asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of claims for supplementary benefit come from families when at least one adult in the household is paying income tax.

I regret that this information is not available, but we estimate that less than 0·5 per cent. of claimants or their wives are paying income tax whilst receiving supplementary benefit.

Are not there a number or households where supplementary benefit is received regularly but where one or more regular dependants are at the sime time earning enough to pay tax? Does not this emphasise the overlap between the taxation and benefit systems and the need for a reappraisal of the whole untaxed supplementary benefit system?

Adults in households may include adult sons or daughters who are not dependent on the claimants and whose means are not investigated. There are also instances where a benefit—say, a housing benefit—takes the claimant above the tax level and, therefore, tax is then payable.

On the related subject of the A.6 form used by my right hon. Friend's investigators, will he accept a further personal plea from hon. Members on both sides of the House who are deeply concerned about the use of this form in investigating the marital circumstances of people who may find their particulars on a computer, with the information being used for many years to come?

I understand my hon. Friend's feelings, and I answered a parliamentary Question of his on the subject only last week. I suggest that he and those of his hon. Friends who are concerned about this matter may care to discuss it with the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor Donnison, and they may like to come to see me after they have discussed it with him.

Is not there something desperately unjust about the interaction of wages, taxes and benefits when so many people can be better off by not working than by working? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, for example, that it must be wrong that a postman can receive a net wage of £39·49 for a five-and-a-half day week starting at 5.30 in the morning when at the same time, apparently, another gentleman living on Dartmoor can get £132 a week in tax-free benefits for doing absolutely nothing?

The hon. Gentleman is once again misrepresenting and exaggerating the position. Only those with low incomes and large families—and they are very few in number—are likely to be better off. Fewer than 5 per cent. of men earn £45 a week or less, and many of them are young men without children. Fewer than 5 per cent. of those on benefit have four or more children, and many are one-parent families. It is the poor whom the hon. Member continually attacks.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next plans to meet the chairman of the South East Thames Regional Health Authority.

I expect to meet Sir John Donne at the next regular meeting with regional health authority chairmen on 16th May.

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the small but welcome redistribution of funds to deprived areas in the region, too great a share of the region's resources are still being devoted to the London teaching hospitals? When he next meets the chairman of the regional authority, will he impress upon him the fact that the current plans for the region will still be under-funded by £24 million by 1987 and that we want to see a much greater degree of urgency towards redistribution and the application of RAWP principles in South-East Thames than we have seen so far?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of the RAWP formula. There is no particular need for me to press the case that he is urging on behalf of the chairman of the South East Thames Regional Authority because I know that he is fully desirous of ensuring that the under-funding in Kent is remedied. It is a difficult problem, because most resources in London are locked up in the teaching hospitals and we do need the output of the teaching hospitals to service the NHS of the future in all areas including Kent.

Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of the South East Thames Regional Authority the danger of concentrating so many National Health Service beds in the large hospitals at the cost of closing down many small hospitals, such as the ones in my constituency? We have some very good small convalescent homes for patients on their way back from the district hospitals. Will the Minister reconsider the definition of acute beds, as convalescent beds are now called? Will he call them convalescent beds and keep them on?

There is a very large surplus of beds in the Greenwich and Bexley Area Health Authority, an authority which has had the addition of two new hospitals in recent years, which are very advanced in design, and it is inevitable that there will be some rationalisation of service.

Before my hon. Friend meets the chaiman of the South East Thames Regional Health Authority, will he meet the chairman of the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Area Health Authority, who will tell him that under the RAWP formula these three areas are due to lose 13 per cent. of the resources that they need? Many of us will welcome a cut-back in resources for the rich teaching hospitals—

Order. That is not fair. Every area could get in on such a question. We are dealing with the South East Regional Thames Health Authority.

