asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received requesting him to reconsider his policy regarding the phasing out of private pay beds.

My Department has received between 1,400 and 1,500 letters supporting or opposing our policy over the past two years.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new appointment. Will he confirm clearly that the overwhelming majority of those representations are against the principle of separating private medical practice from the NHS? Will he tell the House how he proposes to follow up his stated intention not to be unbending about this divisive legislation?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I cannot give him the assurance that he wants. Overall, about a third of the representations were in favour of the policy and about two-thirds against. I would not say that a ratio of two to one was over whelming in that sense. Many of the representations were from organisations with very large memberships, so it was not overwhelming by any means.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome him to his new responsibilities and wish him well? In view of what he has just said, why did he give instructions that the Bill should be given a First Reading before he had even read it?

I did not give that instruction. I read it. In fact, I did more than that, I satisfied myself that the Bill honestly fulfilled the commitment given by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and the former Prime Minister in the House in December. Having satisfied myself, I thought that no advantage would accrue to the House or to the health service by postponing any longer the taking of action on an issue which is dealt with very clearly in this legislation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extent to which skilled and slick pressure groups are able to make representations to Government Departments in no way makes them representative of public opinion at large? Does he agree that it would be an unwise Government who based their policies on the activities of skilled pressure groups?

I am prepared to listen to views from whatever source they come. It would be unwise for me to start picking and choosing, saying "I shall hear these views but not those". I and my hon. Friends have to decide how much weight we attach to each of the representations, but the consultation must be fair and honest.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people, especially women, of modest means who want to have privacy when undergoing hospital treatment and who are prepared to save for it out of their modest means as well as paying out of taxes for others to have ordinary hospital treatment? Will he bear in mind this sincere view that is held by many people?

It is a sincerely held view, and it can be catered for by amenity beds. One of the advantages of the phasing out of pay beds will be the increased availability of amenity beds. It would be wise to let the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents and others know that for a quite modest fee, they may have the opportunity of privacy, provided it does not stand in the way of someone who needs the room for more urgent medical reasons.

We shall hear more of that later in the day.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next expects to review one-parent allowances.

I understand that my hon. Friend's Question is directed at the supplementary benefit earnings disregard for one-parent families. As my predecessor announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) on 30th January, the Government intend to increase this disregard from £4 to £6 and I hope to bring forward the necessary legislation shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even the £6 disregard is inadequate? Does he also agree that the application of the child interim benefit scheme has not been satisfactory for many single-parent families, that the advertising campaign to induce people to apply for the benefit has not been productive, and that many disappointed applicants are bitter? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a much wider application of the scheme?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the level of the disregard. To disregard too much of a person's income would distort the purpose of the supplementary benefit scheme, which is to augment inadequate incomes and bring them up to a given level. It is estimated that about 255,000 lone parents stand to gain financially from the child interim benefit scheme. Up to 6th April, 185,000 claims had been received, and that is a take-up rate of about 70 per cent. My hon. Friend said that many claimants were disappointed, but 128,000 claims have been approved and 6,314 have been disallowed, so a large proportion of claims have already been accepted. I would encourage others who would be entitled but have not yet claimed to do so. There is plenty of time.

I gather from the Secretary of State's earlier answer that he has had to do his homework quickly and come to quick decisions. Will he accept that if he studies further this cheap confidence trick known as Child Interim Benefit for one-parent families, taking account of income tax, supplementary benefit and other means-tested benefits, he will find that the only people who will benefit fully from the new scheme are single mothers under the age of 16, who would have been excluded from the scheme but for Conservative amendments which were accepted in Committee? When will the Secretary move on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—it may be too long but it is a clear exposition of what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said a moment ago—[Interruption.]—

Order. This is only taking up time. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I believe, is just coming to a conclusion.

Will the Secretary of State tell us when he will move on and make an announcement about the level of child benefits for next year for all families, so that we can see what the Government's policy for family poverty amounts to, if anything?

