommendations of the Fisher Report. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are at one in opposing and doing all that they can to stop abuse of the social security system. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, we have also to have regard to the vast majority of people who need these benefits and are genuine claimants.

In view of the fact that there are now more than 40 means-tested benefits, with all the resulting complexity and the cost of administering them, will the Minister reconsider something along the lines of a tax credit scheme, with a view to simplifying the administration of means-tested benefits?

As soon as resources allow, this Government are primarily concerned to push back the whole area of means testing, which is the exact opposite of the policy of the previous Government, who introduced the family income supplement scheme, with all its implications. The hon. Gentleman will understand that our long-term pensions scheme, the noncontributory invalidity benefit and the mobility allowance are all designed to cut back substantially over the years the area of means testing—[Interruption.] How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there is—

Too long.

Order. I must remind the House that this is not a debate.

May I say briefly, on the point about the negative income tax scheme, that Opposition Members can hardly ask us to cut back public expenditure and, in the next breath, ask us to spend an additional £2,300 million to implement such a scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she next expects to meet the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

My right hon. Friend and I last met the Supplementary Benefits Commission on 20th November 1974, and we shall meet it as often as is useful and desirable in the future. In addition, my right hon. Friend will be meeting the Chairman at about two-monthly intervals.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure, at that meeting, that the Chairman or the full SBC issues a circular making clear to all applicants what their rights are? The single-parent family groups, such as the Gingerbread Group, make constant complaints about the difficulty of obtaining information about the rights of needy people. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider the need for the SBC itself, because it would increase parliamentary control if the Minister and not some commission had total control of these matters so that hon. Members could bring their complaints directly to him and not be put off to the SBC.

I appreciate the first point that my hon. Friend makes. The new Chairman of the SBC has, I believe, already approached the chairmen of the subject groups on both sides of the House, and I am sure that he would be pleased to discuss this and any related matters at such a meeting.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Supplementary Benefits Commission, could he discuss with it, perhaps in a slightly calmer manner, the abuse of the system and investigations into it, since he has just acknowledged the public concern that exists about it? Does he agree that the special investigators employed at the moment are quite effective, within their limited means of detection, and that they have discovered, in the local drives which the Conservative Government began, that more than 40 per cent. of suspicious cases which they investigate are cases of overpayment? As the investigators pay for themselves, will not the Minister consider doubling the present number of 320 or so, to 600, as a straightforward way of reassuring the public that there is a stepping up in the investigation of cases of abuse?

I am always calm with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), unless he says something particularly silly. At present there is a total of 4,000 staff in the DHSS whose job it is to protect the taxpayers' money. There are 381 special investigators who, during the course of 1974, investigated 27,000 cases. This Government are as keen as any Government to counter abuse by every practicable means. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said about the number of special investigators, but he will realise that his suggestion has public expenditure implications which are important at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps she intends to take to ease the burden of increased fuel bills faced by pensioners and those on long-term benefits.

We have, as from the week commencing 17th November, increased retirement pensions and other associated benefits for the third time in less than 18 months. In addition, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has increased by more than a third the extra heating additions payable under its discretionary powers, from the same date.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a special grant for fuel would have allayed some of the disappointment felt by pensioners at the loss of the £10 Christmas bonus. Is he further aware that, facing massive gas bills in January, many pensioners may be driven, out of fear, to sit in the cold for the rest of the winter?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but I must emphasise to him that both national insurance benefits and supplementary benefits are up-rated at least in line with the retail price index, which includes a fuel element that is a composite of all the fuels that people use. Both benefits have been increased substantially more than the increase in the retail price index. Since the present Government have been in office, benefits have been increased by 70 per cent. in cash terms, whereas prices have risen—up to last month's figure, which is the latest available—by 47 per cent. That gives a margin of about 13 per cent. real improvement in the value of pensions, which is a bigger improvement than pensioners have ever had under a previous Government.

Despite the improvement, is it not a fact that many extremely poor people are taxed on the benefits which they receive, including the fuel allowance, and are brought below the minimum subsistence level by the means test?

No. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect when he says that pensioners are taxed on the fuel allowance. The fuel allowance is an extra heating addition under the supplementary benefits system, and it is not subject to tax.

Is the Minister aware that, according to a recent survey, over 700,000 pensioners in the United Kingdom are living on the verge of hypothermia? Is he also aware that a survey in Scotland by the Citizens' Rights Association in 1973 showed that 90 per cent. of pensioners living alone were living in rooms that were heated to less than the 70 degrees Fahrenheit recommended level? Is the Minister satisfied that the measures taken by the Government are adequate to protect our pensioners throughout the coming winter?

