asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list his official engagements for 7th March.

I shall be meeting informally the Chairman of the BMA Council and the Secretary of the Council.

In view of the fact that I told the right hon. Gentleman last Wednesday what I was going to ask him, will he please be so kind as to tell the House why, 48 hours after that, he had a Question placed on the Order Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), a perfectly bland and innocuous Question, which he chose to answer last night in great detail about his version of the Scott affair? Will he enlighten us?

I had noticed Questions that had been tabled for today. I thought that it would be helpful for the discussion today and for any supplementary questions for me to set out a complete statement in order that any hon. Members could refer to it if they so wished and in order that I could refer to it if I so wished.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the existing means of distribution for social security benefits and retirement pensions, in the light of the continued closure of village post offices.

Yes, Sir. In September 1977 there were about 11,800 rural sub-post offices, and I am satisfied that they provide an adequate service. This is a net reduction of 160 over the preceding year, but this reduction reflects movements of population rather than a planned withdrawal of services.

Can the Minister say whether consideration has yet been given to the recommendations made by the Post Office Users National Council that the Government should compensate the Post Office for maintaining services at remote sub-post offices which cannot be continued on an economic basis?

Along with the work of the joint working party of officials on inter-bank research and payment through banks, this matter is under consideration

Will my right hon. Friend consider opening temporary premises in villages such as Upton in my constituency, which is a village with a closed colliery and in which there is a high rate of unemployment and many elderly people who are inconvenienced through having to travel to the next village of South Kirkby to receive their benefit?

I understand that this matter has arisen in a number of mining areas. Where there are elderly and disabled people, special arrangements can be made at present. But where people are signing on for unemployment benefit this must be done within the six-mile limit once a week. Over the six-mile limit, where special consideration can be given, it can be done by post.

As 72 per cent. of those on the unemployment benefit trial of fortnightly payments preferred fortnightly payments, what proposals does the Minister have to extend the use of fortnightly and monthly payments, and perhaps quarterly payments, to others receiving benefits so as to ease the administrative burden?

The experiment that the Government have carried out has now been completed. The results are being examined by Ministers. A statement will be made in the near future.

In relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) had to say, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in certain areas of the coalfields miners on the so-called early retirement scheme are able to get their money, arising out of the closure of some of these offices, on an extended basis, and that it should be made applicable to all? Whilst we are on the subject, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a drive towards amalgamation of post offices, registry officers for births and deaths and so on, and that this is bad and it is about time that it was stopped? He and his colleagues ought to intervene and stop the Tory county council in Derbyshire from closing registration offices there, particularly in my constituency.

Only the electors in Derbyshire can do that.

I have done my best.

On the wider point that my hon. Friend has raised, amalgamation of offices is done for the sake of efficiency, and it assists the staff in many areas who assist people claiming benefits. I understand the fact that there are difficulties. If my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends, or any hon. Member, would like to raise any specific cases with me, I shall be quite prepared to discuss them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities exist within Cambridgeshire for the screening of women for breast cancer and other mammary disorders.

In Cambridge Health District there are no routine "Well Women" clinics, but a full mammary advisory service is available at Addenbrooke's Hospital through referral by GPs.

In view of the concern being expressed by women's organisations in my constituency about the inadequacy of primary facilities, may I ask my hon. Friend what progress is being made in the development of secondary techniques for diagnosing this sort of condition?

Secondary care for this sort of condition is vital. Further research is being commissioned through the Medical Research Council, and on the advice of a working group chaired by Sir Richard Doll screening trials are being set up in four localities. They will consist of two types, both replicated and with controls. They will take the form of, firstly, annual clinical examination over seven years with mammography every other year and, secondly, instruction in and encouragement to undertake regular self-examination, and direct referral to clinics. The sites selected are Edinburgh and Guildford for screening trials and Huddersfield and Nottingham for self-examination.

