asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for the percentage of men who are drawing their pension at 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 years of age; and how these compare with the corresponding percentages 10 years ago and 20 years ago.

I will, with permission, circulate the available information in the Official Report.

Does my hon. Friend therefore accept that, in general, men are tending to retire earlier? That being so, does he agree that, even if the cost of reducing the pensionable age for men to 60 at the moment is prohibitive, there is an urgent need for the Government to give a 10-year commitment, or a commitment over a somewhat shorter period, that the age will be reduced in this way? That would mean that the cost would be minimal. Therefore, may I appeal to my hon. Friend to give a date—

Order. That is enough to ask the Minister.

I agree with my hon. Friend's first supplementary question. There is a tendency towards earlier retirement on the part of men, and as a Government we are certainly not opposed in principle to the idea of a common minimum pension age between men and women. However, the cost in present circumstances—

What about a date in the future?

The cost in present circumstances rules this out in the foreseeable future. We cannot at one and the same time both improve the position of existing pensioners and afford the cost of lowering the retirement age for men.

Are the Government still determined to try to reverse the parliamentary defeat inflicted on them on the earnings rule for those retirement pensioners who stay in work? If they are, when can we expect legislation to be brought before the House?

As the hon. Gentleman and the House will know, an announcement was made earlier this year about the Government's intention to introduce legislation on this matter, and it should be introduced in the next Session.

My hon. Friend has said that it is the cost that prevents the Government from lowering the retirement age of men from 65 to 60. Will he say how much he estimates would be saved by not having to pay unemployment benefit and, in his Department, social security benefits to the men who find work and will no longer be on unemployment benefit, because they are filling jobs vacated by the men allowed to retire?

It is not possible to say, because we do not know what is the pattern of retirement for men between 60 and 65, nor, indeed, would we know what take-up there would be of the younger unemployed to replace the older men who would have retired earlier. This is very much a matter of speculation and estimation. I believe that any guesstimate that I gave would be completely inadequate.

Presumably, in view of the Sex Discrimination Act, if the pension retirement age were raised to 62½ for women and reduced to 62½ for men, there would be no extra cost. Is that right?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and the House, but although it might seem that there would be no extra cost, we have worked out such figures as we can purely on the basis of national insurance contributions, supplementary benefits, and the national insurance scheme generally, and we find that there would indeed be a net cost.

Would it not be true to say that the figures available demonstrate that last year, at least, about £262 million was spent by the Government in redundancy payments, sickness payments and unemployment payments for the age groups between 60 and 64? Would that not represent a substantial contribution towards lowering the age as indicated?

We have done the sums that we can. The sums mentioned by my hon. Friend are an element in the calculation, but however we do the calculations they will work out as a massive net cost on the total economy of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to introduce legislation to raise the supplementary disregard for one-parent families.

I shall introduce the amending legislation tomorrow.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be very grateful for that reply, but is not the problem one of lifting one-parent families out of supplementary benefit dependence without introducing a new means-tested benefit? Will the right hon. Gentleman study the possibility of converting income tax allowance into positive tax credits.

I cannot say that I shall now give consideration to a scheme that was widely considered in the House. We are always considering what further we can do. A number of proposals have been put forward in the Finer Report and they are receiving the Government's attention. The House will be glad that the legislation is to be introduced tomorrow.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. However, will he look again at the idea of introducing a supplementary benefit disregard that takes account of the number of children included in one-parent families, rather than a flat rate disregard throughout the whole range.

The trouble with that is that it is extremely complicated to do and it is costly, from the point of view of manpower, to do it. The more disregards one has, as well as the variations of disregard, the more it undermines the principle of supplementary benefit, because if one has too many disregards, clearly that does not help the poorest parents, who are those principally helped by supplementary benefit.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that raising the disregard to £6 works out to giving an extra 8½p a week to each of the 280,000 families on the supplementary benefit? Is that really the full extent of the Government's support for one-parent families?

No, of course not. The CHIB scheme has already been introduced, and a statement will be made later today concerning child benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to finalise the junior hospital doctor contract.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to finalise the junior hospital doctors' contract.

Negotiations on a number of detailed amendments to junior hospital doctors' terms and conditions of service, consequential on the main agreement reached with the professions at the end of last year, are still continuing, and it is hoped that they will be completed very shortly.

Is it true that at a meeting last month the Department and the junior doctors' representatives came to an agreement, only to find that it was vetoed by the Department of Employment as being contrary to the pay policy? Is it not rather ridiculous that the right hon. Gentleman's own officials should not have been aware of the limitations of the Government's pay policy?

