asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what assessment he has made of the extent to which the earnings rule acts as a disincentive to work.

A survey is currently being carried out into the reasons for retirement, and its findings, which are expected this year, will provide information on the effect of the earnings rule. However, it does not seem likely in view of the present level of earnings which a retirement pensioner can have before his pension is affected, and of the present unemployment situation, that the rule has much disincentive effect.

Is the Minister aware of the large number of verbal and written complaints that I have received from my constituents about this miserable form of taxation? What plans has he, first, to reduce and, finally, to eliminate this taxation, which discriminates against elderly people and discourages them from making a sensible contribution towards the community?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since the raising of the earnings rule a great number of people have now been taken out of its effect. In consequence, in July 1976, under the present earnings rule limit of £35 a week, 3,600 people had their pensions extinguished and 2,000 had them reduced. That is a considerable reduction.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the latest situation at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.

Interim facilities of 70 beds are to be provided at the Whittington Hospital by mid-February, when it is expected that all in-patient facilities at Euston Road will be closed. It is intended to establish a final facility of perhaps about 100 beds identifiable under the name of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson at the Whittington Hospital. This is still under discussion by a project team of the area health authority, on which the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital and the Whittington Hospital are both represented. Such a facility cannot be established before the commissioning of the diagnostic block at the Whittington Hospital later this year, when a greater degree of rearrangement of that hospital will be possible.

How much count has the Minister given to the loss of staff morale and possible excellence when these facilities are dispersed within a bigger institution, which is what it comes to?

We have given considerable consideration to the question of the staff and the possible loss of morale. We believe that we can offer most of them jobs at the Whittington or in other parts of the health service.

In view of the feelings of the staff, and the fact that inferior accommodation is temporarily being provided at Whittington for in-patients while the old hospital is being preserved for outpatients, surely there should be a minimum saving in this situation? It would be much more sensible to leave things as they are until a final provision could be made for an identifiable Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.

That might incur a considerable expenditure on the existing site, and we have already started to transfer a number of beds from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital to Whittington Hospital.

Is not the situation even more disturbing than as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes)? As there has now been such a long delay it must be questionable whether the undertaking of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will effectively be implemented at all, because there will not be much left to transfer.

A process of transfer is already going on. It is our intention that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson facilities will be established, to the extent that I have indicated, at the Whittington General Hospital.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on mobility for the disabled and, in particular, on progress towards safeguarding the position of those currently possessing the tricycle.

I have written individually to all holders of tricycles and private car allowances issued under the old vehicle scheme to tell them what is being done to safeguard their position. For at least five years, and possibly for longer, we expect to be able to replace tricycles and to provide spares for drivers supplied under the old scheme. Disabled people are to be given the option of a no-age-limit mobility allowance. Furthermore, we shall be continuing to look on home and world markets for specialised vehicles for those who will still need them when tricycles can no longer be replaced.

Does the Secretary of State accept that despite a long series of either clarificatory or allegedly reassuring statements there remains a high degree of anxiety? Will he give a clear-cut undertaking that those who are currently enjoying mobility via the trike will not be allowed to lose that mobility either because they cannot afford it or because there will not be a suitable vehicle available? An undertaking of that kind will be required to reassure people who are now worried.

Let me say first that the response that I have already had to the letter that I sent out proves that many people had been misled by propaganda and misleading statements. I received one letter this morning stating:

"What a relief to have your communication. Thank you very much. How one was misled through the media."

I appreciate the great reforms for the disabled that this Government have introduced, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless repeat his last statement, to the effect that there is anxiety on the part of those who fear that, at the end of five years, they will be deprived of their vehicles? Why cannot the Government say that they will ensure that at the end of five years those who need a vehicle will be able to continue either with a tricycle or with a four-wheeled vehicle suitably adapted?

Perhaps I may quote from the letter which I sent to every tricycle holder. I said:

"What we shall be trying to do, of course, is to make sure that no one who is now mobile is made immobile by the phasing out of the tricycle except where increasing disability makes that unavoidable."