I am certainly not complacent about this matter, and I recognise the force of what the hon. Lady has said. On the hypothermia study, it is only fair to point out that other studies made of the same problem have come up with much lower figures. However, I appreciate the importance of this problem. It is for those reasons that the Government have increased the extra heating addition by 83 per cent. at a time when fuel costs have risen by 70 per cent. over the same period. That, too, is a considerable improvement.

Will my hon. Friend explain why, when heating additions, supplementary benefits and exceptional needs payments for draught-proofing and various other things are available, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has ruled out the provision of grants to old people to help them to insulate their homes, thereby cutting down on the need for the additions and allowances?

I advise my hon. Friend that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is prepared to give some assistance in certain circumstances to overcome problems of insulation and draught-proofing. Obviously, given the restraint on resources that are available to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, the assistance is bound to be very limited, and clearly there cannot be an opportunity, through this mechanism, to provide insulation for a large number of elderly people.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the progress of her negotiations with the junior hospital doctors.

Following my statement to the House on 1st December—[Vol. 901, c. 1255–69]—the BMA wrote to me on Friday last accepting the offer which I had made two weks previously of an independent audit of the figures relating to extra duty allowances, provided that the audit covers the figures relating to EDA expenditure over the current period of April to October this year. I have replied saying that I shall be happy to arrange this, but pointing out that the latest figures yet available to me are for the six-weeks' duty period ending June 1975. Figures for two further periods up to the end of August will be available within a week. It is unlikely, however, that the October figures will be available before Christmas, and it may be later. I have therefore invited the BMA Hospital Junior Staffs Committee to meet me this afternoon to discuss the final date for the figures which it would be reasonable to take as the basis of the independent audit. It would of course be for the Review Body to decide whether it should in any way revise its pricing of the juniors' new contract in the light of the later figures.

I thank the Secretary of State for that brief reply. Is she aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see this damaging dispute ended as soon as possible, by settlement within the limits of the pay policy? At the same time, is she also aware that there is a widespread feeling that the Government have handled this dispute less than skilfully, especially over the quite unreasonable delays in producing the up-to-date extra-duty allowance figures, some of which at least are in the possession of the regions even if they are not yet in the possession of the right hon. Lady? Will she now give an assurance that the most up-to-date 1975 extra-duty allowance figures will be given to the independent auditor as quickly as possible, because that is the best way of getting the doctors back to work?

I think that my Answer was exactly along those lines. It is quite untrue that there has been delay in getting the latest figures. We have to wait until they are collected in the areas, districts and regions, and forwarded to us. Then, by agreement, there is a four-weeks period of grace to enable late claims to be entered. Indeed, it would be contrary to the junior doctors' interests if that were not so. The figures then have to be processed by the computer.

Will my right hon. Friend advise the House not to be too sensitive about the additional payments or the extra-duty allowances being an infringement of the £6 maximum? Overtime and payment by results have never been considered an infringement of the existing social contract and the £6 arrangement. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend advise the House that we should not be too sensitive about there being an infringement of the social contract?

I tell my hon. Friend firmly that the Government do not intend to breach the pay policy. Indeed, the BMA in its latest letters to me has reiterated its view that it does not think the pay policy should be breached. It is my responsibility to defend the pay policy. My hon. Friend is wrong to say that extra amounts of overtime are permissible under the pay policy. They are not. They must be included in the £6 limit. However, the pay policy does provide that if the new contract system is introduced on a given date, the expected annual flow of pay under the new system must not exceed the current flow, in annual terms, under the old system. We are trying to establish the figures for the current flow.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that what she is now doing is precisely what the Conservatives urged eight days ago—having an independent examination to see whether her £12 million figure was out of date? Is she also aware that we welcome this development and emphasise that the negotiations are within the policy? We urge normal work to be resumed. Does she also recognise that we have questions to raise on the Government's handling of this dispute, and will she make arrangements for a proper statement to be made to the House tomorrow.

I think it was on 1st December that the hon. Gentleman last urged me to take later figures. At that time I did not have available later figures than the March ones. I sent the information to him. The House must recognise that the figures are coming in periodically. At present I have only the figures to the end of June, and they arrived only last week. I did not have them at the time the hon. Gentleman raised this matter. I hope that he is not suggesting to the House that he is encouraging junior doctors to stay out on industrial action in the hope—[Interruption.] I shall continue my answer. I repeat what I said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—

My hon. Friend said that he was not encouraging industrial action.

I did not say he was. I have not finished my sentence. I hope he is not—

You heard him say it.

This is a very relevant point to my talks this afternoon. I put it to the House very seriously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not encouraging the continuation of industrial action—[Interruption.] I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if I could be allowed to complete a sentence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not encouraging the continuance of industrial action in order to enable later figures to be obtained. At the time of the pricing—[Interruption.] I put it to the hon. Member that I am currently faced by the juniors with a demand that we should produce the figures to the end of October. As I have just told the House, those figures will not be available till Christmas, or after. I hope that the House will say that the juniors should take what figures are now available. I shall submit them to independent audit. I shall submit them to the review body. I hope that the House will now say to the juniors that they should agree to accept whatever may be the outcome of that examination and get back to work at once.