That is not so. Of course my officials are aware of pay policy and all its implications. However, the ques tion of doctors' terms and conditions of service raises a number of difficult issues. The right hon. Gentleman raised one of them on the last occasion on which I answered Questions, concerning the amount of money that is paid for work done over and above the normal hours. There are these difficulties that we are trying to sort out.

To avoid the anxieties of the past, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to entering into negotiations on this matter directly with the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association, instead of having the impediment and interference of the BMA?

I cannot say that that will be the arrangement. I shall not change the basis on which the profession is represented and on which we have negotiations with the profession.

Is it not iniquitous that the junior doctors should in good faith enter into these negotiations only to have this spanner thrown into the works? How soon does the Minister expect to bring this matter to a conclusion?

No spanner has been thrown into the works. The two sides have reached agreement on a large number of points. There is, in fact, only one significant issue outstanding at present. There has been a great deal of progress. The hon. Gentleman ought not to think that things are going backwards.

In this contract has full account been taken of the fact that of their 43½ hours on call in hospitals it is quite possible for junior hospital doctors to be working an emergency call service for general medical service for general practitioners? Has any assessment of the numbers doing this been made? What action has the negotiating committee taken on this matter?

We are making an assessment of the explanation of the reasons why there has been a heavier expenditure in fulfilling the contract with junior hospital doctors. It applies for a number of reasons. Some have contracted for rather longer working hours than the average time worked out under the former system. Certainly more A units have been contracted for than was originally assumed. But these problems are not surprising, as one part of a major negotiation carried out with the junior hospital doctors.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on Oxfam's report about the employment of doctors from overseas, which Oxfam said was not a very good thing for overseas countries? What is he doing to extend medical recruitment here to see that we take in fewer doctors from overseas and more from this country?

I have commented directly to Oxfam on its most interesting report. It is true that we are excessively dependent upon the services of doctors from overseas. That is why we are increasing and will continue to increase the intake of student doctors from this country, in order that we can be more dependent upon our own doctors. In the meantime, there are standards that have to be maintained. However, it is our hope that many of the doctors from overseas who have sought training in this country will eventually return to the countries from which they came, to use the experience that they have gained here.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his most recent estimate of the number of working men over 60 years of age.

In 1974, the latest date for which a figure is available, about 1½ million men aged 60 or over worked to a sufficient extent for national insurance contributions to be paid in respect of them.

That is just a few more than those on the dole. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are four good Socialist reasons for introducing retirement at 60 years of age for all? Does he not agree that those are, first, equality with women; second, that many professional and salaried classes already retire at 60; third, that it costs £72 million a week to pay for unemployment benefit and all the related matters affecting those on the dole; and, fourth, that in relation to many industrial countries, especially those in the Common Market, a little harmonisation in this direction would not be a bad thing?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the Socialist reasons for moving towards this target. The Government do not object to moving towards this target. What prevents us from doing so at present is the cost. I think that my hon. Friend knows that the cost would be over £1,000 million, net, at present.

Does the Minister agree that the proportion of the population that is working, as compared with the rest, including those who are still at school and those who have retired, is diminishing and will continue to diminish? Therefore, does this not place increasing burdens on the working population, and is there not a case for increasing rather than decreasing the retirement age—especially of women, who live longer than men anyhow?

I would not like to join argument with the hon. Gentleman on the last point. However, on the first point, the ratio is reducing. It was 5:1. It is now 3½,:1. It would go well below 3:1 if the retirement age were reduced to 60. However, the Government stilt believe that in a modern industrial society we ought to be able to sustain people and provide decent pensions. That is what we are working towards.

On the last point, is it not true that over the next 10 years there will be about 1,600,000 more people in the working age range than there are now? However, to return to the point about employment among the over-sixties, is it not true that at the last count there were about 130,000 unemployed in the 60-plus age range? In order that we may make a reasonable assessment of the possibility of earlier retirement, so as to deal with this problem, would it not be possible to publish some of the estimates of gross and net cost, on which the Department has obviously been working?

I shall certainly see whether it is possible to provide fuller figures for the House, because I think that people are entitled to them, in view of the pressure.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to issue any ministerial guidelines to doctors regarding clinical freedom within the National Health Service.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are very grateful for that answer, because we feel that any further erosion of clinical freedom would be the last straw for the medical profession, whose morale has already been seriously damaged by this Government's policy?

