asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the use of whooping-cough vaccine; and if he will make a statement.

I have had no recent representations, but the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has now confirmed its full support for the continued use of whooping-cough vaccination. On the basis of its advice—details of which I will circulate in the Official Report—my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided to go ahead next month with publicity which will tell parents about the benefits and risks of the basic vaccinations offered to children, including vaccination against whooping-cough. This publicity will, we hope, help to remove parents' doubts.

As I understand that the Secretary of State has conceded the principle of compensation in advance of the Pearson Report, why can he not make a statement on that matter?

That is a different question. I announced that I would make a statement, that there would be legislation, and that it would follow the Pearson Report. We do not yet know the date of publication of the report, but the question of compensation is receiving urgent attention within the Department. If the hon. Gentleman tables a Question, I shall give him a more detailed reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee on Safety of Medicines has warned him not to publicise the whooping-cough vaccine and that although he heeded that warning local medical officers of health are urging parents to use the vaccine, despite the dramatic fall in the death rate from whooping-cough? Whose advice should parents follow—that of local medical officers of health or that of the Committee on Safety of Medicines?

In June the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation issued a report on whooping-cough vaccine which fully supported the continued use of the vaccine. It has now confirmed that conclusion. Its conclusion is in no way contrary to any attitude taken by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

The Secretary of State must be aware, because the Attorney-General has announced it in a Written Answer, that the Pearson Committee has completed its work. Why is he delaying the publication of the report? Is he not aware that as long as publication is delayed great uncertainty continues among parents on the question whether they are eligible for compensation?

I am certainly not delaying publication of the report. We have not yet received it. I have given the House an assurance, which I confirm now, that the Government will take early action to introduce legislation dealing with compensation for vaccine-damaged children.

In making his pronouncements about the alleged safety of the whooping-cough vaccine, has my right hon. Friend investigated the findings of Professor Stewart of Glasgow and Dr. John Wilson of Great Ormond Street? How will my right hon. Friend establish which children have been brain-damaged as a result of use of the vaccine, when it has been in use for many years?

It has indeed been in use for many years. The information from Professor Stewart is at the disposal of, and has been studied by, the Joint Committee and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. There is nothing new in that information.

The right hon. Gentleman knows of the great anxiety felt by parents of vaccine-damaged children. Surely he can be a little more explicit about his ideas for dealing with these unfortunate people and tell the House whether he is having any discussions to see whether a simpler and more effective procedure can be used than was applied for thalidomide children?

I have made clear to the House, and I repeat my promise, that I shall introduce an early measure which will deal with compensation for vaccine-damaged children. I shall want to make it as simple as it can be, but there are difficulties, and I shall report them to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with old people's welfare organisations about the difficulties experienced by those disabled people who are unable to use public transport and who no longer receive a mobility allowance when they reach retiring age; what action he is proposing to take to meet their needs; and if he will make a statement.

It will be 1980 before anyone ceases to receive mobility allowance on reaching pensionable age. I am of course aware of the concern of organisations representing the elderly, although I have received no recent representations from them on this point.

Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to see that more resources are made available, because this will become a growing problem if more and more elderly people are to be virtually marooned in their homes without a mobility allowance and cut off from social contact at a time when they need it most? Will he see what he can do between now and 1980? It is a long time.

There has been a great increase in the amount of resources made available by the Government to assist the disabled. When the £10 mobility allowance is introduced in July we shall have mutiplied five times the amount provided by the predecessor Government. To extend the allowance to elderly people would add enormously to the bill. We shall consider this, together with other pressures for increased public expenditure.

Surely, the raising of the age at which the mobility allowance is payable after retirement, namely, one year, two years or three years, at a gradual rate, would not cost a great deal of money? It is a very rough justice when we consider that people are able to continue with their invalid trikes after the age of retirement but are not able to receive the mobility allowance.

That is one more example of pressure from the Conservative Party for more public expenditure at a time when it is always urging that we should reduce public expenditure.

When will the Secretary of State be able to reply to the representations made by BLESMA on the mobility allowance? Will he assure the House that the war disabled will continue to receive special treatment?