I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement before long. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is sheer nonsense and claptrap. There are 255,000 lone parents who stand to gain from the scheme, of whom 45,000 are below the tax threshold and not in receipt of either family income supplement or social security benefits. The majority of those people would get the full benefit of the £1.50. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the terms should be widened, how does he square that with the constant demands made by himself and his right hon. Friends for further cuts in public expenditure? What is he talking about'?

On the general question of financial allowances for one parent families, does my right hon. Friend accept that tinkering with the supplementary benefit system is no substitute for a long-term programme of financial support for this group of families? After the Government's rejection of the guaranteed maintenance allowance suggested in the Finer Report, will my right hon. Friend undertake to initiate a departmental review into a new non-means-tested scheme of support for these families?

Being new to this office I shall of course listen to the points made by my hon. Friend. I recognise her dissatisfaction, and that of others, with the fact that the recommendation of the Finer Committee to which she referred was not accepted. But the proposals would have been extremely difficult to administer and had many grave disadvantages. We have to look for financial support for single-parent families within the general context of our child benefit scheme. I shall certainly look at the points made by my hon. Friend, but in my new office I have not only to accept wise decisions already taken but to look at new problems as they emerge.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of the Eltham and Mottingham Hospital.

The rationalisation of services in Greenwich and Bexley is the responsibility in the first instance of the area health authority. No submission on the future of this hospital has been made to my right hon. Friend.

Will the Minister confirm that cottage hospitals are coming back into vogue in city as well as country areas and recognise that the Eltham and Mottingham Hospital is largely supported by the local community?

In the past there has been a tendency for hospitals to be too large, but we must look at each proposal for the retention or expansion of a hospital on its merits. Size is not the only factor. There are certain minimum sizes below which it is uneconomic to run a hospital.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of Normans field Hospital.

The Kingston and Richmond Area Health Authority has no plans to change the role of this hospital.

In view of the fire risk in this mental hospital, will the Minister say when the patients on the second floor will be evacuated?

The third floor of the building, with which was associated some fire risk, has been evacuated, and replacement beds now planned will enable evacuation of the second floor to take place. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.

I asked when.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in 1976 in connection with respective pensionable ages of men and women.

All the representations received by the Department of Health and Social Security have taken the form of letters. Records are not kept of the total number concerned with each specific subject, but in the first quarter of this year 163 letters about pension age received personal replies from Ministers at the Department.

My right hon. Friend will remember that a target date was set for equal pay for women. Will he give a 10-year target date for reducing the pensionable age of men to 60? Will he put forward proposals for reducing the pensionable age of men year by year until that target is reached? Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is deplorable, now that we haxe sex equality, that we are not prepared to move—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—

Order. May I appeal to the House? As the House will have noticed, in the past two sitting weeks I have deliberately allowed hon. Members to go on longer with their supplementary questions. But supplementary questions are getting longer and longer and that is unfair to other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper.

The ratio of people of working age to people of pensionable age is at present about 3½:1. The reduction of the men's pension age to 60 would bring the ratio down below 3:1, and the net cost would be more than £1,000 million a year.

In 10 years' time.

I understand what my hon. Friend said, and I see the need for creating more employment prospects, but, because of the difficulties, it is not possible to make a forecast.

Will the Minister take an early opportunity to explain to the country precisely why the Government cannot regularise the retirement age, in view of the expectations aroused by the principles and the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act?

Is the hon. Lady advocating a further £1,000 million a year public expenditure? That is the corollary of what she said. The Government have considered regularising the pension ages, but at the moment it is not possible to move from the retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the bad feeling that exists among pensioners about the differential levels of pension paid to men and women in view of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act? Will he give an early commitment to eradicate this differential?

When the new Pensions Act comes into operation in 1978, many of the difficulties referred to by the hon. Lady will be eradicated.