But, Mr. Speaker, my area is part of the South East Thames Regional Health Authority. After that little geography lesson, I should say that many of us would welcome a cut-back in the over-provision for the teaching hospitals. Under these cuts it is not the teaching hospitals that are suffering but the facilities for the mentally ill and handicapped, which are gravely under-provided, particularly in the Lewisham area.

I agree that there is considerable room for improvement in services for the mentally ill and handicapped in these areas. I assure my hon. Friend that I am in constant and regular touch with—

We cannot hear.

Order. It is customary to address the Chair when answering questions.

I assure my hon. Friend that I am in close and regular contact with the chairman of the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Area Health Authority.

Is the Minister aware that this concern about the way in which the RAWP exercise has proceeded is widely shared? However, out of deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall not mention any other areas. What steps is the Minister taking to monitor the way in which the allocation is being made and whether it is fair and consistent between one region and another?

I am totally confident that the distribution between one region and another is based on the RAWP principles, and I support the allocation that has been made thereon. We continually monitor the RAWP formula and we have a special section in my Department to keep an eye on the matter continually. From the questions that I have heard today hon. Members are urging support for the application of the RAWP formula and are not expressing concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.

Considerable progress has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in Lord McCarthy's report aimed at improving the NHS Whitley Council system. As further steps, I expect the General Whitley Council shortly to consider how to establish more effective industrial relations machinery at all levels of the NHS, and my Department is mounting the first of a series of intensive industrial rions training courses for selected . More generally, I recently a meeting, which I believe to be the first of its kind, with leaders of the medical profession and the NHS trade unions. The meeting was fruitful, and I hope to follow it up with further joint discussions of issues relevant to industrial relations.

Is it not a fact that the level of disruption caused by the action of ancillary staff in hospitals has reached disastrous proportions? Does this not show that there is something rotten in the whole state of the National Health Service?

The hon. Member must get the matter into proportion. The NHS employs an enormous number of staff all over the country and in general industrial relations have been extremely good. When there are isolated outbreaks they do get widespread publicity. I have made it clear time and time again that I deprecate any industrial action—by doctors, nurses, porters, telephonists or anyone else—which endangers the care and health of patients.

I shall call first those whose Questions are being answered.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, like him, I am not fed up with the National Health Service? The Secretary of State knows that I work in it. However, does he agree that the industrial relations problem cannot be brushed under the carpet? Does he agree that the time has come for a more positive course in man and woman management to be introduced into the NHS?

Certainly; there are such courses. In my answer I said that we were having intensive training courses in personnel matters. I must say that I wish that more of the hon. Members' colleagues would make statements like he has done, supporting the NHS. As for industrial relations, under Lord McCarthy's reforms the Whitley Council management sides have been made more effective and representative. Manpower and pay information units have been established within the Department. Also, the personnel function is being improved and developed.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the anxieties of patients and relatives have been greatly exacerbated by the activities of telephonists which are not directly concerned with the health of patients but are concerned with their psychological state? His statement today shows complacency, self-satisfaction and lack of urgency in getting to grips with the problem.

The hon. Member's comments are absolutely ludicrous. There has been a great deal of exaggeration. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) referred on 13th March to widespread industrial action in the NHS. This is not so. Hon. Members must keep this matter in proportion. When there is action by the telephonists it is right that we should speak out clearly, as I have done. But happily such action is being taken in only a few small parts of the country, and it is diminishing.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the action taken by the telephonists and other ancillary workers is affecting the morale of patients and the medical profession? The patients' health is affected because of the action.

I much resent the fact that everyone seems to be picking on one particular industrial dispute. I am very concerned about this. The telephonists have received a 10 per cent. pay increase but they say that they are dissatisfied with their pay and status. This is being properly considered by the Ancillary Staffs Council. To blow this up into a wider issue is unfair. Hon. Members should look at the whole breadth of the National Health Service, and the amount of time that is being lost in industrial action is very small indeed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of improving industrial relations in the NHS is to introduce a system of common waiting lists for all patients in NHS hospitals in order to end queue-jumping by private patients who can afford to pay? Will he make a statement about the report of the Health Services Board asking him to phase out common waiting lists? He has had this report for several months.

