asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he received during the parliamentary recess on the White Paper on membership participation in occupational pension schemes.

I have received some 150 representations, of which 32 have come from the members of one pension scheme.

Has the Minister been following the expressions of public disquiet which have been revealed in the columns of the Press during the summer over the proposal that 50 per cent, of the representation on occupational pension schemes should go to the trade unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this proposal, which is opposed by, among others, trade unionists, since investment decisions on occupational pension schemes should be taken purely with thought for the benefit of the pensioners and not with thought to alleviating temporary unemployment?

The Government reaffirm their basic support for the proposals within the White Paper. During the summer and the autumn I have had consultations with employers and trade unionists about pension schemes. I have found a ready acceptance of many of the main points, and many pension schemes are already bringing themselves into line with some of the proposals in the White Paper.

Does the Minister accept that many people who are working for the success of the pensions legislation are strongly opposed to giving trade unionists the monopoly in employee participation? Will he give an assurance that legislation will provide flexibility for the participation arrangements so that occupational pension scheme members can decide for themselves who shall represent them?

I have had representations along those lines which I have discussed with pension interests on both sides of industry, the CBI and TUC. Following those consultations, I see no reason why the Government should change their main proposals, because there is increasing acceptance of the general outline given in the White Paper.

Let me see whether I have it right. Is it the fact that the Minister has conceded that if no trade unionists are members of the scheme the trade union will not be involved, but that if only one out of perhaps many hundreds or thousands of members of a scheme is a trade unionist that man's trade union will have the right to appoint the entire representation of the members?

There is misunderstanding about this. I should explain to the right hon. Gentleman that if there are no trade unionists the White Paper provision does not apply. If there is one trade unionist who is not accepted by the company as being a member of a recognised independent trade union, the White Paper and the Bill will not apply.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future sales of analgesics.

The Medicines Commission has advised that there will be no need to prohibit the sale by self-service methods of preparations containing analgesics when Part III of the Medicines Act 1968 is implemented, provided that the preparations are in child-resistant containers or strip-packaging and are in packs containing not more than 25 tablets. We are now considering this advice.

Will the Minister accept that analgesics sold through self-service outlets should be sold only at points of supervision, so that children are not able to purchase them in any quantity in a granny-proof rather than a child-proof container?

That view has been put to me by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain. It is one of the views I am considering.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people employed in the industry—not least the workers who are members of my union—are pleased with the decision he has made? Industry and the unions would be less averse to the selling of these products if there were no possibility of their falling into the wrong hands or being used for suicide. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the regulations cover all the objections that have been made to self-service sales of analgesics?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. The House will now realise why I am considering the advice carefully.

Will the Minister bear in mind the remote areas, where people often buy the simpler analgesics from the grocer or the post office? If analgesics have to be sold in small quan- tities, extra cost will be incurred by consumers because of the smaller quantity involved, in addition to the extra cost which people who live in remote areas have to bear anyway.

The interest of people who live in rural areas is a point which I shall bear in mind.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very strong feeling on this side of the House about the pressure exerted by drug companies to allow sales in supermarkets? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends do not think that drugs should be treated like sweets and believe that they should be sold over the counter properly?

That point of view has been put to me already by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It wishes to ensure that proper public education takes place about the manner in which medicines are handled. I shall be taking that into account as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make an announcement on the allocation of NHS resources.

I am aiming to give regional health authorities their allocations for 1977–78 at around the new year after considering the views of the authorities and other interested bodies on the recent report of the Resource Allocation Working Party.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the allocation of existing resources urgent attention should be paid to the over-lengthy waiting lists for non-acute surgery in any area? Has he read the latest report of the West Somerset Community Health Council, which states that if any area had a worse waiting list situation

"it was a bleak outlook for people in this country"?

The problem of waiting lists is one that concerns me very much. It concerned my predecessor and every Minister responsible over the past 25 years. It is a serious problem. There have always been waiting lists which are too long. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), introduced additional funds to assist where funds were the answer in alleviating the problem. In some cases waiting lists have become somewhat longer in the past few months, especially where industrial action was taken by consultants and, in some cases, by junior hospital doctors. I hope that we shall be improving the situation. It is an issue that I am examining carefully.

Will my right hon. Friend investigate the dangerously low level of nursing allocation in the parliamentary constituency of St. Helens before he decides upon the allocation of resources, in view of the report I have received in the past few days in which members of the trade unions and the area health authority report on the dangerously low level of nursing allocation?

