asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake a programme of preventive medicine and health education.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to follow up the statements in the document "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business".

The recent consultative document "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" aims to stimulate interest in prevention amongst the general public and in the health service. A series of specific papers will be published over the next few months on fluoridation, occupational health, and services related to pregnancy and childbirth. This programme is being, and will be, further supported by decisions to divert resources, both financial and personnel, towards preventive health.

Is the Minister aware that one out of every three children in the country is not receiving a polio vaccination? Does he recognise that poliomyelitis in other countries could be easily imported into this country? What action does he intend to take to bring to the attention of parents the need for a high level of polio vaccination for children?

There has recently been an increase in polio vaccination, and to some extent, that reflects what the hon. Gentleman said about the fairly low uptake in the past. That has concerned me, not just for polio, but other vaccination programmes. Sometimes I wish that the general publicity about vaccination would concentrate more on the benefits than on some of the admitted disadvantages of vaccination, because the advantages of vaccination, when properly organised, far outweigh the disadvantages.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the need to reach the groups of the population that do not normally come into contact with health education would be helped if the Health Education Council had a larger budget than the rather measly £1½ million that it now gets?

That is something that we can examine. I am not certain that the way to improve the situation is to increase central resources, but I agree that there is a strong case for spending more. What is needed is more action in the localities, and there the community health councils have a great rôle to play.

Has the Minister had any discussions about health education with the Secretary of State for Employment?

We are in fairly constant touch, particularly over the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, for which the Secretary of State for Employment has a major responsibility and in which my Department has an interest. I have not discussed the matter with the Secretary of State in any detail, but there is regular contact between officials in the Departments.

What action is being taken to reduce the risk of people having heart attacks, to save the 3,500 beds daily which are occupied by the victims of heart attacks?

It is not always for a Minister to take action on such matters. We have to try to get home to people that they have a considerable amount of responsibility themselves. As the booklet "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" says, we have become too used to thinking that this is a problem to be solved by Ministers, doctors or pills.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if lie will make a statement on the take-up of mobility allowance.

I am glad to be able to say that take-up has recently come well up to our expectations. By 16th July, over 34,000 claims had been received from disabled people in the eligible age range of 15 to 50. So far, awards have been made in over 22,000 cases. Some 5,000 have been disallowed. As my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 23rd July made clear, disabled children aged 11 to 14 will become eligible to claim the mobility allowance from 25th August for payment from 24th November.

I thank the Minister for that information. Is he aware that one of the obstacles that should be considered in regard to mobility allowance is the inability of the individual to meet the initial purchase price of the four-wheeled motor car? Will he investigate the possibility of allowing a person to commute his or her mobility allowance to assist with the initial financial outlay?

I must emphasise that the mobility allowance has been highly popular with disabled people. The vast majority of them have chosen the mobility allowance in preference to the vehicle. I am very much aware of the importance of commutation, which is why I have been working with the Central Council for the Disabled with a view to seeing whether we can arrive at a scheme that will enable disabled people to commute the allowance so as to be able to purchase the car of their choice.

Will my hon. Friend try to educate the mass media to understand that the vast majority of disabled people are not disabled drivers, and that a vehicle is of no use to them at all? Is he aware that cash rather than a car is widely accepted as the best policy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a most important point. It was put to me strongly by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, representing 26 national organisations, that it was the most cruel anomaly to exclude from mobility allowance people who are too severely disabled to drive. I am glad that we are now able to give help equally to disabled drivers and those who are too disabled to drive.

Will he take the opportunity to qualify what was said in the announcement made on Friday by the Secretary of State for Social Services? What is the position about disabled people who have been promised three-wheeler trikes and who are now awaiting delivery? Will those deliveries be honoured?

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the extension of the mobility allowance to younger children will be warmly welcomed, and that he and his colleagues deserve to be congratulated on that achievement? Nevertheless, will not the phasing out of the three-wheeler create severe hardships to some categories of people, notably those who depend on three-wheelers to go to work? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the possibility of providing some realistic assistance to enable those people to get to work?

That, again, is a most important matter. A case was reported in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, although that newspaper made no reference whatever to the fares-to-work scheme of the Employment Services Agency. I am glad to say that, quite apart from the mobility allowance, registered disabled people who have to incur substantial expense, which they cannot otherwise afford in order to get to work, may be eligible for financial help from the Employment Services Agency and will be able to apply for such assistance if they cease to have use of an invalid tricycle. I cannot forecast the outcome of any particular case, because grants are based on consideration of individual circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to phase out the earnings rule.

We have no plans to do this at the present time, because of the prohibitive cost.