It is true that the Board has made recommendations to me, as it is obliged to do by legislation, on the establishment of common waiting lists. It is essential that we should have these to stop any sort of queue-jumping. I am consulting about this recommendation and at the right time I shall make a statement to the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the day when the NHS was reorganised by the Conservative Party in 1974, the ambulance service in the West Midlands has not worked properly in the interests of the people there? What will he do about it?

I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would table a specific Question about that matter.

Does the Minister realise that instead of making remarks about being cheesed off by militants we would like to see some much more positive action? Out of these discussions with the BMA and the TUC, will he produce a code of behaviour for people working in the National Health Service?

Frankly, I am a bit cheesed off with the hon. Gentleman. It was he who, in the House on 13th March, referred to widespread industrial action when we had no such thing at all in the National Health Service. This sort of exaggeration is trouble-making.

Does the Secretary of State agree that a basic cause of demoralisation amongst NHS staff is the deliberate reduction of real wages through the operation of wages policy and by the severe cuts in capital spending in the NHS, which has prevented these conscientious people doing the best possible job by their clients?

First, I very much respect the way in which workers within the NHS have been prepared to settle this round of pay negotiations within the Government pay guidelines. I think that we owe them thanks for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is his policy to increase dependence upon means-tested benefits.

No, Sir. Our aim is to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits and measures that we have introduced, such as the child benefit and new pensions schemes, are steps in this direction. Meanwhile, means-tested benefits are giving essential protection to poorer people.

If it is the Government's policy to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits, why are there now three times as many people on rate rebates as there were in 1973?

The answer to that is that the Government have made the public aware of these benefits and have encouraged people to claim them.

In view of the fact that many thousands of people are entitled to benefits but are not taking them up, and are therefore suffering unnecessarily as a result, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if the form of market concept that has been developed in his own area—a shop to which people could go to find out what benefits they were entitled to—should be developed, particularly in areas where there are too many people, unfortunately, who have to depend upon the type of benefits available?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As he will see from the annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor Donnison and the Commission estimate that between £250 million and £300 million in legitimate benefits are not claimed by people who could claim them. I am also very much aware that voluntary organisations throughout the country do a great deal of work to draw to people's attention their rights to benefits. In the summer the Supplementary Benefits Commission will launch a campaign on this issue.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment and dismay amongst many beneficiaries of social security and other benefits, including single-parent families, who looked forward to the child benefit only to find that it was taken away from the other benefits that they received? Does he realise that this group of people are the people who most need the increase in child benefit, and cannot he get it changed, to look after them?

This is a problem of overlapping benefits and the difficulty of paying the same benefit twice to the same people. As we phase in child benefit and increase child benefit, this will become less obvious.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he is taking to encourage the work of voluntary bodies in relation to social services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he is taking to encourage the work of voluntary organisations in social services.

I have constantly stressed the importance of collaboration with voluntary organisations and the harnessing of community effort, through such means as the good neighbour campaign. I have also invited local and health authorities to consider what other assistance they can offer to voluntary bodies in addition to financial support such as further rate relief, provision of accommodation, transport or services, free or at cost.

In view of the recent report on the death of Simon Peacock, which is similar to other deaths and cases of battered babies, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need to help overworked social workers and for greater co-operation between voluntary organisations to minimise similar cases arising?

There is no doubt that the contribution of some voluntary organisations, in particular the NSPCC, is extremely important in child care. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that more can be done not only by voluntary organisations but by individuals, first, to give some assistance, friendship and support to families who have problems and burdens and also, when they are concerned, to make sure that a doctor or social worker is aware of their concern.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that very much depends on the attitudes of local authorities in this matter? Is he aware, too, of the niggardly regard which is paid to this matter by certain local authorities, among which I include my own?