In view of the fact that I told the Minister's right hon. Friend and twice wrote to the Minister himself about a constituent who was in acute pain for 18 months while waiting for a cervical smear, does not the Minister feel slightly ashamed of the answer that he gave—a two-year waiting list in Cambridgeshire?

There are a variety of reasons for waiting lists, but I informed the House that cervical smears were available at Doddington Hospital and at Peterborough District Hospital.

A two-year waiting list.

Will my hon. Friend accept that even more important than mammography and other techniques is the self-examination by a woman of her own problem? In order that she does not defer early diagnosis, will my hon. Friend ask the Health Education Council to have a massive campaign to get rid of fear, so that if there is just a calcified lump it can be removed without all the problems faced by women in regard to worry?

As I have said, we are conducting trials to see what effect regular self-examination will have. Once we have conducted those trials, the position will be clear and we shall be able to decide whether to launch a campaign along the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested.

What help and support does the Minister give to the Women's National Campaign for Cancer Control, particularly in its excellent educative work on self-screening?

I should want notice about that question if I were to inform the House about the question of grant. However, we are most anxious to establish what the effectiveness of screening facilities of this sort will be, because it is probably the key to treatment in this particular field. That is why we are conducting the tests.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research is being financed by his Department into the problems of battered wives.

A study of the incidence of violence in marriage and legal, medical and social services implications; a study of the provision and assessment of services for battered women; and a study of women who have left a refuge and how their stay helped them.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware of the valuable work being done by the Sheffield Association for Battered Wives? Will his Department take some interest in that work, either by way of study or perhaps by way of direct help?

What about battered husbands?

We are always pleased to hear of research that is not being sponsored by my Department. We provide a big grant to the National Women's Aid Federation, and I hope that we can maintain contact with research that is going on in various refuges up and down the country through that national organisation.

Is the Minister aware that battered wives—and, no doubt, battered husbands—change their minds and that frequently, having made a complaint to the police, they will then withdraw and refuse to give evidence when the matter comes to the courts, either out of a desire for reconciliation or out of fear? However, there is a very real problem in getting the evidence brought forward in order to make cases stick in the courts.

With respect, that is another question, and I am not even sure that it is a matter for my Department. I suspect that it is a matter for the Home Office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that absolute rubbish is talked on behalf of the police about battered wives withdrawing their complaints? The police are wholly unsympathetic to battered wives. Therefore, will my hon. Friend discuss with the Home Secretary the need for a change in police attitudes to this terrible problem?

I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said. So far as my Department is concerned, we are well aware of the problem of battered wives and fully sympathetic towards the problems that they have to face.

Does the Minister agree that there is an element of sex discrimination in this question when we learn from certain experience that there are just as many battered husbands in our society?

With respect, this is a Question about battered wives, and not battered husbands. Most of the public concern about the need for refuges which has been expressed in the past few years has been in favour of women and not men.

Does the Minister's research confirm that there is an urgent need for homes in which battered wives can make the transition from the emotionally fraught atmosphere of their homes to more normal living conditions? Has this urgent need been confirmed by his research?

The research that we have sponsored so far has not dealt with that particular problem. We are looking at the possibility of doing something to aid Chiswick Women's Aid, which claims to be a unique therapeutic community. At present we are in discussion with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to see whether there is anything in this claim.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff, other than doctors and nurses, were employed in the Winchester region and the Dorset area at 1st January 1975 and 1st January 1978, respectively.

Complete figures are available only for 30th September 1975 and for 30th September 1976, when the whole-time equivalents of staff in post for Wessex Region were 17,818·1 and 18,283·3 respectively; and for the Dorset area they were 3,566·1 and 3,665·2 respectively. I am circulating details in the Official Report.

Although they are not, perhaps, figures for identical dates, does the Minister accept that the number of hospital beds provided has actually declined and is still declining? If that is to be so and other medical services are no better than they were, should there not be corresponding reductions in administrative staff? Will the Minister watch this matter?