My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled is already in touch with BLESMA on this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he proposes to take to assist kidney patients who can benefit from machines and transplants.

I have this year made available development funds to assist regions in the development of paediatric dialysis facilities.

I warmly welcome the reply, which deserves congratulations. Does the Secretary of State agree that two further measures that would improve the situation would be the Government's acceptance of an opting-out system of the kidney donor scheme rather than an opting-in system, and their making the attendance allowance available for all kidney patients on the home dialysis scheme?

There is a Question on the Order Paper relating to the second part of my hon. Friend's question. The matter of opting out is something about which we need to assess public opinion. I propose shortly to introduce a discussion document in order to stimulate a widespread debate. There needs to be much more education among the public and acceptance by doctors of the importance of making kidneys available for transplant.

Does the Secretary of State actually carry a kidney donor card himself? What is he going to do to ensure the distribution of cards to all the population?

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". I hope that the same can be said for every other Member of Parliament. If it cannot be so said, I take this opportunity of appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to Members of Parliament, and to all Officers of the House and the general public to carry a card, because the knowledge that I and many millions of others are prepared to have our kidneys made available would persuade more donors to come forward.

Why should kidney donor cards be any more successful in producing kidneys in the future than they have been in the past?

They are successful at the moment. I am happy to say that over the last year the total number of patients maintained on dialysis has risen by 10 per cent. There has also been a 14 per cent. increase in the number of transplants taking place. The increase was substantially because more kidneys were available for transplantation and there is no doubt that publicity is working.

Is the Minister aware that we very much welcome what he said about child dialysis facilities? Will he tell us what response he has had from regional health authorities on the question whether this will enable them to meet the needs of all children who could benefit? Will he say what further steps he proposes to take to bring about a proper national policy?

I hope that the offer that I have made to the regions will mean that almost all children will be able to have that form of treatment. So far, seven of the regional health authorities have indicated that they are considering making a bid for those funds, and firm bids have now been received from four of those regions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the unemployment situation among trained nurses; and how soon they can expect to secure posts within the National Health Service.

The number of qualified nurses and midwives registered as unemployed in England in December 1977 was about 100 lower than in September, and now stands at 4,013. Posts are available in the National Health Service for qualified nurses but some may be unable or unwilling to move to areas where there are vacancies. Health authorities are well aware of the need to help newly qualified nurses to find posts.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these difficulties are wholly unacceptable and indefensible and that the forecasts of increased public expenditure in the White Paper leave us with little consolation?

On my hon. Friend's latter question, the level is obviously higher that we would like to see. However, in December, the same month, over 2,000 vacancies for qualified nurses were registered with the Employment Services Agency. I cannot forecast trends, much as I would like to be able to do so. I do not think that the Department has the requisite information. We can only hope that as the economic situation improves more financial resources will be made available to the National Health Service.

Is it not a fact that over the last 10 years the number of beds occupied in hospitals has declined by 13 per cent. whilst the number of administrators and clerks has risen by 51 per cent.? If only we could get rid of this monstrous army of clerks we could afford to pay the nurses. Is this not a crying scandal, which deserves the personal attention of the Minister?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have taken steps to reduce to a reasonable level administration costs in the reorganised National Health Service—a reorganisation not of our making. In answer to the second part of the question, the number of qualified nurses employed in the National Health Service has continued to increase. There were 214,000 qualified nurses employed in March of last year, which was an increase of 9,000 on the previous year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that absolute panic action was taken in October 1976 by area health authorities which led to nurses not being up to establishment strength? Is he also aware that there are other parts of the National Health Service which are still being starved merely because of those measures? Will he alter them?

It is for area health authorities to decide their establishments; it is not for my Department to do so. Area health authorities have to take into account the availability of staff in determining the level of the services that they can provide. They have to determine how they spend their budgets in the light of their own priorities. In the financial year ended March 1977 health authorities increased the proportion of their revenue expenditure which was spent on nurses.