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is confusing for disabled people that funds for mobility should be available both from his Department and from the Department of Employment? Has he considered proposals for commuting the sums available to enable the payment of a lump sum for someone to buy his own vehicle?

Commuting is a subject that is being discussed by the Central Council for the Disabled. It may be that the council will have proposals to put forward, although there are financial difficulties. The responsibility of the Employment Service Agency, under the Department of Employment, is particularly relevant to those who need assistance in getting to and from work. I am in touch with my colleagues in the Department of Employment to see whether there are ways in which we can make it simpler. As for general mobility, it is very much more satisfactory for disabled people that so many more of them now can have assistance than was ever possible before. We are now in the course of trebling the amount that this Government are spending on disabled people.

Apart from looking at the world market and the home market for specialised four-wheeled vehicles, have the Government commissioned research into such vehicles? Would not it be a good idea, in this International Rheumatism Year, for the Government to undertake this sort of research?

We have not commissioned new research, but we are following developments that are going on. Interesting work is going on in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I have seen other work in other parts of the country. This is a matter that we are following very closely.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made with consultations on member participation in occupational pension schemes; and when the Government proposes to introduce legislation on this topic.

We have had extensive and productive consultations—which are still continuing—with organisations representing many shades of opinion. Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

In view of the importance of these proposals and the extension of industrial democracy, and in view of their importance to workers since part of their own wages is used for investment purposes in occupational pension schemes, cannot we have a firm date for the introduction of these proposals?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the great importance of these proposals. Increasingly, workers and members of schemes are demanding a say in how what is, after all, deferred pay is administered. I agree with my hon. Friend's sense of urgency. I cannot give a date. I said on 14th November that the Government wanted to introduce a Bill as soon as time was available. It is only time that is the problem. Consultation will have to continue before we reach the state of introducing legislation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we want more information, as soon as possible, about whether schemes will be introduced under a system of voluntary or statutory participation? People want to know what it is to be.

We are to introduce a new report following the White Paper published before. On the central issue, in terms of representation, the views of the Government have not changed; it is the Government's view that effective representation should be achieved through recognised independent trade unions. But the method of implementing this is a matter that we are considering with those especially concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people who are entirely behind the idea of membership participation in occupational pension schemes continue to take exception to the Government's proposals that membership participation must be only through trade unions? Will not he reconsider this matter yet again and say that although legislation will require membership participation it will not be on the basis of membership of a trade union?

I will not give that assurance. That would break with precedent that we have already established in the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Employment Protection Act. I find it very difficult to uncover evidence, or even people who will say that it is their view, that those who are nominated by trade unions are likely to act irresponsibly or without regard to the best interests of the membership as a whole. They are obliged to do so under trust law.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to reduce the number of people on supplementary benefit.

The build-up of earnings-related pensions for retirement, widow-hood and invalidity, which will start in 1978, and the associated development of good occupational schemes, will reduce the rôle which means testing plays at present in our social security provisions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that 150,000 people could, without loss of income, be transferred from supplementary benefit to housing benefit? What steps is he taking to achieve that?

This is a matter that I shall have to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The proposal is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most sensible ways of reducing the number of people on supplementary benefit would be to introduce a residential qualification? Is not it unjust—indeed, insulting—to hard working men and women that people can come here from overseas and, without doing a day's work or paying a penny in tax, be eligible for benefit?

In view of the fact that Britain has joined the EEC, it is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should take this attitude towards fellow members of the Community. He talks about an insult to the people of this country. I find his own behaviour excessively insulting to the people of this country. We shall shortly be giving an analysis of the very "evidence" which the hon. Gentleman has produced, showing that most of his allegations are totally false and are themselves an insult to the people of this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, probably, many taxpayers and others who make contributions to the country's revenue resent forking out some of their money to pay the wages and all the "perks" of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)? Is not it a fact that many people on supplementary benefit and in receipt of unemployment benefit are not scroungers and never could be called scroungers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the man who won the "Supermind" contest—an amalgamation of people from "Mastermind", Mensa and the "Brain of Britain"—was actually on the dole at the time that he won the contest?