First, on the question of figures, the number of administrative and clerical staff in this one area, in the Wes-sex Region, rose by 11·9 on a figure of roughly 5,000, and in Dorset it rose by only 4·9 on a figure of 1,000, so I would have thought that the record was fairly good in that area.

Is the Minister aware that for many years the Wessex Region has done badly out of all Governments, on both capital account and current account, that it is not a matter of arguing between one district and another within the region, and that, due to the establishment of a medical school in Southampton—which we welcome—this has led to many other districts getting even less than is available?

The question of resources is not directly related to this, but the hon. Gentleman will know that under the Resource Allocation Working Party procedure, there is a redistribution from the regions which are above the national average to those which are below the national average. So far, Wessex has benefited under those provisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he is satisfied with his Department's arrangements for the safe custody of files relating to individual members of the public.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the arrangements for the confidentiality of files held by his Department relating to individual citizens.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State please now tell the House what inquiries he has made into the statement on pages 175–177 of the book "The Pencourt File" that certain files relating to Mr. Norman Scott were removed from his Department by a political aide, whom we now know to be Mr. Jack Straw, and taken to 10 Downing Street and seen there by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and that he in turn took copies of those files and has kept them?

It is for Ministers to decide for themselves, bearing in mind the need to respect the confidentiality of personal information, what papers they need to consult and what advice they need in order to perform their ministerial functions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) evidently thought it necessary to inform himself about this case, as he has since made clear to the Press.

With reference to the Secretary of State's answer, and to the Written Answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th February, will he say what exceptional circumstances there were to justify the disclosure of the files of Norman Scott to the then Prime Minister and his political secretary? Was it in order to meet statutory or welfare requirements, was it to stop duplication of payments out of public funds, or was it to assist the police with the prosecution? Was the consent of Mr. Norman Scott ever obtained?

It is for the Prime Minister of the day to decide what information he needs to see, and what information he asks of a responsible Secretary of State, to enable him to decide whether there is any impropriety or anything else. It was on precisely that point that I made a statement yesterday. I assured the House that I had made a thorough investigation when I came into office. I also assured the House that there had in no sense been any impropriety on the part of my Department.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the book "The Pencourt File" has about as much validity as "Babies for Burning" turned out to have? Is he aware that no files relating to any person were taken out of the Department by Mr. Jack Straw to the Prime Minister of the day or to anyone else? Can we not stop the Tories trying to stir up mud as a result of the fevered imagination of a couple of journalists?

I agree with my right hon. Friend in terms of her comment on the book. It certainly is a package of rumour, innuendo and tittle-tattle. But, since it was perfectly clear that some Conservative Members wished to pursue this, it was for that reason that I thought it quite proper to make a statement to the House and to reveal the fact that, when I knew that allegations were made, I carried out a very thorough investigation and assured myself, and now assure the House, that there was no impropriety.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the present methods of paying dentists for their NHS work.

The present methods of paying dentists have been jointly agreed with the dental profession. But I am always ready to look at proposals for improvement in the arrangements or any reasonable alternative.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in Berkshire some dental practitioners are so dissatisfied with their remuneration that they are withholding certain services, in particular the supply of false teeth, to my constituents, and that when they are supplied the dentists are no less than £12 to £15 out of pocket?

I am aware that some dentists in some parts of the country are refusing to provide some types of treatment, such as dentures, under the National Health Service. I deplore the fact that the British Dental Association has given such advice to its dentists—to be selective. It was for this reason that I sent a personal letter to all dentists asking them not to make patients suffer. But the House will be encouraged to know that the figures for dental treatment under the NHS for the first two months of this year show an increase of 280,000 over the first two months of last year. The number of cases treated is steadily increasing.

Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny weekend Press reports which suggested that his party was proposing in future to finance private pension schemes for the staff of family doctors? Do similar schemes exist for the staff of dentists? Does he agree that if resources are being used in this way the NHS is being further starved of badly-needed resources?

I ask my hon. Friend to put down a Question on that matter.

Does the Secretary of State realise that he will never be able to reach a satisfactory agreement with the dentists, or any of the National Health Service professions, as long as many of his colleagues, in Cabinet and on the Labour Back Benches, continue their campaign of sniping and vilification against professional integrity and professional independence? He may mean well, but his party does not.

What the right hon. Gentleman said is absolute rubbish. It is not true that there have been such allegations. The relations that it has been possible for the Government to maintain with the professions have been on a very civilised basis. I regret that at the present time the British Dental Association has decided to withdraw from the dental rates study group, an independent body on which it has co-operated up to now and which has the responsibility for determining expenses. I have pleaded with the BDA to return to this independent body, because at present it is depriving dentists of a new assessment of their expenses. For this reason, I have now referred the matter to the Review Body. The accusations made by the right hon. Gentleman are quite untrue.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from people in the Mexborough and surrounding districts requesting that the casualty department of the Mexborough Montagu Hospital be reopened to provide a 24-hour daily service.

I have received a petition from people served by the hospital and a letter from Mr. O'Donaghue, Secretary of the Rotherham Hospital Branch of the National Union of Public Employees.

Does my hon. Friend realise that people in the Mexborough and surrounding districts do not object to his Department building hospitals in the town centre, but they object to their lives being placed in danger because they have to travel so far and also to the indifference of the authorities to this?

The lives of my hon. Friend's constituents are not likely to be in danger, because there will be a modern accident and emergency department at the new Rotherham Hospital, fully equipped. Certainly no indifference is being expressed by the Trent Regional Health Authority, which has approved the establishment of a clinical assistant to work at the Montagu Hospital. As a result of interviews last Friday, the authority has now filled that post, so that the accident and emergency department will be opening. The aim is to give a service from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were awaiting admission into National Health Service hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available.

The revised provisional figure for patients awaiting admission into NHS hospitals at 30th September 1977 was 594,000.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the figure is very high? Does he realise that in Staffordshire the size of the waiting list increased by 20 per cent. between September 1976 and September 1977? What practical steps is he taking to deal with this very alarming situation?

I agree that the figure is too high. I have to say, with sadness, that it has always been too high. The total number of people awaiting admission to hospital has fluctuated around 500,000 since the inception of the National Health Service.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one factor in reducing waiting lists would be to take over all the private beds in the National Health Service, especially as many of those who get the privilege of using them do not even pay for them at the end of the day?

We are already making good progress in fulfilling the terms of the National Health Service Act in that we are steadily phasing out pay beds from the National Health Service and shall be moving forward towards common waiting lists in the National Health Service.

Will the Secretary of State consider giving special priority to the elderly when they are on lists for routine operations? Obviously, a routine operation at the age of 30 or 40 is very different from one at the age of 70 or 80.

It is for the hospital consultants to decide what priority should be given to what patients. But in terms of particular types of operation—I am thinking of joint replacements, which are particularly for the elderly—they have a high priority.

Do not these high figures show the urgent need to establish common waiting lists, which would prevent private patients jumping the queue? Can my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to take action on the excellent report on common waiting lists produced some time ago by the Health Services Board?

I have received the report of the Health Services Board, and I am now consulting about the best ways in which it can be implemented.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that misleading the House about the extra money which was supposed to have been put into the reducing of waiting lists helps the problem in any way? Why, on 22nd November, did he talk about an increase of £9·5 million when there was nothing of the sort? There was no extra money at all. Does he think that helps?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I neither misled the House nor sought to mislead it. I made it clear that there was roughly £8·5 million which had been identified by the health authorities as being directly attributed to easing the problem of waiting lists. I made no suggestion that there were new resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the proposals for the additions to Crawley Hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Construction of phase III, which will provide additional beds and other services in support of the existing accident and emergency department, is due to start within the next few months.