Does the Minister accept that unemployment among nurses is now seriously affecting the waiting lists and that some patients are waiting well over a month for urgent investigations? Will he admit that the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 22nd November was grossly misleading and that the increased £9½ million was bogus? Will he say when he will publish the results of his inquiry into waiting lists and tell us exactly what steps he is to take?

There is a separate Question on the matter of waiting lists for reply today.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why Mr. Joseph Hyland of Salford, the whole of whose leg was amputated last May, is still not receiving a mobility allowance.

It was an independent medical board that decided on 24th November 1977 that Mr. Hyland was not entitled to the allowance. Mr. Hyland has now appealed to a medical appeal tribunal against this decision. Arrangements are being made for the appeal to be considered as quickly as possible.

Is the Minister aware that this young engineer had his whole leg amputated because of cancer and that he cannot wear an artificial leg because he is now undergoing X-ray treatment on his hip and is immobile? Will this humane Minister reconsider the matter and have another look at this inhumane decision?

I can understand my hon. Friend's feelings on this matter. He takes a very close and genuine interest in the whole question of helping disabled people. The vital question to be answered is whether the individual is virtually unable to walk—

He is.

with any of the aids normally available to him. The case has gone to the medical appeal tribunal. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is to the credit of this Government that they have introduced an independent appeals procedure. The previous system was one of ministerial diktat, which I am glad has been abolished.

Will my hon. Friend inform the House of the number of persons now in receipt of mobility benefits?

At the last date for which figures are available—the end of January 1978–64,304 people were in receipt of the new mobility allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many disabled drivers' tricycles are off the road awaiting repair in the North West Region of England.

About 140 in the areas covered by Manchester and Liverpool artificial limb and appliance centres. Apart from three instances which pose special problems, no client is without a vehicle as a consequence. This is because stocks of replacement vehicles are held for issue in such cases.

Will my hon. Friend inform the House whether the service in the North-West is improving or deteriorating? Will he also tell the House how the North-West compares with other regions? Does he recognise that when vehicles are off the road considerable problems are caused to disabled people?

I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend about the detailed comparisons that he has requested. I stress that the problem is one of spare parts, not spare vehicles. Of the 140 disabled drivers whose vehicles are off the road, 137 have alternative vehicles. I shall keep in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Will the Minister consult his colleagues in the Department of Employment to find out whether it is possible to make use of their scheme when vehicle spare parts are not available for trikes so that those who have trikes awaiting repair are not prevented from going to work?

I am in close contact with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Employment. The matter raised by the hon. Lady is one that I shall have in mind in further consultations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of voluntary organisations in the North-West are not happy about the figures that have been given? I know that he will look at this matter most carefully. Is he further aware that voluntary organisations in the North-West disagree with the Department about the figures issued for the North-West?

The figures that I have given are those officially available to me. I am prepared to contact my hon. Friend and to go through with him any differences that there may be regarding the statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners are dependent on means-tested supplementary benefits.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested supplementary benefits.

The proportion of pensioners dependent on supplementary benefit has decreased since 1973. Nevertheless, in December 1976, 1,952,000 pensioners and their dependants were receiving supplementary benefits. This is still too many. The new pension scheme will enable people to qualify for additional pensions based on their former earnings. Over the years this should greatly reduce the need for pensioners to turn to means-tested benefits. In the meantime we are anxious to ensure that pensioners claim the supplementary benefit to which they are entitled.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that about half a million pensioners who could claim supplementary benefits are not doing so? Will he now instigate a major new publicity campaign to ensure that more pensioners claim their rights through supplementary benefits?

The latest estimate suggests that about 74 per cent. of those entitled to claim do claim benefits. The amount of unclaimed benefit, at 1975 figures, was estimated to be about £65 million. The average amount unclaimed was about £2·10. We are anxious that all pensioners entitled to benefit should claim. This question has been carefully looked at by the Review Team on Supplementary Benefits, and I expect to receive its report shortly.

The annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission gives a figure of 600,000 pensioners not claiming benefit. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the reluctance of such people to claim charity—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not charity."] I am using the Commission's term—and their resentment at the rough and ready means testing methods of the Department, a resentment that will be increased when, under the new pension scheme, new pensioners will benefit and existing pensioners will not?