In estimating the net cost of bringing down the pension age for men to the present pension age for women, has my right hon. Friend taken into account that about 750,000 jobs would be left free to be taken up by people who are today employed, who are ready, anxious and willing to get work, and who would not then receive unemployment or social security benefit for their families?

I am aware of my hon. and learned Friend's concern about this matter and about the unemployed. We have considered this factor, but one of the major difficulties is that my hon. Friend's suggestion would not necessarily have the effect he desires.

In the interest of true sex equality but keeping an eye on public expenditure should not the Government he reducing the retirement age of men to 64½ while raising that of women to 60½ and working gradually in six-monthly periods so that eventually every one retires at 62½? What possible objections could the women of this country have to that suggestion?

The hon. Gentleman might find that some women would object very strongly indeed. It is an interesting suggestion but it does not meet the basic fact that the Government have to face—the increased cost at this time.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with progress towards the provision of detoxification centres and other services for alcoholics; and if he will make a statement.

It has taken longer to set up the first experimental detoxification centres than I would have wished, but I am reasonably satisfied with the progress which has been made recently. The objectives for these services have been set out in the recently published consultative document on priorities.

How can my hon. Friend be satisfied when every year 3,000 drunks and alcoholics are sent to prison because of the inactivity of his Department? Is he aware that the Home Secretary has already enacted one section of the Criminal Justice Act and that it is now for his Department to provide facilities and resources to ensure that such people are treated and not imprisoned?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but the question is about progress. There has been progress. At the beginning of May a detoxification centre will open in Leeds and another will open in Manchester at the end of the year. We are making reasonably good progress with the proposals for a detoxification centre in central London. We always envisaged that nationally there would be three such centres.

What consultations has the Department had with the Home Office about the disturbing rise in the number of young alcoholics?

We are in fairly constant touch about the whole problem of juvenile deliquency. One of the most serious problems which the House has to consider is the rising number of alcoholics, particularly among juveniles. Private Members' legislation is being discussed at the moment and I hope that hon. Members will look seriously at the warnings of the Advisory Council on Alcoholism.

As the Minister's Department sponsored one of the first major surveys undertaken by the Royal Maudsley Hospital, what effect has that report had on the policy of the Department?

I am familiar with the proposal, which underlines the general concern about the problem of alcoholism. I am not complacent and I share some of the anxieties about the number of places available in detoxification centres. The idea of such centres is to find out whether this method of treatment will be successful. But we are also discussing the proposal for Liverpool by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage increase in the revenue cost in real terms of the NHS hospitals between 1965 and the latest available date; and what was the percentage change in the number of beds occupied daily over the same period.

Between the financial years 1965–66 and 1974–75 there was an increase of about 35 per cent. in the revenue cost of NHS hospitals and the number of beds occupied daily decreased by about 14 per cent.

Can the Secretary of State explain why this deterioration has taken place. What is he going to do about it?

I would call it not deterioration, but exactly the opposite. The increase in real terms in the cost of National Health Service hospitals in this period depends on a number of factors. A more intensive use of beds has led to 16 per cent. more in-patients a year being treated in 14 per cent. fewer beds. That is an achievement. The number of outpatients treated has increased by 8 per cent. and the number of day patients has trebled—that is not bed occupancy. New and improved methods of diagnosis and treatment often involve higher costs. It is an achievement and not a deplorable situation.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the increases he is currently facing is that of junior doctors' pay? Does he accept that the cost of paying overtime under the agreement reached last September may now be over £31 million compared with the £14·2 million estimated at the time of the settlement? What advice has he given to regional health authorities on how to meet this staggering increase?