The report of the Resource Allocation Working Party showed that the North-West, Trent, the Northern Region, Yorkshire and Wessex were among the regions which needed to have a higher share of national resources than they had had hitherto. The report showed that the four Thames regions and Oxford already had more than their fair share of revenue resources. St. Helens is affected by that situation. I shall have to take a decision at the end of the year on whether to accept in full the recommendations that are brought forward. In many areas there are some uncertainties for nurses. Up to now they have always assumed that they would be able to take up appointments in the hospital in which they had been trained, but that is not now possible because the wastage rate of nurses is much less. In some cases, nurses have to be prepared to be a little more mobile than hitherto.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that retiring consultants such as dermatologists are not being replaced, that sufficient nurses are not being employed although they are available, and that vital equipment is not being purchased? Is he not presiding over the slow death of the National Health Service? Where does he plan to find other sources of revenue apart from the Exchequer?

Since the Government came to power there has been substantial expenditure on the NHS. It has increased from less than 4 per cent, of our gross domestic product to nearly 6 per cent, in only two years. Even now, in a period of considerable economic stress, there is still an element of growth within the service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will increase the grant for health prevention work to the Health Education Council.

As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) on 15th October, I propose to allocate an extra £1 million to the Health Education Council for its budget for 1977–78. In addition, I shall be making available to the Health Education Council £200,000 a year specifically for contraception health education including publicity for the NHS family planning service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement has been widely welcomed? Does he agree that a relatively modest increase in expenditure on health education can effect substantial economies in the treatment of illness and disease? That is particularly so for example, in dental health, bearing in mind the estimate that only half the population has a toothbrush.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is one reason for my ministerial colleagues and myself putting a great deal of stress and emphasis on the importance of prevention and health. The launching of the publication "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" is really the beginning of a new emphasis on preventive medicine. That is why we are greatly expanding the funds available—in fact, almost doubling them—to the Health Education Council.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Chief Medical Officer once said that the most important thing to do for preventive medicine was to do something about smoking and chest diseases? Will he take further action to make far more inroads into the £80 million being spent by the tobacco industry to persuade people to smoke? Even the amount now being given is inadequate unless the action supplements the work of the Health Education Council.

I agree that an important contribution to the health of the nation could be made if people stopped smoking, or greatly reduced their smoking, and if young people and women did not start smoking. There has been a serious growth in the number of young people and women who have taken up smoking, to the detriment of their health as well as their economic situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) referred to dental health. Will the Health Education Council be asked to do more to promote fluoridation, which reduces dental decay in children by more than half, with absolute safety and at extremely low cost?

I absolutely agree. Not only have I made a statement in support of fluoridation, but I have made additional funds available because I think it is a matter of great importance, especially following upon the point made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the most recent estimate of the numbers in the United Kingdom living below the poverty line, as denned by his Department.

Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn. In the past, information has been drawn from the annual Family Expenditure Survey as a convenient way of estimating the number of families with incomes below supplementary benefit level. The 1975 survey information suggests that 1,170,000 families comprising some 2,070,000 people have such an income.

Bearing in mind that already dreadful figure, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he has made any estimate of the likely result this winter of the cut-backs in manpower services within DHSS offices, which are even now having great difficulties meeting the demands put upon them at this time of high unemployment and rising prices? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the last area in which such services should be cut back?

I am aware of the difficulties that now exist in Scotland. It is not the Government's intention to create redundancies. There is a forward forecast, and talks are going on with the staff trade unions which, I hope, will bring this matter to a reasonable conclusion.

How many of the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred in his answer are in full-time employment and paying income tax on the level of earnings they are receiving in that employment?

I cannot give that information without notice. There is a great problem in regard to what is normally called the poverty trap. We would like to simplify the situation and take many people out of that trap, but that consideration involves many other aspects of Government policy, including taxation and public expenditure matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that simple steps such as the removal of food subsidies will considerably increase the number of people who fall below the poverty line? Therefore, will he use his undoubted weight in the Cabinet to put pressure on the Treasury in respect of measures of this type?

I assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I are fully aware of that argument. He will appreciate that the upratings next month are the highest level ever reached in recent times.

Does not the Minister realise that the problem of the poverty trap is becoming worse under the Labour Government? This year, for the first time, anybody who goes out to work, whether married or single, and who earns less than the amount of long-term supplementary benefit could still find himself paying income tax on those earnings, even though he might be below the official poverty line. Will he accept that he is presiding over the steady growth in the number of people who find that it does not pay to work? Will he examine the tax credit approach as an answer to the problem?