First, I protest at the use of the word "charity". Supplementary benefit, as introduced by the former Labour Government, is an absolute right. It is our commitment to people that they should not fall below a certain level of income. I deeply resent hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches or people anywhere else talking about supplementary benefit as if it were some kind of handout. Elderly people are entitled to a minimum standard of living. What they resent are constant statements that people who claim supplementary benefit are in some way scroungers. Much of that resentment explains why some people are reluctant to claim benefit. We have often said that Opposition Members should not use these tactics. They are very unfair to pensioners.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unfolding pension scheme looks very good for future pensioners, but that it is not much good to existing old-age pensioners, especially those who support the Labour movement? Our duty is to increase greatly the value of the State retirement pension as quickly as we can. We shall never get it from a Conservative Government, because we have never got it in the past.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Existing pensioners will not share in the new additional pensions because those additional pensions are paid for by contributions. However, we have made an absolute commitment to existing pensioners not only that their pensions will keep pace with rising costs but that they will share in rising living standards. We have done that throughout the years of this Labour Government, and we have made an absolute pledge that we shall do it during the period of the next Labour Government.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is absolutely vital that pensioners do not become homebound? Is he satisfied with the mere £4 million that his right hon. Friend has allocated to the scheme for concessionary travel for old-age pensioners? Does he realise that in areas such as mine—Lancaster—with large numbers of elderly ratepayers, those unfortunate people are actually subsidising their own concessions? Will he seek to persuade the Government to bring in a national system of concessionary fares?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

I support my right hon. Friend's plea to stop this campaign about scroungers. At the same time, will he seek to draw to the attention of those who are entitled to social security benefit, but who are not claiming it and whose needs are great, that it is available to them?

Yes. As I said in answer to a previous question, this issue has been looked at carefully by the Review Team on Supplementary Benefits. As soon as I have its report, I shall decide what additional action can be taken. However, we are now producing explanatory material that people can readily understand. I believe that often in the past the Department produced material giving information about supplementary benefits that was not easily understood by those most in need. We are now attempting to produce material that can be easily understood by ordinary people with simple needs.

Since 61 per cent. of the supplementary benefit discretionary payments go to old people, will the Secretary of State tell us what investigations he has done into the needs of older pensioners, so that they do not have to make unnecessary demands, through lack of income, on local authority social services departments? With discretionary payments we already have evidence that this is so.

An increasingly high proportion of those on supplementary benefits are getting additional benefits, for instance, for heating and for diet. There is a great increase in the proportion of supplementary benefits related to heating additions, and this means that people are less likely to turn to local authorities on a cash basis. We shall always consider making a concessionary payment to a needy, elderly person.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will provide a target level for child benefit.

No, Sir. The Government are committed to phasing out child tax allowances by April 1979. The level of child benefit is going up to £2·30 this April and any further increases must be determined in the light of the circumstances.

Is the Minister aware that there is a great gap in the Government's policy of having tax allowances indexed, in effect, and social security allowances indexed by law, but not indexing child benefits, which are half-way between? Will he commit the Government to introducing child benefits as a target for the future at a level which will give a man the same amount for his child whether he is at work, off sick, or unemployed?

Child benefit, because it is tax-free, benefits the man in work, particularly the low-wage earner with a family. As for indexing, we want first to get the level of child benefit right. We want to get it phased in, and then this matter can be considered.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that the joint working party with the Trades Union Congress, of which he is a member, has come to the view, at least as far as the TUC and the National Executive of the Labour Party are concerned, that by April 1979 child benefits should reach the target of the equivalent of the dependants' allowance for the unemployed? Does not his reply indicate that the Government are not as enthusiastic about this objective as are the TUC and the Labour Party?

As a member of the joint working party, I say to my right hon. Friend that the views which the working party recommended have been placed before the Government. We are also aware of the views that the TUC have put forward. If my right hon. Friend will look at the last sentence of my answer, she will see that we shall review the amount of the benefit in the light of circumstances.