The cost estimated by the Review Body was £14·2 million and it looks as though the current estimate will be £28 million—twice the original estimate. I am not laughing the matter off: it is a fact. One must recognise that the employing authorities—the health boards—have contracted for longer hours of work and a greater degree of availability for junior staff than previously. For the future we are making arangements to obtain more detailed information on the cost of the allocation of A and B class unions. It has been made clear to the health authorities that the cost of the new junior doctors' contracts must be met from within their budgets. It is for the health authorities to decide on the priorities within their existing budgets.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that if Conservative Members are going to use statistics for bed occupancy and National Health Service costs as a subject for criticism, that is an even greater condemnation of the pay bed sector where the occupancy is smaller and is a less effective use of health resources?

I am new to this subject in the House. I was staggered by the attitude and the ignorance of Opposition Members in their use of pay bed occupancy rates as though they were a test of efficiency in the health service.

Has the Secretary of State yet learned what all occupants of his office discover—that there is no satisfactory unit of measurement of quantity or quality in medical care?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will pay a visit to Folkestone in order to see hospital facilities there.

I have no plans to do so at present, but will bear the suggestion in mind.

Does the Secretary of State recall that in his earlier political life he was Member for my neighbouring constituency and made several comments about the inadequacy of the health service? Is he aware that the proposal to modify the use of the Royal Victoria Hospital is causing a great deal of consternation and that a petition opposing the proposal and signed by 20,000 people was presented last week? Will he give an assurance that he will look personally at the matter before the proposal is implemented?

I have followed the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The district management team discussion document explains certain proposals for a change in use of the hospital following the proposal for a new hospital at Ashford in 1978. It is intended that the Royal Victoria Hospital should continue to provide a service to the community. No proposal can be implemented without full consultation with the parties concerned, particularly with the community health council.

the Secretary of State aware that in some Kent coastal towns, particularly in my constituency, there is growing public concern that they are becoming dumping grounds for ex-mental patients who have been discharged from hospitals many hundreds of miles away? Will he consider establishing a licensing system to ensure that no one community has to bear an unfair burden of this problem?

The hon. Gentleman's language is deplorable. He has said that there are dumping grounds for patients of psychiatric hospitals. Most people who are discharged from psychiatric hospitals are as fit as, if not fitter than, the hon. Gentleman. It is deplorable to make such allegations. My Department is supporting a campaign to be launched this week by MIND to encourage the population to co-operate in enabling people in psychiatric hospitals to be discharged and to live in the community as normal people. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would warmly support this initiative. If he does not, I am sure that most of his hon. Friends will. I totally reject his concept.

The Minister has chosen to answer my hon. Friend by making a personal attack upon him. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has been in his office for only a few days, but does he not realise that only a few weeks ago we had a debate, initiated by the Opposition, on the problems of the mentally sick, a debate in which there were frequent allegations from both sides of the House: that mental patients were being dumped? That is the word we all used, and to make an accusation against my hon. Friend is most unfair.

The right hon. Gentleman must come off it. I do not claim to be an expert, but during the period when I was out of the House I worked for four years for the National Association for Mental Health. I visited mental hospitals throughout the country and communities helping to provide accommodation. I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman: I was attacking his language. I would do so again if at any time he gave that sort of interpretation of the proper and rightful discharge of patients from psychiatric hospitals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the occupational pensions interests.

None yet, Sir. But departmental contact has been and remains very close. My predecessor met the pensions organisations as recently as 31st March, and my officials sent them draft regulations for comment on 15th April.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it likely that in the new phase of incomes policy, which I understand is being discussed today, it will be possible to negotiate improved pension schemes in addition to the 3 per cent., 4 per cent., or whatever is decided on pure incomes? Does he realise that this step would help to improve the development of good occupational pensions schemes as almost nothing else would?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment. Occupational pension scheme improvements were included in the present pay policy, just as all fringe benefits were. There was a measure of rough justice in the pay policy, but it was equitable and I think that it has worked. The points made by the pension funds and the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind, but I repeat that it is basically a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty in occupational pensions over the past decade or more has had a tremendous effect on workers, who have seen changes taking place, and that we require an approach by his Department enabling occupational pensions to start the process of laying down what will be their own future?