I notice that recently even within the Conservative Party those proposals were criticised because they would have helped people who do not need help in such a situation. I am well aware of the problem of the poverty trap. We are examining the situation, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of these issues. We are as concerned as anybody about the situation, and we should like to take people out of the poverty trap as soon as possible.

If 4 per cent, of our population are totally dependent on public expenditure for their standard of living, is it not criminal for there to be calls for further public expenditure cuts which would hit their standard of living as well as the standards of all the others who are partially dependent on the increased ratio in the top level of public expenditure which forms the most important part of their standard of living?

I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. He made a powerful speech on this matter at a meeting which he and I attended recently. The House should take account of the increase in benefits which are being made, despite the economic situation, and which are being maintained.

In view of the statement by the Minister of State before the recess that in his view male wage and salary earners were not ready to accept the merits of child benefits, will he undertake to campaign in the next few months to publish details of those benefits? It seems certain that pay policy will be continued if the present Government remain in office and that there may be another excuse for not introducing those benefits.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact that there are many benefits to which people are entitled but which they do not claim. That group of people embraces one-parent families and those who are entitled to supplementary benefit. I am concerned to see that no genuine people are deterred from claiming their justifiable benefits.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give estimates of the amounts of expenditure for which the average general practitioner and the average consultant with his team are responsible, respectively, in making clinical decisions in the course of a year in the National Health Service.

Detailed estimates cannot be made but, if the cost of the pharmaceutical and of the general medical services were broadly attributed to clinical decisions by general practitioners and the running costs of the hospital service to consultant teams' decisions, estimated averages for England in 1976–77 would be £36,000 and £290,000.

Is it not the case that, for the sake of the principle of clinical freedom, there is hardly any effective control of this expenditure? Bearing in mind the intense pressures to which doctors are subjected by the pharmaceutical industry, would it not be possible for the Government, in consultation with the profession, to achieve some useful economies in this direction without prejudicing in any way the interests of patients?

There is a major problem of escalating costs in the pharmaceutical industry. There are two aspects of the matter. One aspect concerns the cost of the pharmaceutical industry to the National Health Service, and I have been able to take action to limit the extent to which expenses can be set against costs charged. I am reducing the figure of spending from 14 to 10 per cent., and that will represent a saving. The other aspect relates to prescribing by general practitioners and hospitals. These are matters which can be dealt with only in consultation with the medical profession, but since this is a part of the NHS over which there is no control whatever it should properly be discussed with the profession.

Order. May I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to ask shorter supplementary questions and to give shorter answers?

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that those figures will be of great interest to general practitioners? Since the family doctor service is a sector of the National Health Service which attracts only 8 per cent, of the total cost of the service, and is the point at which most people have contact with the service, does not my right hon. Friend agree that if more money was spent on that aspect of the service it would be well spent and also cost effective?

I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. This is the area with the greatest growth rate of expenditure in the National Health Service, and intentionally so. Primary care is an extremely important matter. There is a substantial growth rate in the amount of funds available for primary care as well as in the number of nurses working in the community.

Will the Minister publish a list of medical journals which will be threatened if he does not give more consideration to the speech which he delivered on 24th September?

Nobody will be threatened.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the phased withdrawal of vehicles for the disabled.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in the last two months from disabled people following his statement about the mobility allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received concerning the proposal to phase out the invalid tricycle.

I refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 11th October. I have also had meetings with representatives of several disabled peoples' organisations to hear their views. Our consideration of mobility policy is, of course, still on-going, and I am keeping very much in mind all the views expressed to me.

I appreciate the great reforms introduced by my hon. Friend to help disabled people, but will he now assure thousands of anxious people by undertaking that he will not phase out the three-wheeled car, not even after five years, until drivers have been provided with an alternative or suitable vehicle and that he will avoid bringing to an end their social and working lives?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Since many disabled people have been caused unnecessary concern, I must state categorically that there is no question of any sudden withdrawal of tricycles for at least five years. We expect to carry on maintaining them, and it is our policy to replace worn-out tricycles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assured the House in a statement on 23rd July that we were examining the continuing need of drivers for specialised vehicles. We shall see what vehicles are available in markets at home and abroad. Our aim will be to ensure that nobody who has a tricycle will be immobilised by the decision to phase out.

Will the Minister settle the principle of cash allowances? Does he not accept that those who at present have invalid tricycles will suffer a severe disadvantage when the mobility allowance is introduced since it will not cover the cost of purchasing and running a car? What progress is he making in the discussions with the Central Council for the Disabled on the question of mobility allowance?