Does the Minister accept that the quicker this switch-over is made the better it will be, particularly for the poverty problem in Britain? Will he say what are the constraints that stop the Government bringing forward the date to April 1978?

The constraint is the problem of phasing in the transference of child tax allowances from the husband to the mother—from the wallet to the purse as it were. This problem has to be solved. I believe that it is increasingly understood in the country. By 1979 the child benefit scheme will be fully phased in for children under 11.

Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to inject at least £3 billion into the economy, the bulk of which ought to go to an increase in family allowances and tax rebates to the underpaid workers in this country, instead of giving tax handouts to the wealthy, as happened in the last Budget?

I shall be very pleased to pass on my hon. Friend's views to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Has the Minister taken heed of the warning given by Mr. Frank Field of the Child Poverty Action Group, that unless the Government move faster along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), for which we have been pressing, they will be tarred as the Administration under which families with children have got poorer faster than anybody else?

We are aware of what Mr. Frank Field has said, but the House is also aware, as is the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government injected over £300 million into child benefit for this coming April, when, for the first time, child benefit will be raised to £2·30 per child, including the first child. Obviously, we are aware of the financial circumstances and will take these fully into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next intends to announce an increase in the rate of child benefit; and whether he will be maintaining the differential rate for one-parent families.

The next increase in child benefit will take effect in April 1978, at which time the one-parent family premium will be doubled to £1. There are no immediate plans for a further announcement. I expect, however, that a differential rate for one-parent families will continue.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I suggest that if he cannot give a date for the next up-rating he should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a hefty one in his Budget in respect of the November uprating and to maintain the position of one-parent families in this regard?

I note my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that it can be passed on to the Chancellor.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters and submissions he has received on the question of offering pregnant women testing facilities for spina bifida.

Since the United Kingdom collaborative study was published in June 1977, I have received 23 letters from hon. Members and members of the public about screening for spina bifida and other neural tube defects, and have noted the Early-Day Motion signed by a large number of hon. Members.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the blood test in the sixteenth week of pregnancy will be voluntary, and that if extended nationwide the results will be closely monitored? From my discussions with the Secretary of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, it would appear that if the Secretary of State were to give those two commitments it would go a long way towards enabling the Royal College to change its attitude on these tests.

I can assure the House that it will be voluntary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever decision is made by parents and their doctors after the diagnosis of spina bifida, it is better that the decision should be made at the sixteenth week of pregnancy rather than after the shock of the birth of a terribly handicapped child? Does that not mean that there is an urgent need for a national screening process now?

Yes, I am anxious to see at the earliest possible moment a national screening system, but we must get it right. We must be absolutely certain that it is safe. I cannot proceed with a national scheme until I am absolutely satisfied about points raised by the Royal College and others. I am anxious to come to a conclusion as quickly as I can.

Has the Secretary of State seen newspaper reports that there are already several cases on record of perfect children being aborted as a result of faulty diagnosis following amniocentesis? Has he heard medical opinions that there are dangers in this procedure for the mother and the child? Is he satisfied that the risks are negligible?

Yes, I am satisfied that the risks are very small indeed.

Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the screening techniques which have been developed in recent years for spina bifida and for other abnormal conditions should not only be available to but should be urged on pregnant women, to give them a total freedom of choice in this matter?

In this connection I issued a draft circular on advice concerning the establishment of a national screening system under the health authorities. I have received comments, and I have to take them very seriously, therefore I cannot give the advice to mothers that the hon. Gentleman wants until I have a system which satisfies the doctors involved. We shall endeavour to do this as quickly as possible.

Notwithstanding any pressures that my right hon. Friend might have in this matter, will he ensure that he resists any pressure to confuse this issue with abortion and the screening tests, which his Department has agreed should go ahead, because of its value to pregnant women, in respect not only of spina bifida but of other inter-uterine deficiencies on the part of the foetus?