Does the Minister appreciate that the £50 sum is enshrined in the Social Security Act 1975, and does he agree that it should be extended to £65 per week, which is the average wage earned in manufacturing industry? Surely the Government must respect this situation. It is far better for retirement pensioners to be independent. Will he say how many people are likely to be involved following the abolition of the earnings rule?

The Government are to amend the Act in the next Session to restrict the figure to £35, with appropriate cost-of-living adjustments. Most people who now benefit from the earnings rule will not suffer because of the £35 limit. If the rule were abolished altogether, about 110,000 people would be involved.

Does the Minister agree that it is grossly unfair that earnings-related supplement to unemployment pay should be subject to the earnings rule, since this can only discriminate against the lowest paid?

I am examining that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of renewed public interest in documents recently published for the first time, if he will order a public inquiry into the case of the drug thalidomide affecting the birth of deformed children.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now hold a public inquiry into the thalidomide tragedy.

Following the thalidomide tragedy the Committee on Safety of Drugs was appointed in 1963 and a review of medicines legislation was completed. The review led to the Medicines Act 1968, which provided powers for new and comprehensive controls for the safety, quality and efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. It is unlikely that an inquiry into the thalidomide case would be helpful in identifying further safety measures.

Does the Secretary of State agree that an inquiry should take place at this time into the manufacturing and marketing methods pursued by the Distillers Company, in view of the legal restraints imposed on those making claims on behalf of children and also on the Press, particularly bearing in mind the attitude and ministerial responsibility—or irresponsibility—at the time of the tragedy? Does he not agree that this matter should be investigated?

I do not think that would serve any useful purpose. The facts are well known and have now been published. I do not believe that an inquiry would lead to any new or helpful facts. It would be disturbing for many of those involved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I believe that he is wrong in assuming that a public inquiry would not help to uncover further safety measures, because a good deal of information about the thalidomide tragedy has not yet been disclosed? It is possible—I would say probable—that some other firms are doing exactly the same things now as the Distillers Company was doing then. Therefore, does he agree that a public inquiry, with full public disclosure, is the only way of avoiding this situation? Does he further agree that the cases of the "Y" list children not yet decided would be helped by a public inquiry? Will he reconsider his decision?

An inquiry into the thalidomide case would not necessarily reveal any facts in relation to other firms. Under the present system, extensive tests and trials are undertaken before a product licence for a new drug is granted. Results of such tests and trials cannot provide a complete assurance against the possibility that a product when brought into widespread use will have an adverse effect on some patients. There is no doubt that the situation has greatly improved since the events of 10 years ago. As for the children, it is a matter between the children, their legal advisers, the Distillers Company and the courts. My information is that so far no claim has been turned down and that 12 of the original children, who numbered 97, have now had their claims accepted. So far as I am aware, the others have not had their claims rejected. It is hoped that their cases will be speedily settled.

I have had my differences with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to deny the suggestions made in The Sunday Times that the right hon. Gentleman bore some share of the blame for this tragedy?

I am delighted to hear that the differences between the two right hon. Gentlemen have now been resolved—

Haud tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis.

—however, I do not think that it is for me to stand in some judicial capacity and say that no responsibility falls on the right hon. Gentleman. It is not for me to reach a conclusion one way or the other, and I do not think the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would want to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry? Is he aware that when I was Secretary of State for Social Services I was ready to hold a public inquiry, but it seemed to all those interested at the time that the Press would be able to reveal the full facts? We now know that it is not possible, and that certain documents cannot be published. In view of the fact that this is the most serious drug tragedy in our history, can my right hon. Friend be absolutely sure, without holding a public inquiry, that we have learned all the lessons from this matter that will lead to our full protection?

I have such respect for my right hon. Friend that if ever she asks me to think about anything again, I agree to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services what further steps he proposes to take to tackle the problems of homeless young people.

I hope to be able to publish the report of the working group which has been considering these problems before the recess and I propose to consider further, in consultation with my colleagues and other interested parties, what steps can be taken at the present time, bearing in mind the need for restraint in public expenditure.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now urgent that the Government should give an effective lead well before the winter? Could he at least give us an assurance that while resources must remain limited, help for young homeless people will not be restricted further as a result of the recent review of public expenditure?

I shall make a statement on this matter before the Summer Recess, which means that hon. Members have only a few days to wait for this statement and the publication of the report. We do have to watch public expenditure very carefully. It would be wrong to imply that there should be some new responsibility for local authorities to carry out and new functions to fulfill if the funds are not provided to enable them to do so.

Will freedom from the new restrictions be given to areas of extreme stress rather than to individual groups in various circumstances? Will the Secretary of State consult the Minister for Housing, in particular, about the ways in which homeless young people can be protected from the forthcoming blast?