I was aware of that, and I wondered whether there was not a rôle for him in this House, on one side or the other, where his skills and knowledge might have been well used. I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The way in which some newspapers and some Opposition Members suggest that those who are on either supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit are scroungers is disgraceful. The vast majority of them certainly do not wish to be unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many statisticians have been used by his Department to calculate the effect of changes in the earnings rule.

None, Sir. Estimates are based on advice from the Government Actuary.

The next time the Secretary of State puts this matter of the earnings rule—which is what this Question is about—to the Government Actuary, will he also put to him a new factor, which is that we now know from Mr. Jack Jones that in this year we have all to work like beavers? Ought not that to apply to those people who have reached retirement age and who are anxious and willing to work hard? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to remove any rule which inhibits them from doing that?

I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. In fact, the adjustment of the earnings rule to £35, which in future will be indexed, gives the majority of people who want to continue working and at the same time obtain a retirement pension the opportunity to be able to do so.

Will the Minister confirm that rather than there being a reduction in the numbers on deferred retirement from 120,000 to 70,000, the figure of 135,000 now deferring retirement, given in a Written Answer last November, is the correct figure on which we should be working?

I know the hon. Lady's fascination for figures, as she has raised this point before. We shall deal with this in more detail on the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what trends he anticipates in the number of persons deferring retirement beyond normal pensionable age over the next five years.

The number of people deferring retirement beyond the minimum State pension age will be affected by the level of unemployment and by changes in the earnings rule. But, these factors apart, we expect a very gradual reduction over the next few years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, on the figures published so far, there has been a complete turn around? Rather than a decrease, there has been an increase in the number of people deferring retirement. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what gain he anticipates to the National Insurance Fund, through contributions, if this goes on?

The economic situation has affected retirement and the desire of people to maintain their earnings. However, I still believe that it is the desire of most people on reaching retirement age, to retire on a decent pension, and that is still our objective.

Will the Minister tell us why he finds the argument of his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) unconvincing? This argument is that more people should work longer as more are living longer.

I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument. In actual fact, on arguments about retirement, there is a genuine desire in some quarters to retire earlier and in other areas to work longer. The question of flexibility of retirement will come into the general discussions that we have over the next few years.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is the Government's intention that the home help service should still expand by 2 per cent. per annum in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent economic statement.

The consultative document on priorities on health and personal social services suggested priority in the home help service which would entail an average growth in total of 2 per cent. per annum over the next years 1975–76 to 1979–80.

Does the Minister realise that if he destatutorised the home help service in urban areas and encouraged self-help groups of mothers and community organisations to care for their neighbours, it would be cheaper and better, and would transfer community responsibility to the neighbourhood itself?

I think that both ideas should be pursued—a statutory home help service and the good neighbour scheme of my right hon. Friend, which is designed to do just what the hon. Member has suggested.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the home help service has done more to keep elderly and disabled people within the community than any other single factor? Therefore, will he decide to spend a substantially larger sum of money on preserving and expanding this vital service?

I agree entirely. We shall continue to spend a relatively large sum of money on this service compared with other services.

Are we to take it that the Minister is standing by the statement in the circular to local authorities and social services that there will not be any significant increase in real terms in available resources in the next few years, and that this applies to the home help service as well as other welfare services?

The question of allocating money between various welfare services is a matter for the local authorities to decide. Next year the amount available for expenditure in personal social services will increase by 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many registered unemployed are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit only.

The latest available information relates to August 1976, when the figure stood at about 730,000.

Is the Minister aware that that is a truly astonishing figure? If only half the unemployed are in receipt of unemployment benefits, why are the other half not receiving them? Are they not entitled to draw unemployment benefits because they have been unemployed for more than a year? If this is the case, is it not a shocking commentary on the effect of the social contract?