It is true—I deeply regret it—that in the restraints that have been applied on public expenditure some local authorities have sought to reduce the assistance given to voluntary organisations. This is a very unwise form of economy. Not only have I encouraged them to continue to give support to voluntary organisations but, through the joint financing between health authorities and local authorities, I have ensured that voluntary organisations can receive the benefit of joint financing.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stimulate voluntary giving in order that many of these voluntary societies can help themselves?

This is not a good moment at which to reveal any discussions that I have had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will appear on the scene fairly soon. However, I may tell the hon. Lady that I have been giving additional support to the voluntary organisations in a variety of ways, such as grants to help them with training for the certificate of qualification in social work, the purchase of short-life leasehold property for use as shelters, day centres, and so on, and for funding partnership schemes under which, with the agreement of the local authority concerned, a selected voluntary organisation may be asked to undertake a particular project for a limited period of time.

rose—

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) will wait a moment. I made a mistake in not calling him earlier, as he realises.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that though this statement is helpful he ought to have words with professional organisations to allow individuals and voluntary organisations to give help in the social services? Whenever he gives financial help, will he make sure that the House and the public generally know how much he gave, and for what purpose?

If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on the last point I shall do so, to indicate the range of grants that my Department has given during the course of the past year to voluntary organisations.

Since the right hon. Gentleman clearly believes that there is a role for voluntary social service to supplement our hard-pressed statutory services, does he accept the gloomy conclusion of the Wolfenden Report that in future voluntary effort can be sustained only by public financing, or will he urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to begin positively encouraging private and corporate giving, as is done in the United States and other countries?

I think that the voluntary organisation movement is in a very healthy situation. It has come through a difficult financial stage very well. Owing to some of the problems of inflation that face them, I, as Secretary of State, increased the amount of money made available to national organisations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will encourage the expansion of the private medical sector outside the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will encourage the expansion of the private medical sector outside the National Health Service.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that in September last year there were about 6,000 qualified nurses registered unemployed and that of that number about 250 were in the West Midlands? Does he agree that an expansion of private sector medicine would rescue some of those nurses from the misery and humiliation of not having a job?

There are many reasons for the non-employment of nurses in the NHS, but as a matter of fact the number of nurses employed in the Health Service increased from 163,000 in 1974 to nearly 176,000 in 1976, and the number has increased substantially since then.

As the trade union movement has its own private hospital in North London, would it now not be politically more honest and economically more sensible to encourage a mixed economy in health care?

No, Sir. The Department, my right hon. Friend and I are committed to a National Health Service free at the point of use—and a public health service at that.

Does my hon. Friend recall that in recent answers to me he pointed out that there is an acute shortage of operating theatre nurses? In view of the fact that the private sector is not interested in such subjects as geriatric care and mental health but is concerned only with dramatic operations, will he now add to the criteria of the Health Services Board in permitting new private hospitals to be built?

The Health Services Board, under the Health Services Act 1976, subsequently consolidated, has the duty of deciding on these matters.

Turn round. We cannot hear.

Order. It is ineffective to turn one's back on one half of the House because the House does not hear what is being said.

Is the Minister aware that there is also an acute shortage of nurses in child nursing, especially at hospitals such as Booth Hall, Manchester? If he accepts that this is the position, does he agree that it will be better to retrain some of the nurses who are now unemployed, so that they may undertake child nursing within the National Health Service rather than to encourage the private sector of nursing?

I do not accept that there is a national shortage of nurses who are prepared to undertake child nursing. There may be local shortages in various parts of the country. If retraining is to take place, it must be done voluntarily on the part of the nurses concerned. But I am sure that local area health authorities will do their best to meet any local shortages.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any expansion of the private service almost inevitably leads to some restriction on NHS facilities? Is that not what the Opposition have always wanted?

I hope that when the General Election takes place the electorate will take note of the fact that the Opposition are seeking to increase the private health sector at the expense of the public health sector. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point is valid. The Health Services Board must take this matter into account, including private development.