Yes, I shall do that. I have great concern for the problems of homeless people, having once been the Chairman of the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless. These problems concern me very much, but I would rather refrain from comment until the report is published.

What action will the Secretary of State take to persuade British Rail to reverse its decision about the siting of an information booth on Euston Station to help young people when they come to London? Will he press British Rail to set up a similar booth at Victoria Coach Station, in order to point young people in the right direction?

I am concerned about the decision taken by British Rail on this matter. The British Raliways Board wrote to the Home Office only on 20th July, and I am consulting with my hon. Friends about ways in which the difficulties put forward by the board can be met. It would be a great advantage if there were information centres at both Euston and Victoria Coach Station. The National Bus Company has been very co-operative about taking part in discussions on that proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the take up of the invalid care allowance.

I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 12th July. We are continuing to take all suitable opportunities to underline the advantages of the new benefit. In this regard, I should like to emphasise again that the new allowance not only provides non-means-tested help where only means-tested benefits have been available hitherto, but also that those who are entitled to the allowance are credited with class 1 national insurance contributions.

Naturally I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister tell the House roughly the amount of public expenditure that would be involved if married women were brought into the scheme?

I can only make a "guesstimate". My best guesstimate is that the additional cost would be about £25 million. I have said before that many hon. Members seem to believe that the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole. Those who want us to reduce the totality of public expenditure are the very people who want us to increase certain elements of it. They seem to believe that the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Many of the families affected by this new allowance are unsure of the right to claim this and the attendance allowance at the same time. What action is the Minister taking to make people aware of both entitlements?

I have been in contact with hon. Members on both sides of the House in an attempt to get maximum publicity for the new benefit. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The attendance allowance is payable in addition to the invalid care allowance. The mobility allowance is payable also to the same household, and there is an income disregard of £6 a week plus class 1 national insurance contributions. Some people have said, or implied, that we are doing too much, but they should look at the alternative costs, both human and financial, of forcing people into institutions when they could otherwise live in the community.

An Opposition Prayer on this matter has been on the Order Paper for some months. It was put down to give the House an opportunity to debate the Regulations and the problems arising from the new benefit before it came into payment. The Government are surely not trying to avoid a debate in this area in the same way as they are chopping more controversial debates. Will the Minister ask the Leader of the House to make time for a full and proper debate on this subject?

We are certainly not seeking to avoid a debate on this benefit. I would welcome it. It is not for me to reply to the question of allocation of parliamentary time. The hon. Member has made his point, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take it fully into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reduce to 24 hours the minimum working week for FIS claimants.

No, Sir. Family income supplement is intended to provide assistance to low-income working families in full-time work, and I have no intention of introducing a disincentive to full-time work. Assistance for low-income families unable to work full-time is available through the supplementary benefit scheme.

Is the Minister aware that this is a very disappointing reply, particularly in view of replies given previously, which suggested that this idea was under active consideration. Is he aware that there are many families who would benefit from this, and that it would not be such an expensive reform for his Department? There would be a saving on supplementary benefit if a person with family responsibilities could claim family income supplement when he or she had a three-quarter-time job.

My hon. Friend may have misunderstood the situation. We are considering a proposal, which was one of the suggestions of the Finer Committee, that there should be an easement in the number of hours of full-time work for FIS payment for one-parent families.

Should not the Government cast aside their prejudices about the use of FIS and use it much more as an instrument to combat family poverty? Although this is a means-tested benefit, the fact is that it is paid to people in work. This is some sort of answer to the abuses of social security benefits of which we have seen so much recently.

We have taken steps to uprate FIS in line with the rise in the cost of living, but there are other ways of dealing with the problems of low incomes. One of these ways is to see that low pay is increased in many industries?

When does the Minister expect the consultations to which he has previously referred to be completed?

I am sorry to say they will not be completed this side of the Summer Recess, so I will not be able to make any announcement before the House rises. We have to consider this proposal, which is one with which we have a great deal of sympathy, but we also have to take account of public expenditure considerations.

Is not the right answer to bring in a generous child endowment and phase out means-tested benefits altogether?

In the long term, the answer will be the putting together of the social security system, the tax system, and the system of low pay. However, we do not have the time to do that just at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his plans for the payment of cash credits in retirement.

The Government have made a number of substantial improvements in benefits for the retired and have on the statute book a new scheme for earnings-related pensions. My right hon. Friend has no other proposals at the present time.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but has he read Labour's Programme for 1976, showing as it does proposals for cash benefits for those over retirement age? Does that not show a remarkable similarity to the tax credit scheme put forward by the Conservative Party?