Clinical freedom is a matter that is precious to both sides of the House, and it is something that should not be narrowly interpreted. Doctors have to make decisions that have an impact on their patients.

Does the Minister agree that clinical freedom has to be considered in relation to the professional freedom of other professions within the National Health Service? The real problem is to persuade the various professions in the service to work together in a multi-disciplinary approach rather than to insist on their own freedom being more important than that of others.

No profession, be it medicine, law or teaching, can isolate itself from the community that it serves.

Does the Minister agree that fear of a loss of clinical freedom is the reason for doctors leaving the country? In view of the figures published in the Daily Mail, showing that more than 1,000 doctors left this country last year, what action does he propose to take?

The reasons why people emigrate are multifarious. No matter what anybody says, no doctor is motivated into leaving this country by the threat to clinical freedom. That is a canard that was put around in 1946, when the National Health Service Act was introduced. No one believes that any of these claims were substantiated in the light of history.

In view of the substance of this question, can the Minister say whether any full-time consultants and doctors employed in looking after our Service men have made any complaints that they are in any way inhibited in terms of clinical freedom?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. For two years I was responsible for the Naval Medical Service, and I found there that there was no threat to clinical freedom, and no anxiety on the part of its members about being full-time servants of the Crown.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the administration of supplementary benefits.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Supplementary Benefits Commission's first annual report, in which a great many features of the supplementary benefits scheme and its administration will be dealt with, is due to be published in the early autumn.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's first priority should be to raise pensions and child benefit so that far fewer people need to rely on supplementary benefit? The Government should ensure that any expenditure on supplementary benefit goes towards helping people, rather than paying administrative costs. The present system is far too expensive in relation to administrative costs.

Of course, I agree. It is Government policy to handle pensions and benefits in a way which will make people less and less dependent on means-tested benefits. The extent to which we can do that is governed by public expenditure limitations.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that supplementary benefits are not made available to those who come to this country voluntarily without visible means of support?

I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The Supplementary Benefits Commission is very careful to ensure that the needs of people are met, regardless of their background. This policy is based entirely on needs, and we believe that that is how it should be.

On the subject of supplementary benefits, will the Secretary of State consider the danger of a cut-off point, which means that people who do not draw these benefits lose a substantial number of other benefits? Will he consider introducing real flexibility into the scheme to overcome this problem?

As long as we have so many means-tested benefits, this will be a problem. It is constantly our task to reduce the extent to which people are dependent on means-tested benefits.

Does the Minister agree that some families with children who are on supplementary benefits would find it much easier, and would be much better off, if food subsidies were withdrawn and the money saved was put towards making child interim benefit a disregard for supplementary benefit purposes?

I would not necessarily reach that conclusion. We have to tackle the problem of food subsidies very carefully. We must realise that these subsidies help the generality of families—those who are in employment as well as those who are unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue further guidance to National Health Service hospitals about the administration of electro-convulsive therapy to patients, in the light of the Inskip Report on St. Augustine's Hospital, Canterbury.

The South East Thames Regional Health Authority has referred to me the report's valuable discussion of the use of this treatment and of various considerations relating to the patient's consent, and my Department is considering the policy issues raised. Meanwhile, I have asked that copies of the report be sent to all health authorities and districts in England.

Will my right hon. Friend read item 67 in the report, which refers to a case in which an elderly female was carried against her will, and without being examined by her doctor, into electroconvulsive therapy, and died a few days' later? This sort of incident is an absolute scandal to the National Health Service. When is the Minister going to take up his predecessor's promise to visit St. Augustine's Hospital?

I agree that there are some very disturbing elements in the report, and item 67 is one of them. It is important to consider the question of consent. An inter-departmental review on the Mental Health Act 1959 is going on at present, and this is one of the issues that is under consideration. I am going to St. Augustine's Hospital tomorrow.

Is not the real message of the Inskip Report on St. Augustine's the absence of any overall and effective medical control of patients? Should not the Secretary of State devote maximum attention to this point?

I must refrain from comments relating to St. Augustine's, because I am visiting there tomorrow. I may have comments to make after my visit.

Will the Secretary of State not rely merely on the Inskip Report on St. Augustine's—which, incidentally, is in my constituency—but consider also the study to be made by the 13 regions of the country on this sort of problem? I urge him to take a wider view of electroconvulsive therapy, based on a study taken over the whole country.

As far as ECT is concerned, the Inskip Report said:

"It is probably the most effective treatment for moderate or severe depressive illness, and is still one of the most effective methods of treating many forms of schizophrenia".