That is a disgraceful taunt by the right hon. Lady. May I repeat what I said originally, and ask the House to listen? We urge normal working to be resumed. What we want the right hon. Lady to do is to make a statement in the House, tomorrow, on these negotiations.

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that if he is urging the doctors to return to work—I accept that he has always said that he does not endorse the industrial action—I ask him to face this fact: what it means is that the juniors must go back to work on the basis of the figures I have. If we are going to say "No, we shall wait for the October figures and see what they are like," we shall have the industrial action, with all its risk to patients, continuing beyond Christmas. All that I am asking the House today to say is that they endorse what I shall say to the juniors this afternoon—that I have gone to the utmost limit in producing the figures, and will they now agree to accept the outcome of the review, whatever it may be, and go back to work?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations she has recently received on the invalid three-wheel carriage.

On 25th November, I met officers and other members of the Disabled Drivers' Association and they presented their views to me. Four representatives of the All-Party Disablement Group in this House, including the hon. Gentleman, also attended the meeting. The members of the Disabled Drivers' Association pressed their case for a car as an alternative to an invalid tricycle. They welcomed the principle of the mobility allowance, extending help to drivers and non-drivers alike, but explained very fully their reasons for seeking a number of improvements in the scheme.

Is the Minister aware of the sadness felt by the disabled drivers at the death of Graham Hill, who was a leading campaigner for the replacement of the invalid tricycle by a four-wheeled vehicle? In view of Government answers that show that four-wheeled cars are no more expensive to provide than tricycles, but that the latter are four times as dangerous—being involved in four times as many accidents—will he now restate his own contention and that of the Prime Minister when they were in opposition, namely, that these outdated mechanised wheelchairs should be replaced by four-wheeled vehicles? Will he cease to hold this totally indefensible position?

There will be hon. Members on both sides who will join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the memory of Graham Hill. He was frequently in touch with me, as he was with the officers and members of the All-Party Disablement Group. The present Government have gone much further than any previous one in offering an alternative to the tricycle. I made a statement on the latest accident figures on 29th October 1975. I have arranged for the implications of these figures to be studied by my Department, jointly with experts of the Department of the Environment, in connection with our ongoing consideration of mobility policy for the disabled. I am well aware of the hon. Member's deep interest in these matters and will study carefully what he has said.

Mr. Beith. Question No. 7.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it requested that Question No. 6 be linked with Question No. 30?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she is satisfied that adequate provision exists to assist close relatives with the cost of visits to patients in hospital in rural areas where hospitals are at a great distance from the community served.

Help for those in greatest need is available through the supplementary benefit scheme except for persons in full-time work who are disqualified from receiving such help. Additionally, there are a number of other possible sources of help, depending on the hospital concerned and the particular circumstances of the patient. The hospital social worker should be asked about these.

Does the Minister realise that despite the existence of these provisions there are people in my constituency, earning less than £30 a week, who have to find £3 a time for fares from Berwick, for example, to accompany relatives to hospital in Newcastle, and that others, who are seeking to obtain treatment for themselves in non-NHS premises—particularly dental services and chiropody—have to find the cost themselves? Will he carry out a review of this difficult situation in rural areas, so as to ensure that there is a free Health Service there as well as in urban areas?

I take it from what he says that the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are not eligible for supplementary benefit. If that is so, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will assist in some cases, to the extent that the margin of resources above needs, as defined in supplementary benefit terms, is insufficient to meet the necessary cost of visiting. It may be that in rural areas this is a means by which, in exceptional circumstances such as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, assistance can be available.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied with the workings of the Abortion Act 1967.

I personally agree with the general conclusions of the Lane Committee on this subject. The gains facilitated by the Act have in my judgement clearly outweighed the disadvantages for which it has been criticised. Much individual suffering has been relieved, while the rights of those with conscientious objections to abortion have been protected. The Department will continue to seek, through experience, to improve the administration of the provisions of the Abortion Act.

Does the Minister agree that the Select Committee, of which I was a member in the last Session, thoroughly reviewed the workings of the Act and came up with some unanimous recommendations, which he and his Department have agreed to implement? How is that implementation going? Does the Minister agree that, if there is a desire in the House to change the fundamental law on this subject, in either a more liberal or a more retrogressive direction, it must be done by legislation and not by the setting up of another Select Committee, which could not resolve the deeply-held differences of opinion on this question?