Yes, but the House should not totally dissociate itself from some of the pressures on it about abortion. For the blood test to have maximum reliability, it must be taken at 16 to 18 weeks. If the test is positive, it must be followed by further tests, procedures and discussions with the patient, which may make it difficult, where an abortion is agreed upon, to ensure that the abortion takes place before 20 weeks. There is, therefore, a link between some of the pressures put before the House on abortion, and the screening procedure for neural tube defects, which may lead some mothers to decide that they wish to have an abortion.

In view of the fact that a great deal of research is now going on, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consult also the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology as well as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists? There are vast differences of opinion about not only this screening method but other screening methods which can help valuable pregnancies to survive.

I am sure that consultation has already taken place with the Institute. If it has not, I shall certainly ensure that it does.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to announce changes in the criteria for awards of attendance allowance to kidney patients dialysing at home.

The medical requirements for attendance allowance are laid down in the Social Security Act 1975 and it is for the Attendance Allowance Board, as an independent statutory body, to determine whether the claimant satisfies those requirements. A claimant who considers that a decision on review by the Board is wrong in law can apply for leave to appeal to the national insurance commissioner on the point of law. Up to now no such application has been received affecting the issue which con cerns my hon. Friend, but I know that one is now contemplated.

Given that one of my constituents intends to appeal to the commissioner on a point of law, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the DHSS will do as it did on a previous occasion, when an appeal on another matter went to the commissioner, and indicate that it will not be too obsessed if the ruling goes against the Attendance Allowance Board? Will the DHSS be even handed in the matter and ensure that both sides are argued by their legal representatives before the commissioner?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the courtesy he showed when he brought a deputation to see me about this matter last week. The hearings before the national insurance commissioner are not adversarial. My hon. Friend can be assured that the case will be argued from both points of view. I shall do whatever I can to facilitate the appeal.

Will the Minister recognise the simple fact that it will not be acceptable to hon. Members on either side of the House if dialysis patients start to lose attendance allowance without any improvement in their condition? Will he make sure that this case is heard as soon as possible and if it goes the wrong way will he undertake to change the law?

As I have said, I shall do whatever I can to ensure that the case is heard as soon as possible. I must not arrogate to myself the powers of the national insurance commissioner. With regard to any change in the law, that is a question which at this stage must be hypothetical. On 10th January my right hon. Friend said in a reply that we shall bear in mind all the points of view that have been put to us on this very important matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital beds are out of action owing to shortages of nursing staff.

I regret that this information is not available centrally, but it is known that temporary closures of wards do occur from time to time due to temporary and local shortages of staff.

Is the Minister aware that operating theatre work in the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, in my constituency, is being cut back severely because of the shortage of trained nurses? Does the Government's attitude to private medicine mean that we shall continue to have a deteriorating situation in the NHS?

I do not know what the relationship between private medicine and the NHS has to do with the Question. We offer a universal service to anyone who wants it. With regard to operating theatres in Woodford Hospital, there is a cutback of 20 per cent. in theatre sessions at present due to the shortage of theatre nurses. That is because it is not easy to recruit theatre nurses. I am happy to say that the number of registered and enrolled nurses attending joint courses for theatre nursing has increased.

Can the Minister tell the House how many qualified nurses are now employed in the 40 new and privately owned hospitals, clinics and homes that were opened in England last year?

No, I cannot answer that Question without notice. But I can tell my hon. Friend that the number of whole time qualified nurses employed by the National Health Service has gone up from 205,000 to 214,000 in the year March 1976 to March 1977, which is the last year for which we have figures.

Since the under-used beds to which this Question refers inevitably means longer waiting lists, will the Minister now answer the question about the bogus £9½ million mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) a few moments ago? Is it not now clear that the Secretary of State tried to pretend that there was an additional £9½ million to be spent when this is not so? Is it not the case that he has now been rumbled as all gab and no action?

I have never heard a supplementary question with so many misconceptions in it during the time that I have been a Member of the House of Commons. The Question had nothing to do with under-used beds. My right hon. Friend gave no more than the truth when he gave the answer which he did.

Answer the question.

I have answered the question. The right hon. Gentleman has asked a question which at this stage is not on the Order Paper.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.