"consider whether the expected benefits out weigh the risks and disadvantages."

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate a review of the way in which general practitioners are paid.

Particular aspects of the remuneration of general practitioners come under review as part of the regular discussions between the Department and the profession. This continuing examination has not disclosed a need for a more fundamental review.

Is the Minister aware that there is a small number of unscrupulous doctors who con the Health Service by taking on assistants and receiving full pay from the family practitioner committees, while paying less than the full rate for the job? Will the Minister stamp out this abuse by asking doctors to declare their income from medical sources to the family practitioner committees?

Financial arrangements settled between partners or between a principal and his assistant are matters for the doctors themselves, not for me. I shall look into my hon. Friend's suggestion, however.

Will the Minister take another look at the grievance of many practitioners, which is that if they employ their wives as secretaries or receptionists they are not allowed to claim any practice expenses? Since Members of Parliament are entitled to claim a secretarial allowance if they employ their wives as secretaries, why should not the same arrangements apply to doctors?

Successive Governments have taken the line that it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between a wife being employed on duties for which the salaries are reimbursed for unrelated staff by the family practitioner committees and the normal functions that wives undertake, whether for Members of Parliament or for doctors. This is a difficult distinction to draw, and because I felt increasing concern about it I asked the negotiating bodies to look at it again, with a view to producing a system that is fair to both sides. Discussions have already commenced on that. I share the right hon. Gentleman's unease, particularly in view of the precedent that he mentioned.

Since general practitioner remuneration rests upon the Spens Reports and the arrangements made by Mr. Kenneth Robinson in a former Labour Government, and since the system is altogether antiquated, will my hon. Friend offer an alternative to the GPs with a more rational pay scale, probably on the basis of a salaried service?

That issue has often been discussed in the House. There are powers for the Minister to introduce such a scheme if a strong demand were to exist for it, but there never has been a strong demand from GPs for a salaried service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to discover how many local authorities have suspended implementation of Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and if he will now make a statement.

I have no evidence that any local authority has suspended implementation of Section 1 of the Act. The annual returns show that all authorities in England have been increasing the numbers registered, and my officials are in constant touch with authorities in relation to all matters affecting the personal social services. I shall have my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind when I review the returns for 1975–76.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it applies to the mentally sick? Is it not something of a scandal that we have been waiting for the Doctor Brown report, which has prompted very little initiative from the Government and local authorities? Should not this have been taken up?

My hon. Friend has a distinguished record of service to the mentally handicapped. Where appropriate, the Act applies to the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill as much as it applies to the physically handicapped and the physically ill.

Is the Minister aware of the Outset organisation's surveys of compliance with Part I of the Act? Is it not sensible to proceed with the services under Part I now, so that in better economic times we may put Part II into practice?

I am very much aware of the Outset surveys. I pay the warmest possible tribute to Nicholas Blake and his colleagues in that organisation. We must do all we can to identify all severely handicapped people. I could give the figures of severely disabled people who have already been identified. Enormous progress has been made recently.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in its 1976–77 budget the Knowsley Council, in my area, has made no provision for Section 2 of the Act for aids and adaptions for disabled and handicapped people? Does he take the same serious and shocked view that I do of this? Will he take default powers, to ensure that the local authority complies with the law?

There is another Question about Section 2 of the Act on the Order Paper. I am prepared to give urgent consideration to the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister bear in mind that even where people have already been identified by local authorities, many of them are affected by cutbacks in public expenditure, which have resulted in cut-backs in essential lifeline services, such as home helps?

The current economic situation is extremely difficult for local authorities. I am doing my best to emphasise that priority should be given to the claims of disabled people. I hope that all hon. Members will do what they can in their localities to emphasise the needs of the disabled.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will announce the rate at which child benefit will be introduced next year.

I shall be made a statement later this afternoon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I find that reply rather ominous and that I shall be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, when my right hon. Friend makes his statement?

I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend finds the prospect of a statement ominous. If there were to be the introduction of the scheme of which the House approved there would clearly have to be a statement to the House, and it would be surprising if I were not the Secretary of State to do it.

Since the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) failed for so long to give the figures for child benefit, why should she find it ominous when the Secretary of State proposes to do so?

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the methods adopted by local authorities in providing telephones for the disabled.

I understand that some authorities use criteria drawn up by the former local authority associations. These may be helpful to authorities in a general way, but I have been making it clear that they do not, of course, relieve any authority of the duty to consider the particular needs of the individual in each case. I am advised that the legal position is that, if an authority is satisfied in any case of the need for a telephone under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, it is required to make arrangements accordingly.