I am grateful, as, I am sure, is the whole House, to the former Select Committee for producing a very useful set of recommendations on the administration of the Abortion Act. As the House knows, the Government have accepted all those recommendations. This will mean, I think, that the abuses of the Act, particularly in the private sector, will be largely eradicated. The main outstanding issues in this area of the working of the Act are most controversial, and the views held by opposing sides seem to be irreconcilable, although sincerely held. It will be for the whole House to decide whether a Select Committee should be re-established. In the Government's view, that decision should be on the basis of a free vote.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will reallocate National Health Service resources from the wealthier regions to the poorer ones.

It is the declared policy of this Government to ensure that resources for the National Health Service are allocated in a way that is more sensitive to local variations in need. For this reason, last May we set up a working party to examine existing arrangements and recommend a method of allocating NHS finance more equitably. I am consulting interested parties on the working party's report on a method of allocating finance to regional health authorities in 1976–77, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that all hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the "Cinderella" Trent Region will also be grateful. Will the Minister give a further and practical example of his support by considering again the acknowledged very serious position in Nottingham, where the extension to the City Hospital "H" Block is not built, particularly the bums unit, where they have to use the same bath for treatment and cleanliness? It might have to close because of the risk of cross-infection. Will the Minister reconsider that and redirect funds to that project?

I am well aware of the situation in Nottingham. I am sure that many hon. Members can point to areas of need in their constituencies. We must try to allocate scarce resources where the need is greatest. We have already allocated resources to the Trent Regional Health Authority, which has a long history of backlog and neglect. However, to allocate to Trent, to the North West, and to other regional health authorities that have been deprived in the past, would mean that other regional health authorities, such as the four metropolitan regional health authorities and Merseyside, would have to have a smaller allocation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action is to be taken to publicise the new benefits available to the disabled.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the list of new benefits and other recent improvements for the disabled is both extremely lengthy and wide ranging. Among other improvements, we have legislated for four entirely new cash benefits for the disabled. Publicity began in September for the first of these and included distribution of posters and leaflets, Press advertisements, and the dissemination of information by voluntary bodies. I have also had help from professionally and other interested individuals.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the actions to help the disabled that the Government have taken since they came to power constitute a success story and that this should be made more widely known, not only to the general public but to the disabled, because some of them do not realise what help the Government have given them? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that when reductions in public spending are discussed at Cabinet level, cuts will not be made in the benefits that the Government give to the disabled? Is he aware that Labour Members would prefer further cuts in defence expenditure and other unnecessary public spending?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend emphasises to the maximum of her ability the claims of the disabled. I have had every possible support from her. I agree with my hon. Friend that voluntary organisations can do a great deal to publicise the improvements that have taken place in recent years. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will do their best, in their constituencies, to publicise all the new benefits and improvements that have been carried out for the disabled. I refer in particular to the leaflet "Help for the Handicapped" which my Department recently made available to all hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many reciprocal health agreements in respect of the self-employed have been reached with the EEC countries.

Two are in operation—with Denmark and Gibraltar—and an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany is expected to be ratified shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the injustice of a situation in which the citizens of a number of our partners in the EEC enjoy free health treatment and social security benefits in this country which those partners are not, so far, prepared to extend to some of our citizens in their countries? Is he further aware that his Government have been in power for two years and that the self-employed, who pay a higher proportion to the National Insurance Fund than do the employed, are justifiably angry that the Government have so far failed to achieve very much for them in the EEC?

In general, other EEC countries do not make provisions for the health care of the self-employed, as we do in this country. However, following representations by this Government to the European Commission, the Commission is setting up a working party, which will include officials from the Department of Health and Social Security, to examine the question of the extension of benefits in the EEC social security regulations in relation to the self-employed and other groups not at present covered. Therefore, we do share an interest in this issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reduction there has been over the last six months in the number of agency nurses employed at National Health Service hospitals.

On 31st March 1975 there were, in whole-time equivalent terms, 6,183 agency nurses and midwives working in the National Health Service; on 30th September there were 4,544.

Is the Minister aware that, as in commercial services, there are certain individuals who prefer the freedom, flexibility and independence of agency services to full-time employment? Will his present policy not mean that the services of those people will be lost to National Health Service hospitals?

The Government are only pursuing a policy that was pursued by the previous Conservative Administration. In 1971 the previous Conservative Government advised health boards to review the use of agency nurses and to plan both short-term and long-term reductions. The only difference in policy is that where the previous Conservative Government failed, we are succeeding.

Will the Minister give the House and those trained nurses who previously worked for agencies an assurance that those nurses will be employed by the National Health Service, because at present, although they are fully trained, they are being refused employ-ment when they apply to the National Health Service?

If agency nurses remain agency nurses we cannot give them that assurance. Before 1st October, when the new rates were introduced, the number of agency nurses had been reduced by 1,600. Therefore, any reductions since then are only a continuance of the policy which previously existed. I appreciate the problem to which the hon. Lady referred. Nurse banks, which we have set up to try to incorporate agency nurses, have taken on 500 extra nurses for the Health Service since 1st October in whole-time equivalent terms.