Has not the tragic waste of medical resources, shown by the fact that there are unemployed nurses and lengthening queues, shown that the philosophy of phasing out hospital pay beds and not encouraging the private sector has been hopelessly ill-timed, has encouraged queue-jumping within the NHS, and has been politically motivated?

That supplementary question is founded on a large number of misconceptions. Most of the pay beds that have been phased out of the NHS up to now have been unused or underused.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of retirement pensioners entitled to receive supplementary benefit who do not apply for such benefits.

At the end of 1975, about 600,000 retirement pensioners were estimated not to be receiving supplementary benefit to which they were entitled.

Will the Minister pay attention to the complexity of many benefits and the great difficulty that many people face in discovering to what benefits they are entitled?

This is a problem of which we and the Supplementary Benefits Commission are fully aware and we are concerned about the situation. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to chapter 10 of the last annual report of the Commission, which goes into this issue in some detail.

In view of the large amount of unclaimed benefit about which we heard earlier, could not the Department deal more sympathetically with retrospective claims from people who learn about their benefit to entitlement too late?

We do what we can within the limits of the discretion allowed by laws laid down by this Parliament to exercise discretion over the retrospective payment of benefits not only for supplementary pensioners but for other recipients of social security benefits who have not claimed them in time. There are reasons which have to be given for not claiming in due time, and also laws laid down by this House to ensure that benefits cannot be claimed more than a certain period in arrears.

This afternoon the Minister rightly referred, with praise, to Professor Donnison. Will he explain to the House why the Labour Government refuse to research a tax credit system to help those pensioners who should be receiving benefit but who today do not claim supplementary benefit?

The idea of a tax credit system would not help in this connection. The pensioners who are not claiming supplementary benefit by and large are failing to do so not because of ignorance but partly because in some areas they think there is a stigma attached to claiming benefit, and partly because in many instances the amounts to which they would be entitled would be less than £1 a week.

In view of the fact that the Minister a moment ago said that over £300 million in benefits of all kinds are unclaimed, does this not make nonsense of the anti-scrounger campaign so assiduously peddled by Conservative Members? When the Secretary of State launches his campaign to increase the uptake of benefits, will he also make clear that the anti-scrounger campaign is damaging to genuine recipients and people in need?

My hon. Friend makes a most important point. I am certain that the anti-scrounger campaign has had an impact in preventing people who would otherwise have come forward from taking up their entitlement. It ill behoves those who believe that there are vast amounts of unclaimed benefits to attack those who are abusing the system. For pensioners, the total amount that we estimate to be unclaimed is £65 million. There are many other possible recipients of supplementary benefit who are also not claiming.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about his discussion with the local authority associations about boarding-out allowances.

The local authority associations have begun work on the preparation of recommendations concerning age bands, age relativities and the assimilation of discretionary additions. As part of their general review of these matters they will take into account the scales published in my reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 14th February. They have, however, made it clear that guidelines which called for additional expenditure could not be introduced without a comparable increase in resources.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I hope that he will agree that the tables published in the Official Report in February showed a wide discrepancy between one local authority and another in the levels of boarding-out allowances. Will he now introduce a minimum scale for all local authorities, so that we may bring up those authorities who pay such abysmally low scales?

There were wide variations in my original answer. Some variation is to be expected, because the level of boarding-out scales is influenced by regional and local factors, including the availability of foster parents and the possible need to provide an incentive to fostering. The local authority associations are hoping to be able to review these wide variations in time for the 1979–80 rate support grant settlement.

Will the Minister widen his answer to cover foster parents generally? Is he aware that inequalities exist across all regions in all services connected with fostering? By what steps, and when, will those inequalities be ironed out?