It has got nothing whatever to do with the social contract but everything to do with the way in which our national insurance system works. In May last year 43 per cent. of the registered unemployed receiving supplementary benefit did so only because their entitlement to unemployment benefit had lapsed. In addition, 44 per cent. got supplementary benefit and not full unemployment benefit because their contribution records were deficient in some way.

Does the Minister agree that far too many unemployed people are receiving only supplementary benefit for their children and dependants because of intolerable delays in settling their appeals against disqualification from benefit? This has caused hardship to hundreds of workers in my constituency who were formerly employed on the Isle of Grain power station site and who find that they are still disqualified six months after becoming unemployed.

My hon. Friend has raised a special case, which I shall look into. In general, I am not aware of any delay in settling appeals which is caus ing people to suffer unduly. My hon. Friend should note the point that 50 per cent. of the unemployed are not getting unemployment benefit, and this should be taken account of when considering abuse and fraud.

Does the Minister agree that the whole system of supplementary benefits is undermined by increasing fraud and abuse? Is it not right that one of the most important ways in which that fraud is perpetrated is by persons claiming under false names? Is it not possible to check that by requiring that all claimants should produce identity cards before receiving supplementary benefits?

We are looking at many ways of cracking down on fraud and abuse. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security made a statement on 21st September last year, a copy of which will be published in today's Official Report in answer to a later Question. In that statement my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to devote resources to the pursuit of wrongdoers, but he emphasised that such action should not discourage genuine claimants. This remains our policy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called dodgers in respect of supplementary benefit are as nothing compared with those people who do not claim benefits at all? Is it not a fact that the sum of £6 million or so—to which this massive propaganda effort is being devoted—is tiny compared with the vast amount of money that could be claimed honourably by people who do not claim at all? Also, does he agree that the exaggeration of figures of unemployment would be nothing to what there would be if public expenditure cuts urged by the Conservatives were put into effect? Their cuts would double unemployment.

My hon. Friend has made a number of valid points. About three quarters of the amount of supplementary benefit paid out are paid to retirement pensioners, and I do not think that anyone is going to accuse them of fraud and abuse.

Will the Minister say whether the 3,276 qualified nurses who are currently unemployed constitute a record?

I cannot say without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the TUC concerning pension problems.

I met a deputation from the TUC on 20th December, when several matters relating to pensions were discussed.

When the Minister next meets the TUC will he tell it that since he was soundly defeated this morning in Committee on the question of unemployment benefits for occupational pensioners he has absolutely no intention of seeking to restore the change on Report?

The position of the Opposition on this matter is quite typical. They constantly demand cuts in public expenditure and then they vote against measures designed to carry those cuts through. They have behaved irresponsibly. The position of my hon. Friends is totally different. On the question of public expenditure they take a completely different position from that adopted by the Opposition.

Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Chancellor how important it is in the next round of pay policy to allow scope for adequate improvements in pensions so as to prepare for the introduction of the Bill to provide better pensions in 1978 and therefore avoid any possibility of delay in the introduction of that scheme?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Occupational pension schemes were included in the pay policy because, as fringe benefits, they add to labour costs. They will, however, be discussed in the talks on the next stage of pay policy. A valuable easement was allowed from last August. Improvements designed to bring the scheme up to the level required to meet the contracting-out requirements of the new scheme could be negotiated and implemented. There should be no reluctance on the part of employers or employers' representatives to put in hand the work required to meet the contracting-out date of April 1978.

The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Is he aware that no one will go through all the elaborate procedures if the scheme which results is no better than what the State can offer? Does he recognise that there is now a very difficult time scale? Employers must know that they will be able to negotiate beyond the minimum figure in time for them to go through the necessary procedures by the deadline in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).

I agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend. It is important that this issue should be made clear as soon as possible. That is why I gave an assurance on behalf of the Chancellor and my other right hon. Friends that this is a matter that can be taken up as part of the next stage of pay policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to reduce the surplus in the National Insurance Fund.

No, Sir, for reasons which I have explained in a note available to all hon. Members.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present there is a surplus of about £900 million in the fund? I am told that it could be calculated at about £2·5 billion over the next three years. Will my right hon. Friend take the advice of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who suggested that local authorities should reallocate resources within their departments? My right hon. Friend could do the same. He should reallocate some of this National Insurance Fund to get rid of prescription, teeth and spectacle charges, to raise old-age pensions, and to restore the £10 Christmas bonus.

It is not as simple as that—I wish that it were—because spending all the surpluses would require either that we spent less on other things or that we raised more from other sources. A third possibility is that we should borrow from elsewhere. My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that this simply is not on. The balance in the fund now amounts to about three months' expenditure. It is proper and fair, and good housekeeping, that we should make certain that we can meet any demands that might come upon us in the event of, say, an influenza epidemic, or something like that. There was time when the National Insurance Fund held as much as two years' payments. Now it holds only three months' payments, so that as the payments go up the surplus must go up too.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reserve in the fund now totals about £3,000 million?

The figure is about £2,200 million. I shall be answering a Question today giving the precise figures, which show a marginal and not a dramatic increase. In any case, these are matters that can be taken up by the House in the debate this evening on the re-rating order.

I accept the general point about public finance, but how can my right hon. Friend justify charging a higher national insurance contribution in 1977–78 than is necessary to meet the due payment out of the fund, especially to people who expect to retire at about the end of that year? Surely they will be paying an amount beyond what is required to pay for their benefits?

Let me ask my hon. Friend how one could justify, in this year, exempting from increases in payment those people who receive more than £95 a week. He is suggesting that the general tradition by which those who receive more should pay more should somehow be ended. One of the effects of the order is that we are raising not only the ceiling but the floor, and this will exclude from payment some of those who are very low earners.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further proposals he has to introduce additional benefits for the disabled.

The phased introduction of mobility allowance will continue, and claims can now be made on behalf of handicapped children in the age group 5 to 10 for payment from April of this year. Furthermore, the new non-contributory invalidity pension for married women is to be introduced in November of this year. Payments of earnings-related invalidity pension will begin in 1979.

Those improvements are certainly welcome, but does the Minister not agree that the increasing number of conflicting and overlapping grants, benefits and allowances available to different classes of the disabled causes the maximum of confusion to the public and the minimum of help to the disabled? Does he accept that we should be urgently moving towards a single disablement benefit, eligibility for which could be determined solely on medical criteria?

I find the hon. Member's proposal very strange. We can introduce new benefits only gradually, partly for administrative reasons. The difficulties are mostly in terms of Civil Service time and staff, and public expenditure. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that he was pleased that we were making progress, and I believe that it is rather impressive that we are continuing to expand the facilities available to disabled people on a substantial basis in spite of the economic pressures on the economy. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should do it all at once. I wish that we could. The mobility allowance is being phased in so that it requires the minimum of staff, including medical staff, and also so that we can meet the requirements of our economic ability to pay.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it seems a long time ago that this House accepted without a Division that benefits should be paid on the NCIP basis for disabled housewives? These people are in the greatest need, and it is sad that administrative reasons are being advanced for the delay and that these people are suffering all the time.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—who was responsible for introducing the benefit—would like me, have liked it to be introduced earlier this year. It will be introduced some months later than we had originally hoped. The reasons are not only to do with administration; public expenditure comes into it as well. However, we must express some satisfaction that this long-awaited benefit, which will affect 40,000 severely handicapped women, will be introduced in 1977 in spite of our economic difficulties.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the one thing that matters to disabled youngsters when they reach the age of 16 is to be able to be independent in relation to their own families? If this can be achieved by means of an invalid trike that is fine, but the £5 mobility allowance is insufficient to cover that requirement.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement that I made some time ago that the £5 invalidity pension will also be uprated during the course of this year. I hope that it will be possible, in spite of our economic difficulties, to uprate the mobility allowance more than the amount needed simply to cover the change of value since the announcement was first made. I agree that young people need some support in mobility, but under the Conservative Party young people who will be benefiting from mobility allowance would be getting no assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in resolving all outstanding issues arising out of the recent dispute affecting the ambulance service in Essex.