This is a very important question which my right hon. Friend and I are studying. We are considering an important report from the Occupational Pensions Board on which I hope to make a statement to the House in the near future.

Remembering past discussions on transferability of pension rights, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be his policy to guarantee transferability of existing rights in occupational schemes, or only rights which accumulate in the future?

Having had exchanges with him in years gone by, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will want to trap me into making a commitment on an issue that I have not yet considered. I shall give thought to the hon. Gentleman's representations, as I always do and always did.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to study the recent speech by Mr. Len Murray about the investment policy of pension funds, a speech in which he drew a distinction between the desire by unions to have more involvement in investment policy and his rejection of the idea of any Government control of funds' investment policy? Will the Government continue to draw a clear distinction between the interests of members of pension schemes wanting a say in the investment policy of their funds and the idea of the Government in any way interfering with the commercial and other judgments of fund managers?

We shall always give first priority to the interests of the members. As I think I hinted in reply to an earlier supplementary question, it is our view that the members of pension schemes should have much more influence on the investment and other policies of their pension funds.

Surely my right hon. Friend is not using the argument of economic necessity, especially bearing in mind that on Thursday night the House will undoubtedly pass an occupational pension scheme which will give Members of Parliament the ability to receive one third of £8,000 a year, provided they have been here for 20 years. If that applies to Members it should apply to many of those who receive only £3 or £4 per week in occupational pensions.

Having taken on my new job, I have not been able to look at what will happen on Thursday. I shall now do so and I shall take my hon. Friend's point into consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage change in the cost of the maternity services—at constant prices—per birth, between 1970 and the latest available date.

The estimated revenue cost per birth of hospital maternity services rose by over 19 per cent. at constant prices between 1970–71 and 1973–74. These increases are in part the result of the sharp fall in the number of births, while staff numbers increased and facilities were under-used.

As there has been no change in the technology of the process, surely the large increase in cost per birth must be attributed to the increase in the bureaucracy. What will the hon. Gentleman do about it?

I think that it is one of the areas of inefficiency in the health service. Attention was drawn to this in the consultative document. There is room for sensible economies. Some increases in technology have taken place, particularly in trying to reduce perinatal mortality and to improve the care of children born rather sick. But in the main the hon. Gentleman is right. Bed occupancy fell from 72 per cent. to 65 per cent. during that period.

Is not some of the increase in cost due to the higher incidence of induced births, many of which are done not because of the wish of the mother, or for medical reasons, but solely for the convenience of the obstetricians concerned? Could that be contributing in some way to the extra costs per birth?

I do not think that it is causing an increase in costs, but it causes increasing concern to many mothers and doctors. We are doing research into the whole subject of induction policy.

Does the Minister agree that his answer illustrates that substantial savings could be made in many parts of the National Health Service? Will he conduct an urgent investigation into why no fewer than 11,000 beds are empty on any one day because of lack of staff?

There are areas where economies can be made in the National Health Service. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in looking at the rationalisation of maternity services, which will undoubtedly mean the closure of some small units, particularly those close to large hospitals. The other question relates to establishment figures, which are often above what can be currently afforded. In some areas we want staff and are finding it difficult to recruit them and in others we have considerable overstaffing.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a further statement on his plans for increasing the provision of secure accommodation in accordance with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

Applications for loan sanction for 1976–77 have been received and are being studied. Some 20 of the projects include secure accommodation and would between them provide some 200 new places. Many should qualify for grants under Section 71 of the Children Act 1975.

Will the Minister bear in mind that even in the relatively law abiding region of East Anglia there is great anxiety about the shortage of secure accommodation? Will the new Secretary of State, as an East Anglian Member, inject more urgency into the efforts of central and local government to improve the situation?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does. We shall do everything possible, within the financial constraints within which we and local government must operate, to try to improve the provision of secure accommodation.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, whereas every year 4,000 juveniles go to penal establishments because of the lack of secure accommodation—more secure units are needed —as 40 per cent. of those children are getting non-custodial treatment, far more attention ought to be given to alternatives to residential treatment, such as day care and other facilities?