Is the Minister aware that there is an acute shortage of nurses at Crawley Hospital, and is he aware, further, that the Government propose to expand the number of passengers at Gatwick Airport from 6 million to 24 million? In view of the fact that the facilities at Crawley Hospital are already grossly inadequate, does not phase III need to be expanded and consolidated still further?

There is a longer-term plan to provide further beds after the completion of phase III which is being considered by the area and regional health authorities. It is true that there was a shortage of nurses in the earlier part of this year. That was due to a misunderstanding of some local policies. But that has now been rectified—at least, it was last week—and by the time phase III comes into operation there will be a new nurse training school which should provide all the nurses needed by the hospital.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the total sum of money lost in supplementary benefits through fraud and mistakes in 1977; and what steps he will take to cut down this sum.

Cash losses due to irrecoverable overpayments of supplementary benefit recorded during the financial year ended 31st March 1977 amounted to about £8 million. Although this sum is small in comparison with the total of £1·8 billion supplementary benefit paid in that year, we take our prevention responsibilities very seriously. The methods used in taking and processing claims are designed to minimise the risk of fraud and erroneous payments, and these methods will continue to be reviewed in the light of experience.

In answering my supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I am not asking how much money which could have been claimed was not claimed? Can he please confirm that the biggest rise in the amount lost comes from official errors, which represent about 40 per cent.? Will he perhaps consider the possibility that the impossible complexity of the benefit system is contributing to these errors?

I might tell the hon. Lady as a background to my answer that we make 100 million Giro payments a year of short-term benefits and 900 million order book payments of long-term benefits a year. That is the size of the operation. I recognise that the staff errors which were made amounted to a little more than £3 million. We spend a great deal of time and money on training, monitoring standards of work and other forms of checking, and this has to be weighed against the results achieved. Obviously we want to continue to improve them, and we examine them continuously.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd that Questions from the Opposition about fraud are always about social security recipients? Would not it be better if they concentrated some of their Questions on the enormous amount of money lost to the Exchequer through tax frauds?

Some Opposition Members make these accusations continuously, and they are wrong. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about tax frauds.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet received the report of the Committee on Back Pain.

No, Sir, but I understand that Professor Cochrane's working group intends to submit an interim report within the next few months.

As back pain is known to cost the country about £1 million a day in sickness benefit, medical care and lost production, and as Professor Cochrane's working party has been sitting since 1976, will the Minister see what he can do to speed up matters? Will he also say what support he will give to the pioneering work of the Back Pain Association?

It was because of the work of the Back Pain Association, amongst others, that we set up the working party, which has been sitting since the end of 1976. It is a subject which needs study in depth. It was because of the importance that we attached to the subject that the working party was created.

Although undoubtedly this is a particularly serious Question, is my hon. Friend aware that some of us feel that many of the Questions coming from the Opposition are a pain elsewhere than in the neck?

I shall bear that in mind when dealing with Questions other than the one raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to take further decisions about the level of child benefit.

I can add nothing to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) on 7th February.

Bearing in mind that the level of child support under this Government is now even less than it was 30 years ago, is not it time that we inflation-proofed child benefits in line with tax allowances for adults and other supplementary benefits?

I remind the hon. Member that child benefit will increase to £2·30 per child next month and that this Government introduced child benefit for the first child. Although we always want to improve it, there has nevertheless been a considerable improvement in child support.

Before succumbing to the demands for index-linking, will my right hon. Friend ensure that child benefit is at a reasonable level? Does he agree that at the moment it is far too low to be index-linked, that it needs to be raised substantially in the forthcoming Budget and that in the interests of fairness it should be at the same level as the child portion in national insurance benefits?

I agree that child benefit is not yet at the level where it should be index-linked. I note what my hon. Friend said about the Budget. No doubt she will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Labour Party Conference that he would not use any of the available money to increase child benefit because it would be unfair to single or married people without children? Does he share that view?