I am glad to say that this dispute has been settled and full normal working was resumed on 14th December. The question of the payment of meal allowances has been refered to the Joint Secretaries of the Ambulancemen's Whitley Council and a claim on behalf of some men that they were entitled to full pay for the period of the dispute has been referred to independent assessors.

Is it not true that the cost to the public of paying 40 per cent. of the wages of those men who were involved in the dispute was nearly three times as great as the cost would have been of meeting in full the demands of the protected men about meal allowances, which led to the dispute? In view of this disgraceful waste of public money, is it not necessary that in future instructions should be given that men shall not be refused permission to man ambulances merely on the grounds that they have refused to undertake minor aspects of their duties?

I do not think that the House is a place for a Minister to comment on a settlement of a very complex industrial dispute, which is not yet finalised. My hon. Friend, together with other hon. Friends, is coming to see me, and we can go into these matters in greater detail then.

Without attempting to judge the specific issues of the dispute, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that from representations that have been made to me there seems to be genuine concern about how effective the normal procedures are for dealing with grievances? Has he himself considered this aspect? If so, does he think that there is something he can do to help?

Yes, there is something we can do. We have the report of Lord McCarthy on the whole of the Whitley Council machinery, also making strong recommendations for the development of a better joint consultative machinery in the areas and the regions of the National Health Service. These proposals are now up for discussion with all parties and I hope that eventually we shall develop a very much better industrial relations machinery than we have had in the past.

Mr. Durant, No. 17.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order after Questions.

This dispute, Mr. Speaker, affected my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) more than any other——

Is this a point of order? It is taking up time.

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept——

No. Is there a point of order?

I thought that you were calling me, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many statisticians are employed by his Department; and what is the cost of employing them.

My Department employs 37 statisticians, and the cost of employing them is estimated to be about £460,000 per year, including salaries, national insurance and all on costs such as superannuation, accommodation, typing and other services.

Are these the same statiticians who, in May 1976, forecast that the surplus on the National Insurance Fund would be £389 million and only seven months later forecast that it would be £932 million?

The statisticians are merely collating information received in connection with the national insurance system generally. There are also statisticians who have to be employed, for example, by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and also the Government Actuary himself, who is responsible for the report to Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Does my hon. Friend remember that in the summer I asked the Department a question about mental health statistics and that it had to re-answer it a few weeks ago saying that it had got all the statistics wrong? Will he have another look at his statistical department, particularly as it relates to mental health figures, because it says that half the figures are unobtainable and the half that it gives in answers are all wrong.

I must come to the defence of the statisticians in my Department. They are dependent on getting statistics from organisations in the National Health Service and local authority social service departments to provide the answers that my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen want. If the basic information is wrong, the collating that goes on in my Department is also wrong.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.

In view of the accelerating growth of long-term structural unemployment, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC the development of a strategy to share out the working hours available by reducing the working week, the working year, and possibly the working life?

My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on the fact that some unemployment is of a structural character and needs a great deal of examination. I hope to be able to embark upon that internationally. As regards shortening the working week, or even the working life, we must first get to the position in which we are paying our way in the world before we can do that. I have expressed the view in the past, and I do so again today, that the nature of unemployment is changing and we may well have to embark upon the kind of remedies that my hon. Friend has spoken of.

In his discussions with the TUC, to what extent has the Prime Minister learned of the number of trade unions which do not wish to have trade union representatives on company boards? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not trade with the TUC another year of virtual wage freeze in exchange for trades union representatives statutorily imposed on company boards?