The local authorities hope to be able to make recommendations in time for the application of the 1979–80 rate support grant. Individual local authorities will be free to accept or reject those recommendations. We hope that as a result of consultations there will be a move towards greater uniformity.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the criteria used by his department in assessing the take-up of the disability allowance.

There are a great many allowances for disabled people, and the criteria vary according to the purposes of each allowance. As to the take-up of the allowances, this is frequently reviewed and I am anxious to do all I can to ensure that every possible beneficiary receives all the allowances to which he or she is entitled. I am grateful for the help that I have received from hon. and right hon. Members in improving the take-up of allowances for disabled people, and will much appreciate any further help that they are able to give.

Will my hon. Friend consider particularly the position of blind people, who, at least in my area, have been turned down for most of the newer allowances, including the mobility allowance and the non-contributory invalidity pension, sometimes after only slapdash consideration? Would not a widening of the criteria for disability generally be of particular help to the blind?

Organisations representing blind people have made representations to the Prime Minister and I cannot anticipate his reply, but very careful consideration has been given to the claims of blind people. We do not underestimate their mobility problems, and they are included, for example, in the orange badge scheme. My right hon. Friend and I will bear in mind everything that my hon. Friend has said.

Will the Minister at long last do something about the application forms for invalidity pensions, because they are very complicated, discriminate directly against women, and ask many unnecessary questions?

We are reviewing the application forms. We shall do so in consultation with the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance. What the hon. Gentleman has said has been endorsed by other people and I shall have it fully in mind in the review.

Whatever the criteria, is my hon. Friend satisfied that they are being applied consistently and fairly?

That is an important point. We need rules in order to be consistent and equitable. We are trying in this area to meet infinite claims with finite resources. There are other groups, apart from those that have been mentioned, which are under consideration for help.

Does the Minister agree that among all the worries of the criteria for these allowances, one of the worst is that which is denying many kidney machine patients the attendance allowance? What progress has been made towards an appeal on this matter, and when does the Minister expect to be able to tell us more?

We are awaiting an application for leave to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner on a question of law. A constituent of one of my hon. Friends is considering such an application. As I have explained before, we must not put the cart before the horse and it would be inappropriate for the Government to consider changing the law until we have the Commissioner's decision about whether the Board's interpretation of the law is correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Yes, Sir. The Commission discharges its responsibilities in an informed and sensitive way.

Is the Minister satisfied that the Commission is able to deal with the increased work load since 1974 which has been caused by the big increase in the number of poor people needing benefits since the Government came to power?

The hon. Gentleman's last point is not correct. The work load of the Commission has increased because the Government have introduced new benefits for people who need them. The Commission is examining, through the supplementary benefits review, whether it can bring forward proposals to improve the situation.

Is it not often an arbitrary choice whether people apply for supplementary benefit or for rent and rate rebates from local authorities? Is it not iniquitous that, having applied for a local authority benefit, people remove themselves from the possibility of benefiting from the electricity discount scheme? What can the Commission do about that?

The Commission is looking at this point. My hon. Friend will realise that there is a problem of overlapping benefits and people getting supplementary benefits and rent or rate rebates. We understand that this problem is created by the poverty trap. We want to remove the poverty trap, and the Commission is examining this matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will visit Burgess Hill, in West Sussex.

I have at present no plans to visit Burgess Hill.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in Burgess Hill I would willingly introduce him to a number of successful small firms which are not increasing their work force because the mass of employment legislation passed by this Socialist Government is crushingly weighted against them as employers? Does he realise that the incentive for these small firms is to invest in machinery and not in more men and that the unemployment problem is thus being compounded?

No, that is not my experience of small firms. Reliefs that were given last autumn and subsequently are helping small firms considerably and I find great appreciation for that fact.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the courageous opposition of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to the Conservative Party's proposals on immigration which seem to be based—

Order. This is not the open form of Question. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not linked at all with the main Question. Mr. William Molloy.

Question No. 2, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Will the hon. Gentleman wait until after Question Time?

No.