There are many excellent suggestions in Labour's programme for 1976. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the point to the attention of the House. The matter that he raises will have to be discussed in future policy, but there is no immediate intention to introduce such a scheme.

Will my right hon. Friend add up all the requests for extra public expenditure made by the Opposition this afternon and publish the results in the Official Report?

I am afraid that I would have to add a lot of noughts to the figures that we already have.

Before the right hon. Gentleman adds any new benefits to the statute book, will he consider meeting the obligations promised to the pensioners in the Social Security Act 1975, to raise pensions in line with prices?

The pensions increase this November will take pensions to their highest ever level and will cushion pensions against the effects of the current cost of living.

My right hon. Friend was asked what consideration was being given to additional benefits. Will he state what the Department intends to do to offset the effects of increased fuel costs on the aged and other groups, and what the Department can do in the forthcoming winter to alleviate the problem?

There is a later Question on this subject on the Order Paper. The matter is under active consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for a publicity campaign to explain and invite claims for the introduction of family allowances for the first child in April 1977.

As the hon. Member will appreciate, family allowances will be abolished from next April and will be replaced by child benefit under the Child Benefit Act 1975. Only families who are not receiving family allowances now will have to claim child benefit for the first child. There will be an extensive publicity campaign, starting in the late summer, including national newspapers and magazine advertising, leaflets and posters.

Surely the Minister will not be advertising his proposals under the name of child benefit when they are really only the old taxed family allowance arrangements. Will he say when the working party set up by the Government with the TUC and the Labour Party will report, so that Parliament may be let back in on the act of deciding how best to get out of the Government's disastrous attempts to abandon the Child benefit scheme? Will he confirm, before the working party has reported, that the Prime Minister's first angry statement that nothing could be contemplated before 1979 is now completely abandoned by the Government?

The working party, which includes representatives of the Government, the TUC, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the national executive committee, has had a number of meetings. I hope that it will be possible to make known to the House its conclusions and any further conclusions that the Government may reach. The question of child benefit is due for consideration in the House on Friday, and I shall take the opportunity then of informing the House. On the first part of the question, of course the benefit that is being introduced next year for the first child is part of and flows from the Child Benefit Act. It is known that the Government are committed to the introduction in full of child benefit. This is the first step.

Since a mass advertising campaign is to take place later this year, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why that campaign could not have taken place earlier this year, because it would then have explained to the TUC and the unions generally the relationship between the transfer from pay packet to purse which we have heard so much about?

The advertising later this year is designed to encourage families to apply for the benefit for the first child. It is not a political advertising campaign; it is a campaign designed to encourage all those who are entitled to child benefit to apply for it.

Is it really the case that for this new family allowance scheme, the Government will use the same leaflet as would have been used for the real child benefit, putting in a correction slip to say that, after all, the tax allowances will not be withdrawn?

If that is another demand for additional public expenditure, I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's approach. We produced a leaflet of which 13 million copies were printed. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should produce another leaflet, rather than use the existing one and include an information slip, he must accept that that would be extremely costly. He is asking for more public expenditure. The information slip drawing attention to the changes will be issued with the leaflet.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the keynote of the child benefit scheme is the transfer from pay packet to purse in the interests of the mother? Would it not be extraordinarily confusing if my right hon. Friend insisted on continuing to call the extension of family allowances the introduction of child benefit? If he continues with the approach will he not make it much more difficult for us to educate people on what is involved in the child benefit scheme?

I am surprised that my right hon. Friend adopts that attitude, because both she and I are committed to the introduction in full of child benefits. She recognises that the first step is that which will be taken in April, that other steps will follow, and that this process should be seen by the public as progress towards full implementation of the Government's commitment to the child benefit scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the Royal College of Nursing.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next intends to visit the Royal College of Nursing.

I met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing on 19th May and they know that I am very willing to meet them as and when there is need.

How is the suggested growth rate of 6 per cent. in the district nursing service and the health visitors' service to be achieved within the present budget? Where will the nurses come from?

There is no problem about where the nurses will come from; there is a steady increase in the number of nurses and midwives in the NHS. It is estimated that in September this year there will be 20,000 more nurses and midwives, or their whole-time equivalent, than there were two years before. We do not have a problem in the recruitment of nurses, and there has been a good intake into nurses' training schools. I share the concern of all those who want to see a sufficient number of health visitors and district nurse tutors.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the representatives of the Royal College, will he discuss with them the increasing tendency to bypass the joint consultative committees and for unilateral action to be taken by the trade unions, rather than their using these committees? This matter is of increasing concern to the Royal College and to all Members of this House and the public. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving guidance to the area health authorities on the action they should take when this practice occurs?