Does my hon. Friend realise that while there is appreciation of what the Government have done for the disabled, there is growing concern about inconsistency in the provision of tele phones, which seems to depend upon where people live and when they apply? Will he consider applying national criteria, because there is a serious sense of grievance on the part of people who do not get telephones when they see them supplied to others with a lesser degree of disability?

One of the difficulties is that it is widely thought that there are national criteria. The criteria approved by the former local authority associations were issued in the form of guidelines. They had no statutory force. I am well aware of the importance of my hon. Friend's point and will actively consider what he has said.

The Minister said that local authorities should "make arrangements accordingly". Does he mean that they should do so regardless of whether the resources are available? As cosponsor of the Bill, will the Minister, I should like to be clear on that point.

Local authorities have laid upon them the duty to consider the need of an individual and, if satisfied about it, to make provision accordingly, within a reasonable period. That means that if the local authority recognises and accepts the need in any particular case it must meet that need. That is the legal advice available to me. I have mentioned that there are problems about resources. The hon. Member has asked me a direct question. I can only repeat the advice available to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to improve the community care services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to encourage the care of the elderly, disabled and other handicapped people by their families.

Our recent consultative document "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England" emphasises the importance of developing community services—including those provided by voluntary organisations—to help elderly and handicapped people, and others in need, to live in the community and with their families to the maximum extent possible. We propose a deliberate and challenging policy of giving these services priority over the acute hospital services in the allocation of the limited resources available for growth.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that at a time when public expenditure must be pruned ruthlessly, effective community care services would do much to save expenditure by their greater use of voluntary effort and by saving more people from going into institutions? Will he therefore give the highest possible priority to improving community care services?

I assure the hon. Member that we shall do that, within the restraints on public expenditure. Personal social services are receiving a higher share at a time when there is nil growth in local government expenditure. That shows the priority given to them. We need to improve community care as much as we can, and we should use effectively the resources of voluntary organisations as well as statutory bodies. Much can be done by voluntary organisations in the community, and local authorities are working more closely with them to establish a basis for a partnership.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he is to provide greater community care, he will have to ensure that technical aids are made more readily available, because only then can dependants look after relatives who are disabled, elderly or suffering?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has done a tremendous amount of work in this area. The Government have also done a tremendous amount of work, and will continue to do so. It is vital that modern equipment should be available to help handicapped and disabled people to live in their own homes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the invalid care allowance to married women?

I cannot accept any extension of the allowance at the moment. It begins in July, and 10,000 applications have been received. The allowance will help men and single women who are prevented from working by the need to care for severely disabled relatives who are receiving an attendance allowance. As the new allowance has only just been introduced, it is too early to contemplate an extension, though we should like to consider that when conditions permit.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it was an absolute disaster to separate social services from the NHS and community care? Does he not further agree that in present economic circumstances it would also be disastrous if the big spenders—the hospitals—were able to make a greater claim on resources when community care should have the priority that he is recommending?

I agree that it is vital that we take every possible step to ensure effective co-operation between health authorities and local authorities. That is one of the reasons why we have put forward proposals to provide funds for joint financing, particularly in community care. Projects could be sponsored and financed jointly by health authorities and local authorities. That would be one way of ensuring the sort of co-operation that my hon. Friend and I both wish to see.

Will the Secretary of State consider issuing guidelines to local authorities so that they do not cut off grants to local organisations which are trying hard to work in partnership in order to cut the costs of local authority care?

I shall certainly look into that question and discuss it with my colleagues, though I cannot give any commitment at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that it pays to work.

The question of financial incentives to work is a highly complex one, involving wage levels, taxation, social security benefits and other benefits, such as rent and rate rebates. We are keeping this question under review.

Are this scroungers' Government so insulated from the anger of people who do a good day's work that they do not realise that such waffle and such policies make it more difficult to have compassion in a geniune case?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the vast majority of unemployed people in this country want to work. It is a matter of much greater public concern that we should be losing the productive capacity of the large number of people who are unemployed and who want to work. That is what should be troubling the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. During Question Time one Opposition Member made a claim about scroungers on social security. May I ask you to rule whether such Members should declare their interests, so that, when they are receiving £5,750 a year at the taxpayers' expense and scrounging fees from directorships and/or parliamentary adviserships, people outside—

Order. It is quite clear that that is not a point of order. It is a debating point.