I do not require any help from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

rose—

Order. We are taking Prime Minister's Question Time. I suggest that points of order should wait until afterwards.

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

I met representatives of both the TUC and the CBI when I took the chair at a meeting of the NEDC on 1st February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he draw to their attention the "phoney" display of concern on unemployment adopted by the Opposition? This was revealed last night in their speeches and votes on British Leyland and the National Enterprise Board, two undertakings which were designed to assist the economy of our country and to prevent unemployment and have been successful in doing so. Yet the Tory Opposition are continually opposing them.

I think that we all thought that it was a rather odd display by the Opposition last night, especially as they did not seem to know whether they wanted a vote or not on the first motion. It is in accordance with their usual practice: they are opposed to all grants and subsidies. That is well recognised and there is no doubt that British Leyland would suffer substantially unless it were able to pursue the path that it has begun of improving its performance very substantially.

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC at the last meeting the need for a new phase of incomes policy, and did he tell the TUC leaders that he still believes that earnings must not rise by more than 5 per cent. during the next phase, and what was their reaction?

I shall handle this matter with the usual skill and care which has resulted in substantial progress during the current round. The major element which every trade unionist, his wife and family understands is that prices should not be allowed to rise. We are doing quite well this year in the sense that we have got inflation running at 9 per cent. and it will come even lower. It will be helpful to all trade unionists and their wives if prices do not go up or inflation does not increase beyond that next year and it would be preferable for it to be reduced so that we can be more competitive. That will be my aim, and it will be the basis on which discussions will be conducted with the trade unions.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he discuss the dangerous and continuing import penetration of finished and semi-finished manufactured goods, the value of which reached almost £19,000 million last year? As it looks as if other industrial countries are not willing to take my right hon. Friend's advice to expand their economies, is there not a real need for selective import controls?

My hon. Friend does not focus on the fact that there are already selective import controls and that each case must be decided on its merits as it is presented to us. Basically, however, it is far better that the world should have an expansion of trade than that we should all be cocooned inside our own economies. That is the path that I should prefer to tread.

asked the Prime Minister what matters he discussed with the President of the United States of America during his recent visit.

Our talks were mainly on economic issues as part of the preparation for the seven nation Summit due to be held in Bonn on 16th and 17th July. President Carter and I were agreed on the importance of co-ordinated international action to reduce unemployment, stimulate world trade, assist long-term capital flows especially to the developing countries, introduce greater order into the exchange markets and on the need for the American Administration's energy programme to be made effective.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that before he went to America he seemed to express in the House a robust attitude towards the possible deployment of enhanced new radiation weapons in Europe? Since then the President has frozen development of such weapons and rather cut the ground from under the Prime Minister's feet. Does the right hon. Gentleman still favour the deployment of these weapons in the event that the United States goes ahead with their development?

The President and I discussed the matter fully, especially in the light of the disarmament conference that is coming. I do not detract for one moment from the views that I expressed in the House before, namely, that there are weapons that have been deployed on the Soviet side that are far more dangerous than the enhanced radiation weapon. However, this is a political matter for the President alone to decide, as was always the case. It is for him to decide whether this will assist the disarmament negotiations, and I see no reason to differ from him on that matter. Indeed, we discussed it on that basis. It is important that we should attempt to secure disarmament in this sphere and not to pile up armaments. That is the whole purpose of the strategic arms limitation talks.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he had the chance to raise with President Carter the interesting speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in which he questioned the continued economic wisdom of further investment in South Africa? If my right hon. Friend has not been able to raise it with him, will he do so at the earliest possible moment?

Discussions go on about these matters, but I did not discuss the issue particularly with President Carter. It is a growing risk to invest in South Africa, in view of the developing political situation there.

In view of the brutally cynical encouragement given by Russia and Cuba to insurrectionist elements in Africa, what attempts did the right hon. Gentleman make to persuade President Carter to back those who are trying to achieve a peaceful solution to the problems of Rhodesia through the medium of the internal settlement?