As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on 27th May, the present arrangements for local joint staff consultation committees in the NHS embodied in the general Whitley Council agreement do not distinguish between affiliated trade unions and professional organisations. I understand that these arrangements are reflected in individual committees, but I am aware that there have been difficulties in a few places. My advice to the health authority is that since participation must be on an entirely voluntary basis it must negotiate with its staff the most effective arrangements appropriate to local circumstances.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of the total nursing personnel in the health service are coloured, from the New Commonwealth? Will he take advantage of this question to pay tribute to the noble work that they are doing?

I am afraid that I cannot give the figures. I am not certain whether they would be available from the lists of those who have been taken into employment. Colour is not a consideration. I pay warm tribute to the service given to the National Health Service by nurses from many parts of the world. I think that it has to be said that it would be difficult to provide the services in National Health Service hospitals today were it not for the admirable work done by people from many parts of the world, particularly from Commonwealth countries.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he gave a weak answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer)? Is he further aware that there is extreme disquiet among nurses, who in some area health authorities are not even getting equal treatment with other employees in the National Health Service? Will he undertake to do something rather more positive about it than he has been able to do so far?

The hon. Lady is getting very worked up. I shall give an additional answer to that which I gave the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I have said that there continues to be a steady increase in the number of nurses in the National Health Service. The hon. Lady will know that the review of public expenditure shows a continuing expansion, or a continuing rate of growth, in the service. That includes nurses. No doubt the House, including the hon. Lady, will have noted, in the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on public expenditure cuts for 1977–78, that no inroad has been made into the revenue expenses of the National Health Service. They have been absolutely protected.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake a review of the rate of the death grant when the results of the Price Commission's survey of funeral costs are made known; and if he will make a statement.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will have regard to the commission's findings, but any possible improvement in the rate of the death grant must necessarily be weighed against other competing claims on scarce resources.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents accepted responsibility for burying a deceased relative of no fixed abode, and that the funeral, consisting of a hearse, cortege, one car, the funeral parlour and crematorium expenses, amounted to £104, at early 1975 prices? All that she received was £30. In view of the high cost of dying, should not the grant be increased substantially and immediately?

The grant has never covered all the expenses connected with a funeral. Although it has been increased only twice since 1949, it still makes a modest contribution to the overall cost. If my hon. Friend's constituent had been on supplementary benefit or, alternatively, not in full-time work but with an income slightly above supplementary benefit level, she could have received assistance from the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if a sick or elderly person died who had been befriended and cared for by a neighbour or friend rather than a relative, that person would not qualify for death grant? Does he not think that that is disgraceful?

That is bound to happen, because we have a contributory scheme for the death grant. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should replace the contributory death grant by a means-tested benefit, that is something that we should object to very strongly.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is considering any reorganisation plans for area health authorities.

No, Sir, but I have asked the area health authorities and the regional health authorities to consider ways of securing economies in their management costs. I await their proposals.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but does he not agree that the BMA is seeking to refer the junior hospital doctors' dispute to the Prime Minister? Does that not indicate the degree of malaise that exists and the profession's loss of faith in his Department, from his own level down to area health authorities?

I believe that it was a useful discussion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I had with the medical profession. It is true that it has a number of worries. Some of them are linked with the reorganisation of the Health Service, while some are linked with the inevitable difficulties of pay policy. There are other problems as well. These matters were raised with my right hon. Friend. It was an extremely productive and frank meeting. The mood of the meeting was helpful. I believe that it augurs well for the operation of bridge-building and for creating a better atmosphere between the Government and the profession, which is of vital importance.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the special problems of area health authorities? The Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark area, for example, has three teaching hospitals and the authority is now being called upon to take a balancing decision between teaching hospital costs and community hospitals, such as the Sydenham Children's Hospital, in my constituency.

There are such problems, and there are problems that arise from the redistribution of resources between regions to ensure that the deprived regions get a more adequate share of revenue funds than the better endowed ones. That produces some problems, but it means that we are easing the problems in the boroughs that have been under-provided.

Reverting to the question of junior doctors, does the right hon. Gentleman accept outside any question of pay policy, that some junior doctors will be worse off under the new contract? Will he now say publicly that there will be a no-detriment clause, so as to avoid that difficulty, which has given rise to much of the bitterness?

I do not think that it has given rise to much of the bitterness. I think that only a small number of doctors will be getting less than before under the new contract. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would look into this question. We have to recognise that, on average, junior hospital doctors have received an increase of slightly under £800 from the new contract, compared with the previous one. That is a satisfactory settlement.