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised, we are seeking an increase, not only in terms of amount, but in terms of the value of the mobility allowance. The Central Council for the Disabled is studying what can be done to help disabled people to by cars on advantageous terms. I have no doubt that they will be pleased to contact the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters.

What guarantee is there that any manufacturer in the United Kingdom will continue to produce a suitable vehicle for the disabled if the Government's purchasing system ceases? Will it be sufficient that there is an optional market and not a Government guarantee of purchase?

This question underlines the considerable difficulties we have had. We do not know how many disabled drivers will opt for cash in place of hardware. I cannot go any further than the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). We are aiming at giving disabled people more freedom of choice than they have at present. It is our resolve to extend the mobility of the disabled person, not to restrict it.

Does the Minister realise that the announcement made by his right hon. Friend led tens of thousands of disabled people to believe that their mobility would be restricted? Is it not now clear that a policy of equal misery for all is not at all satisfactory? [Interruption.] Will the Minister consider proposals to give the highest priority to those for whom help with mobility makes all the difference between dependence and independence?

It is my right hon. Friend's intention to have individual contact with every tricycle driver. On 23rd July, when my right hon. Friend made his statement, the right hon. Gentleman asked him whether he realised that Conservatives believed that in the great majority of cases cash rather than hardware should be the form of aid given to the disabled in terms of mobility considerations. His hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall), among others, welcomed the statement. This Government are more than trebling expenditure on mobility for the disabled, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to look at what they said on 23rd July and to try to make it clear to disabled people that we are seeking to extend their mobility.

Many people will welcome the fact that, despite protestations from Conservatives, the Government have increased expenditure threefold on mobility for the disabled at a time of economic crisis. We also welcome the fact that my hon. Friend is looking at an alternative vehicle, because a vehicle is vital. Is my hon. Friend aware that the mobility allowance is not being given with the humanity with which it should be given? This is instanced by the case of a thalidomide boy with legs only a few inches long who has been denied a mobility allowance. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the mobility allowance is administered compassionately?

I shall be pleased to look into the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am grateful to him for emphasising that we are increasing considerably expenditure on mobility for the disabled. I wonder whether hon. Members realise that asking for an increase in expenditure for the disabled in July, as I did, was like asking to go for a holiday on the Normandy beaches in June 1944.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of the Prescription Pricing Authority in 1975–76; and what is the estimate for the current year.

Nearly £4·4 million and about £5·5 million respectively.

In view of the escalating costs, will the Minister try a little experiment and ask the private sector for a tender for doing this work? It is likely that he could save about half the cost of it if he got it done efficiently by the private sector.

I am confident that the job is being done efficiently. The increased costs are due to £860,000 which took account of negotiated staff salaries and a further £240,000 to bring the staff up to the level it was at under the predecessor, the Joint Pricing Committee. The increase has had to take care of the steady secular trend in the rise of prescriptions in this country which is common to all advanced industrial countries.

Will my hon. Friend look at the increasing costs of the pricing of prescriptions and realise that nearly 55 per cent, of them are free? A great deal of machinery is used for collecting prescription charges, and therefore, this is more expensive than is necessary. Will my hon. Friend consider phasing out the present prescription charges when the economic situation allows?

I will look into that suggestion, but the Prescription Pricing Authority does not concern itself with the collection of prescription charges.

In view of the enormous financial problems facing the National Health Service at the present time, may I ask whether it is still the Government's policy to add to these by phasing out income from prescription charges?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of social security fraud were investigated in 1971 and in 1975, respectively.

No record is kept of the number of investigations of suspected fraud, but the number of cases of fraud discovered was about 39,000 in 1971 and about 46,000 in 1975.

Is the Minister aware that thousands of people at present receiving unemployment benefit are actually working? Is he aware of a recent case in which a builder applied to the local employment exchange for plasterers and was given 10 names, eight of whom already worked for him? Will the Minister make unemployment benefit conditional on claimaints regularly signing a form, on receipt of benefit, to the effect that they have not received any income in the period in question? Would not this act as a deterrent to fraudulent claims?

Blanket assertions like these do a great deal of harm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Lady does not talk about the millions of people who justifiably claim benefits and who are entitled to them. In cases where people are found to be defrauding the system, action is taken, and the proof is there for all to see. We pay £10 billion a year in benefits to people. Last year we know that £2·6 million of these claims was fraudulent by the cases we took through the courts. I would like to see the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends take action on tax evasion on the same level as they do on social security frauds.