The internal settlement, in so far as it accords with the Anglo-American plan, is something that should be supported. However, without the Anglo-American plan there is little prospect that the internal settlement will succeed. That is because there are substantial elements outside Rhodesia that are not reconciled to it.

I welcome the announcement of the Bonn Summit, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are fears that such a Summit might raise the expectations of people too high, as has been the case on a couple of previous occasions? Therefore, will he tell us what grounds there are for hoping that more success in getting the world economy going again may be achieved this time? Will he consider inviting OPEC country representatives along to the Summit, as the £40 billion that the OPEC countries have is the major cause of our problems in the West?

The case for hoping that there will be improvement is that all the Heads of Government gave their support to the statement that was issued yesterday, and to which I referred in my report to the House, on the meeting of the European Council, namely, that there is acceptance that a co-ordinated effort is needed if we are to restore confidence in the Western industrial world. At this stage it would not be advantageous to include the OPEC countries in the discussions.

asked the Prime Minister when he plans to have a further meeting with the West German Chancellor.

I have been in touch with Chancellor Schmidt about dates for the next in the series of our regular bilateral meetings, and an announcement will be made shortly.

When my right hon. Friend meets the West German Chancellor will he reopen with him the question of the offset agreement for British troops in Germany? Will he put it to him that many people in Britain are angry that a wealthy country such as Germany is prepared to pay only about 6 per cent. of our annual £600 million bill?

No, I shall not reopen this matter. The agreement, which was signed in Bonn on 18th October 1977, made it clear that it was the final settlement that would be made. We now operate under our treaty obligations.

When the Prime Minister meets the West German Chancellor will he take an opportunity of discussing with him the problems that the West German Government have had, as have other NATO allies, of grave breaches of security? The latest breach in West Germany may well have imperilled all of NATO's strategic planning.

The problems of security between our countries are discussed from time to time. However, I am in no doubt that Chancellor Schmidt takes this issue as seriously as do I and the hon. Gentleman. I think that there is no need for me to remind him about it.

In discussions with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic, will my right hon. Friend take the message with him that his decision to agree with President Carter on not proceeding with the preparation of the neutron bomb will receive widespread support in this country, despite some opinions that have been expressed, and shows the wisdom and statesmanship of the President of the United States? Will he note that those who supported him when he made his statement a fortnight ago about the Soviet weapon now hope that the Soviet Government will make an appropriate response?

It is important that the Soviet Government should take note of the deep feeling in the Western world about the enhancement of its own weapons and their capacity for improvement, which has been very substantial. If we are to have a successful disarmament conference in New York at the end of May, it will be for the Soviet Government to respond to what the President has done.

In view of some of the remarks that my right hon. Friend made yesterday when reporting on the European Summit, will he say whether Chancellor Schmidt will regard today's Budget, to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the opening salvo in a concerted European campaign against unemployment and in favour of growth?

I think that we had better wait and hear the Budget before we decide what we think about it, let alone Chancellor Schmidt.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets Chancellor Schmidt will he discuss with him whether it would be possible even to maintain our present support for NATO if the £1,000 million cuts in defence expenditure proposed by his party's published and adopted policy were given effect?

I do not think that it would be possible to maintain our posture if we were to cut defence expenditure by £1,000 million. That is why the Government do not intend to agree to it.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Chancellor Schmidt when next he meets him that the greatest threat to the Common Market is massive unemployment? Will he point out to him that it is essential that West Germany takes the lead in inflating the economies of the Common Market, otherwise, some countries, including Britain, may be forced to take protective measures, including, if necessary, import controls?

I dealt with these questions at some length yesterday, when I made my report. It is clear that the Federal Republic is as concerned as any other country to secure growth. The difference at the moment, if there is a difference, is how that growth can best be achieved.

Well done.

These measures will provide a valuable incentive to businesses as such.