The Government are still considering the report of the Expenditure Committee in which many of these issues are raised. But I agree very much with my hon. Friend that there is a case for looking at alternative methods. We should not pin all our faith on secure accommodation, where the results are not always very satisfactory.

Is the Minister aware that the majority of the disturbed children are sent home because there is no accommodation for them and that they then commit further crimes? Will he not agree that this situation is jeopardising both the correction of the offender and the safety of the public? Has the Minister had any consultations with the Home Office about reverting to the former numbers in the remand homes, because many of the homes no longer have so many children in them?

We are in constant consultation. There is under-utilisation of some of the community homes which were formerly the responsibility of the Home Office. We are trying, together with the local authorities, to increase the utilisation of these facilities. The real problem which underlies the difficulties relating to the Children and Young Persons Act is that since its implementation inadequate resources have been made available. It is not always the fault of local government, which has often asked for loan sanction and not been given the resources needed for full implementation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with arrangements made for young offenders on remand; and what action he proposes to take in this regard.

No, Sir. Because of the the shortage of secure accommodation in community homes, juvenile offenders are still being remanded to prison establishments. It is the Government's policy to phase out such remands as soon as possible.

But surely this possibility depends entirely on the provision of funds. Will not the Minister agree that it is much more desirable to make financial provision in this regard than to improve the conditions of inmates of long-stay prisons?

We have available, specifically under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, power to direct grants for secure accommodation, and we have made available £2 million for this purpose. We are giving a very high priority to all loan sanction approvals for secure accommodation. This comes off local authority social services budgets, which are already hard pressed with demands for the elderly, the mentally handicapped, and the mentally ill. It says a lot for the commitment of local authorities to the principles of the Act that they are prepared to give this such a very high priority.

Will the hon. Gentleman urge upon local authorities the rapid completion of the 200 additional secure places to which he referred so that a date can be given after which in no circumstances will any child be sent to an adult prison?

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to announce today that no more children will be going to an adult prison. Concerning children under 14, particularly girls, there is a particular problem in the London area with Holloway. Local authorities are well aware of this and share the concern of the House and of others outside, but secure accommodation cannot be conjured up overnight. It would be ridiculous to make such a pledge and then not be able to fulfil it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to increase the numbers of mentally handicapped children who are fostered.

This is a matter for the local authorities and voluntary bodies concerned, but my Department encourages fostering schemes for children with special needs.

In view of the cash limits on local authority spending, will the Minister look again at the payment of attendance allowance to the foster parents of mentally handicapped children?

The hon. Lady will he aware from the debate on 14th April that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is looking again at the possibility of paying attendance allowance to foster parents looking after a handicapped child who satisfies the medical conditions for the payment of the allowance.

As the number of physically and mentally handicapped children needing the allowance is only 300, could we not have an urgent decision on this matter?

I know that my hon. Friend shares this anxiety, and we shall get a decision as soon as possible. It requires public money but it is not expensive. We all wish to encourage fostering schemes for these children and to give them a home environment, which they desperately need.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to increase National Health Service income.

The Government's plans for increasing financial provision for the National Health Service were published in the White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd. 6393.

Will the Secretary of State also consider making proposals to the Royal Commission, based on the experience of other European countries, and consider again the question of lotteries, as held in France and Eire, greater medical insurance, as in Germany, and fees for general practitioner visits, as in the Channel Islands?

A number of the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman would not find much favour in the House or in the country, but certainly the Royal Commission will be in a position to look very widely at these questions. The points made in the House will be noted by the chairman and members of the Royal Commission once it is set up.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the progress being made in implementing the proposals in the Queen's Speech.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 8th April.

Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the commitment in the Queen's Speech to attack unemployment? Does he not agree that an alternative Socialist solution to the nation's unemployment problem might be forthcoming if he did not restrict his Westminster job creation scheme by bestowing most of his privileges and patronage on those who supported him in the recent leadership election?

I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the way to get a job.

I am not asking for one.

Tell him how.

I will give my hon. Friend a little private advice about that. The trouble with my party is that there is so much ability and so much talent that it is impossible to meet all the requirements that should be met.

In view of the Budget's relaxation of the industrial development certificate policy and the growing unemployment in Scotland, will not the Prime Minister realise that the pledges given in the Queen's Speech have not been fulfilled and that the time has now come for a deployment of the Scottish oil revenues towards solving this very serious problem in our country?

I am glad to say that, although serious in Scotland, unemployment has increased less than in any other region in the United Kingdom except for the North of England and, I think, Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman indicates, that is partly due to the oil development, which has had the effect of providing some 50,000 to 60,000 jobs in Scotland. I am sure that Scotland appreciates this. I also believe that Scotland will want to share its good fortune—I have never detected any selfishness in anybody in Scotland—with the whole of the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom as a whole is stronger than Scotland would be individually.

While we are talking about jobs, is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment on Merseyside is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Can he tell us when the people on Merseyside, especially the 3,000 school leavers unemployed there, will get a job?

I think that the answer is the same. The Government must concentrate on reducing the level of inflation. When the level of inflation is reduced to a point where productive investment will take place, we shall see the growth of jobs. This is the first and overriding task of the Government. As I am asked what progress has been made concerning the Queen's Speech, I refreshed my mind on it at lunch time, and my hon. Friend will be glad to know that this was the first and highest priority to attack. Therefore, we are doing what we said we would do.

Since the Queen's Speech also referred to the efforts to bring about a just and peaceful settlement in Rhodesia, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of commending the blunt and constructive approach to this matter of Dr. Kissinger?

Yes, Sir. I think that the speech made by Dr. Kissinger, of which I have read only Press reports, should commend itself to the Europeans in Rhodesia. I say that not because we wish in regard to the future of the Europeans there to be vindictive, but because we believe that this is the best way in which they can hope to have a long-term future in that country. This fact is recognised perhaps more by the Africans in Rhodesia than by Europeans there. I hope that the weight of Dr. Kissinger's words will now get through to the Europeans.

Now that Mr. Jack Jones has joined the Prime Minister in his eulogies about the incomes policy, will not the Prime Minister complete this king-size, hypocritical somersault by recommending to Mr. Jones and his colleagues at the next stage that the incomes policy should be £1 plus 4 per cent.?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman used the word "hypocritical".

In terms of policy.

Trade union leaders deserve encouragement rather than the sneers and jeers of Conservative Members.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange a meeting with the TUC Economic Committee.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek an early joint meeting with the CBI and the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister if he will be meeting the TUC in the near future.

I met representatives of the TUC yesterday and I shall be seeing them again, together with representatives of the CBI, on 5th May when I take the chair at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the Government have given a pledge to trade union leaders—that, in the event of the current voluntary wage discussions failing to agree, the Government will not introduce a statutory policy—the best thing that can now happen is for this House to allow trade union leaders to get on with concluding a voluntary agreement? Will he also accept that the other part of the desire of trade union leaders namely, the wish to discuss an early return to full employment—means that the public sector now has the responsibility of providing 1 million jobs in the next four years? Will he now give a pledge that provision will be made for that objective to be reached?

My hon. Friend is right to say that hand in hand with the aim of overcoming inflation is the desire to produce more employment. However, I do not agree with his analysis that this must fall on the public sector. It is important that productive jobs should be created and that we should rely on investments on which a successful return can be expected. That is the way to achieve more employment rather than transferring more and more jobs to the public sector. There is a part for the public sector to play and it will do so, but it is impossible to assume that 1 million jobs can be created.