I do not expect to be discussing this matter with the TUC at my next meeting, but if I do so I shall tell the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Basle agreement on the sterling reserves? In view of the good news that has come from Switzerland, will he consider meeting. the TUC and the CBI and in the forthcoming year have a campaign to reduce unemployment and reduce interest rates charged to manufacturing industry?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement on the Basle agreement at 3.30 pm, and perhaps I should not anticipate that. However, I think it is at least fair to say that this new agreement, combined with the IMF loan and the firm control that we have over public expenditure, certainly gives us a very healthy start to 1977.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements during the recess.

It is not in accordance with previous practice to do so. However, if the hon. Member has a specific point on my official engagements during the recess, I shall be glad to consider it.

Did the Prime Minister, during the recess, pay any attention to the case of Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky? As Mr. Bukovsky is now in England, is the Prime Minister prepared to meet him?

I watched Mr. Bukovsky on television and I read some of the Press reports of what he said. I was very glad to see that he regarded this country as a welcome sanctuary. We are very glad that he should feel that we are. As we have repeatedly made clear, we as a Government will be satisfied with the Helsinki agreement only when all its parts are implemented by the individual countries. I do not think that I wish to meet Mr. Bukovsky. I would be ready to do so, but I do not think that there is any particular occasion for me to do so.

If my right hon. Friend was watching television during the recess, did he see a programme on 1st January called "Jim'll Fix It" when the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition appeared and made the astonishing allegation that she spent her time devising alternative policies? Is there any chance of her revealing, for example, the Opposition's policy on devolution or, perhaps, the exact areas in which they would make the slashing public expenditure cuts that they are always calling for?

I managed to watch a certain number of comedy programmes during the recess, but I cannot say that I recall this one. As for devising alternative strategies, I hope that the Tribune Group will not fall into bad company with the Leader of the Opposition, because I cannot think of a more volatile combination than those two.

Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of the British people, issue an invitation to President-elect Carter to come to this country in order that a summit meeting may be held as soon as possible?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for rising that matter. When I sent a greeting to President-elect Carter on his election I assured him that he would get a warm welcome when he came here. We all know that he has said that he does not wish to travel abroad during his first year of office, for reasons which we can understand. I shall be discussing with Vice-President-elect Mondale proposals for a summit meeting. President-elect Carter has indicated that he intends to telephone some of the leaders of Western Europe this week. Certainly if there is a desire for a summit meeting in London we shall be happy to accommodate it here, or to go elsewhere if there is general agreement.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Energy regarding the democratic process on 10th December at Bristol University represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Secretary of State for Energy on the democratic process, at Bristol on 10th December, represents Government policy.

My right hon. Friend's speech raised no issues of Government policy.

The Prime Minister may wish to shuffle off responsibility for some of the wilder utterances of Cabinet Ministers, but does he agree with the Secretary of State for Energy that Marxism is a source of inspiration to the Labour Party? If so, is not one such source of inspiration currently sitting inactive in Transport House, as National Youth Officer?

I realise that the Opposition are hard put to it to find sticks with which to attempt to belabour the Government, especially this afternoon. I sympathise with their difficulty. But I do not intend to answer for matters for which there is no ministerial responsibility. I am trying to get a little order into Parliamentary Questions, and sometimes I should like assistance from the Opposition in doing so.

Does the Prime Minister accept that Cabinet Ministers are Cabinet Ministers wherever they are and whatever audiences they address? Does the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues accept collective Cabinet responsibility for their utterances on policy, such as the speech by the Secretary of State for Energy in Bristol?

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made the point that Marxism was one of the sources of inspiration to the Labour Party? Is he also aware that recently I came across a book by Keir Hardie and that in the bibliography the first book that Keir Hardie suggested that those who read his book ought to read was "Das Kapital"?