Can my hon. Friend say how many cases were brought to his notice from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) to support his allegation that social security frauds cost the country £500 million a year?

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has been sending me quite a lot of letters and I am having them analysed. They do not all deal with fraud, and many of them have to be investigated. No one is more opposed to fraud and abuse than my right hon. Friend and myself. There are many people who on the surface appear to be defrauding the system, but on closer examination it is found that the facts are entirely different.

Will the Minister accept that I am grateful to him for making clear that he has received many hundreds of cases from me? Does he agree that legal abuse is just as bad as illegal fraud, and will he take steps to introduce residential qualification for benefit in order to end the situation in which families come here from overseas and, without having done one day's work or having paid one day's contribution, can claim benefits in the same way and, in fact, get more in taxable benefits than people who have lived and worked here all their lives?

That is just another blanket assertion. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that many people are entitled to benefit here under our EEC obligations and through reciprocal arrangements with other countries. Where cases of fraud are brought forward, they are dealt with. However, in spite of the number of letters that the hon. Gentleman has sent me, he has failed to come up with any proposal which would improve the system.

Will my right hon. Friend compare the latest available figures for the cost of social security fraud with the £300 million-plus of tax unrecovered last year? Will he also confirm that Labour Members will not tolerate generalised and unspecific attacks on the social security system which are designed to bolster up racism or achieve the destruction of the Welfare State?

I can express unqualified acceptance of that point of view. There was a headline in yesterday's Daily Express dealing with the increase in unemployment pay. I think that the figure quoted in that newspaper was £9·12. It suggested that this was a violation of the recent pay agreement. As usual, the Daily Express got it wrong. The figure is £5·95. The Government, however, are determined to ensure that people who are unemployed and disabled shall get the benefit to which they are entitled and that people who need supplementary benefits and pensions get those, too.

Has not a new dimension been introduced into this subject recently? Did the right hon. Gentleman see the report in Saturday's Daily Mail suggesting that some of the social security frauds are now being organised to provide funds for the IRA? Will he take seriously any recommendations which are put to him by the police to stop this deplorable traffic?

I am aware of those allegations. Obviously, my Department works very closely with the police. I would prefer not to comment on the case that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We are aware of it and we shall examine the facts. There is, however, no doubt that organised crime has come into the system. We are trying to root it out. It is responsible for possibly more abuse than any other factor.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extraordinarily unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to present it after Questions. Questions to the Prime Minister are soon to begin.

But you allowed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, but that was to enable her to give the customary notice.

I too wish to give notice, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw attention to the fact that many people are not getting what they are entitled to under the social security system.

Order. The hon. Member has been here long enough to know the difference between a point of order and a point of view.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is taking to reduce the length of patients' waiting time for appointments with orthopaedic consultants at Shotley Bridge General Hospital, Consett.

I am not happy about the length of time patients have to wait for an appointment to see an orthopaedic consultant at this hospital, and I have asked the Northern Regional Health Authority to investigate the underlying causes of the problem and consider whether the waiting time can be shortened. The results of its investigation, which is being conducted with all possible speed, are not yet available. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have received and considered the regional health authority's report.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his unhappiness is shared by myself and large numbers of other people, not only in my constituency? The waiting time is two years. In spite of what my hon. Friend has said, there is no visible evidence of any sense of urgency on the part of the regional health authority.

I take note of my hon. Friend's point of view. I shall make sure that a sense of urgency is encouraged upon the regional health authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is entitled to more favourable treatment from the Supplementary Benefits Commission than a citizen of another EEC country.

No, Sir. Both are treated alike.

Will the Minister indicate whether, in the payment of benefits to the citizens of the Irish Republic, cognisance is taken of the effect that discriminatory rates for British citizens and overseas citizens might have on movements over the Irish border?

No cognisance is taken of that. We take cognisance of the European Covention which we and our EEC partners have signed. It ensures that citizens of one country who are resident in or visit another country are entitled to social assistance on the same basis as the nationals of the country visited.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware of any impending strike action in hospitals by trade unionists opposed to public expenditure economies.

No, Sir, although I know that concern is being expressed in other ways.

Will the Secretary of State explain to the unions in the National Health Service that direct action will not change the Government's mind about public expenditure cuts?

We shall not be influenced by unions, by doctors or by any others in the service who seek to take industrial action. The patients suffer when industrial action is taken, and I am certain that that cannot be right. I am sure that that would be condemned from both sides of the House.