I have not the words of my right hon. Friend before me, but he has been consistent in supporting an increase in child benefit, and it is the intention of this Government to continue that support for children and the family.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he remains satisfied with the efficiency of the ambulance service.

Yes, but, as with all services, it is capable of improvement.

Does not the Minister agree that there is a continuously increasing demand for this service? How is this to be financed in circumstances where, as in the North-West, only some of the service is used for emergency work?

Finance is part of the wider problem of extra resources for the NHS. In the meantime, under the RAWP principle, the North-West Region and areas within it will be benefiting from this and will continue to do so for the next few years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these questions demonstrate beyond peradventure that it is the desire of all the House of Commons completely to refurbish the NHS and social allowances? All sides of the House want an injection of extra public expenditure in order to refurbish the NHS and the social services. A massive minority of one is opposed to this, and that is the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Those views are held strongly by all Ministers in my Department.

Does not the Minister realise that the efficiency of the ambulance service is seriously reduced by industrial unrest? There is widespread industrial unrest within the NHS. Why does not the Secretary of State condemn industrial action in the Health Service?

My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that in reply to an earlier question.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the warning system by which his Department notifies doctors of possible dangers of drugs is working effectively.

The Committee on Safety of Medicines is at present consulting on proposals to improve the post-marketing surveillance of drugs and is constantly reviewing its methods of communicating with the professions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these constant reviews are completely ineffective, because after doctors were warned that hormone drugs like the pregnancy test drug Primodos could cause babies to be malformed they were still prescribing these drugs? Despite the negative response and complacent replies I have had from his Department, this matter is of growing public concern.

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter of proper concern. That is why we are seeking to reinforce the yellow card system by the new system of surveying about 20 drugs every year and the patients who are taking them. We are consulting upon this new approach. When we have had the replies, we can take a decision on what needs to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to ensure there is enough NHS dentistry available for those who need it.

The increasing number of dentists being added to the Dentists Register each year provides the basis for continuing improvement in National Health Service dental services.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain parts of the country where no NHS dentistry is available, not even for emergencies? I have evidence of patients who have been asked to pay £200 for bridging and £450 for capping teeth. Does he not think that that is a scandalous situation, especially when we are supposed to provide complete NHS dentistry for all patients who need it?

Yes, I think that it is disgraceful. My hon. Friend will know, that I have no power of compulsion with regard to which patients a dentist will treat and what services he will provide. I made it clear earlier—and I have done so publicly—that I deeply deplore the decision of some dentists to limit the amount of NHS service which they are prepared to give. It is encouraging that there is a steadily increasing number of dentists providing services, and an increasing number of treatments, under the NHS.

Does the Secretary of State also accept that the long-term aim should be to provide a greater degree of preventive dentistry, as opposed to corrective dentistry, under the NHS? In particular, will he give greater impetus to the possibility of providing voluntary fluoride treatment such as fissure sealants and topical applications under the NHS?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I would go much further. He will know that the vast majority of area health authorities have now given their approval to fluoridation. I only wish that it was now possible for health authorities to fulfil these recommendations in order that the whole country can benefit.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in April 1976 my working party submitted 37 recommendations and at the same time was able to show that if they were all implemented we would have precisely the same problems about the dentistry provisions under the NHS? In view of this, will he now take the dust off the file and try to implement some of those recommendations?

The recommendations made by my hon. Friend's working party were of very great value. Some of them have been implemented, but I shall have a look at them again to see whether further action can be taken.

Why does the Secretary of State condemn the dentists but not the hospital porters?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well the position that I have taken with regard to industrial action in the Health Service, whether it applies to doctors, nurses or others who work in the Health Service. Fortunately, the vast majority of those who work in the NHS recognise that when they take industrial action they are taking it against the interests of patients.