These are not matters for which there are ministerial responsibilities—not even my hon. Friend's reading list during the recess. Although they are very interesting subjects for speculation, they are not matters for which I have responsibility to answer at the Dispatch Box.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the visit of the French Prime Minister.

The French Prime Minister is paying a private visit to the United Kingdom today. He will call on me later this afternoon, and also on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will the Prime Minister give the French Prime Minister a copy of yesterday's Hansard, so that he can read the criticisms made in this House about the common agricultural policy? Does he agree that the CAP, which has to put up the price of butter from 45p a pound to 72p a pound this year, and an intervention board that buys in skimmed milk at over £500 per ton and sells it back to the farmers at £100 a ton, can only be regarded as crazy, that the CAP should be totally scrapped, and that a national agricultural policy should be substituted for it? Otherwise the poor will suffer, because of the price of food.

I think that the Prime Minister of France is very well aware of our attitude to the common agricultural policy. It is a matter of great significance and importance to France, because of the great numbers of people employed on the land there who depend upon this policy.

Others depend on eating.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), not for the first time, has given vent to a considerable truism. It is a matter of negotiating our way through this problem. The French Government are in no doubt that we shall continue to return to it on the occasion of price reviews and on all other occasions.

Are we prepared to use the veto? Is not the situation that the longer we are in the Common Market the more we are integrated into this absurd agricultural policy? Can we not make it absolutely clear to our partners in this organisation that the CAP is totally intolerable and that in the end it will certainly have to be destroyed, even if we stay in the Market?

We must be careful. We are benefiting from certain aspects of the policy to the tune of about £500 million a year—[Interruption.] It is a very considerable figure, anyway. We must take all these factors into account. I agree with my hon. Friend if his view is that the so-called common agricultural policy is not based on the best use of resources in the Community or, indeed, in some of the member States. We should address ourselves to that aspect and try to get an efficient agricultural policy. If there are social reasons why it is not possible for individual members of the Community entirely to disregard assistance, I suggest that it would be better if it were borne on national funds or on some other funds.

As the French Prime Minister is a stranger to British politics, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to him how it is that in a country which has a doctrine of collective responsibility the Prime Minister can stand at that Dispatch Box and say that it is nothing to do with him when one of his Cabinet Ministers states that he belongs to a Marxist coalition party, and that it is a very good thing? Surely the Prime Minister ought to explain that to one of our partners.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC and the CBI.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave on my behalf to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 30th November.

In view of our improving financial situation, will the Prime Minister try to meet the TUC and the CBI at an early date and get down to the question of bringing down the unemployment rate? Will he make that a prime aim of the Government in this coming year?

Yes. I think that unemployment and the problem of inflation are the two real issues that will concern us during the course of this year. I think that we can expect to see an improving situation on our balance of payments, and therefore that handicap will be removed. I believe that we must get more international action regarding unemployment, in addition to overcoming our domestic inflation problems. I shall be discussing these kinds of issue with the French Prime Minister this afternoon, and in 10 days' time with Chancellor Schmidt as well as with American leaders.

When the Prime Minister meets the TUC and the CBI, will he discuss with them the rights of workers to ballot about working conditions at their places of work? Does he agree that the rights of workers to ballot whether they should be able to join a trade union at their places of work are no more and no less important than their rights to ballot whether they should be compulsorily enrolled in a closed shop?

We shall consider those matters in due course.

Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC and the CBI what effective steps can be taken to stern the appalling outflow of capital into manufacturing industry abroad when the Government's policy is to direct that capital into improving the efficiency of British industry?

I am not sure that I altogether agree with my hon. Friend on that matter. I have been into it on a number of occasions, and so has the Chancellor. There is a considerable case for overseas investment, especially nowadays, when it is not possible for this country to export completely finished products. Industry needs to embark on considerable overseas investment if it is to retain control.

At the meeting with the TUC and CBI will the Prime Minister consider why the index of industrial productivity under a Labour Government is lower than it was under a Conservative Government?

I am not aware that that is so.