Since it is the employers who will have to pay the 3, 4 or 5 per cent. at the next stage of the incomes policy, could not the Government pretend to take some notice of employers' views as well as of the views of the TUC?

Yes, Sir. We take notice of everybody's views, including even the hon. Gentleman's. On the question of who is to pay, the increase in wages will be paid for out of increased production and productivity. Those increases will be contributed to by management and by people on the work shop floor.

Will my right hon. Friend recall that in the discussions on these matters last year the trade union negotiators agreed to the £6 policy on the basis of no increase in unemployment and no cuts in public expenditure? Will he give a guarantee that this time round in the negotiations there will be a reduction in unemployment and no cuts in public expenditure? Will he be able to tell the TUC what he intends to do about speculators who invest abroad without paying a dollar premium? Indeed, what action do the Government intend to take to stop that speculation in future?

No, Sir. I do not think I can give answers to all those questions. Such a reply would demand more than a yes-no-yes kind of answer to supplementary questions. It is generally recognised that the future level of unemployment depends on the future level of inflation. The trade unionists with whom we are discussing these matters are aware of that and in the interests of their members they are now desperately keen to secure an agreement that will reduce inflation. There is no point in giving guarantees on matters of this kind. We believe that such an agreement will produce conditions in which unemployment will begin to go down.

Bearing in mind that the pound has fallen by an average of 1 cent per week since the beginning of the last pay limit, why is the Prime Minister basing his whole economic strategy on the next pay limit? Does he not agree that in the long run the pound will continue to be in difficulties and that confidence will continue to dwindle if the Government do not reduce the rate of their own expenditure as well as the rate of inflation?

I think that that is too simple a view. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not give countenance to that view because it is misleading. The plain truth is that the 3 per cent. limit, or a figure in the area of 3 per cent., whatever the final negotiated figure may be—[Interruption.]—I hope that Opposition Members will not jeer, because a most important process is now taking place and what is needed is help from hon. Gentlemen.

Will the Prime Minister say whether he shares Mr. Len Murray's expressed surprise at the fall in the value of the pound in recent weeks? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman when he has a moment to spare, perhaps in his bath tonight, write down in two columns on a piece of blank paper the reasons why anybody in the world today should hold or buy sterling and the reasons for not doing so? Does he not conclude that the country is virtually ungovernable?

The hon. Gentleman is given to extravagant utterances and he has lived up to his reputation this afternoon. It was not said that we were ungovernable when in an earlier period wages were increasing at a rate of 30 or 40 per cent. If at that time it had been said that in future we would be aiming at a figure in the area of 3 per cent., people would have regarded that as a miracle. It is a demonstration of the fact that the country is showing self- discipline and understanding of the situation and is taking the matter in hand.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he remind its members of the memorandum recently submitted to the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry—[Interruption]— on the textile clothing and footwear industries, particularly bearing in mind the need to renegotiate the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, and will he look at the possibility of introducing a similar scheme for footwear?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to have a word with me afterwards, because I confess that I did not hear all of that question. However, in relation to both footwear and textiles the Secretary of State for Trade has taken action. He has recently met representatives of the two industries. I shall be glad to have a word with my hon. Friend about it if he would care for that so that we can discuss the matter further.

When the Prime Minister told the meeting of the shop workers' union on Sunday that he could no guarantee that they would not be sea sick but that they would get safely to port, was he thinking of a sinking pound and an inflation rate four times that of West Germany, or is it not more likely that the ship may sink unless he takes command and cuts public expenditure right now, as my right hon. Friends have suggested?

Picking up the last part of that supplementary question I do not believe that cuts in public expenditure would do anything more than increase unemployment to a marked degree. Looking at the division of public expenditure, which I have in front of me, I would not recommend that as a policy at present. What is important is that in 1977 and 1978 there should be room for the increased production in industry which will then take place. I believe that the Chancellor's work on public expenditure is creating that room in the next two years.