asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library a copy of the report "Inequalities in Health".

I did so when the report was published.

Is not it disgraceful that it took the pressure of the Opposition to have this important report issued? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if improvements in the NHS are to be made, it is essential that they be made quickly in relation to some of the report's recommendations? Can he say whether he intends to implement those recommendations relating to the four areas in the Northern region which call for a special health and social development programme, or is this another case where the Government will ignore the needs of the Northern region?

It is an absolute travesty to say that this report saw the light of day only as a result of Opposition pressure. I gave a clear undertaking to my predecessor that as soon as it was available and could be printed it would be published. It was printed and published. More than 100 copies were sent to the press and broadcasting authorities, and copies have been made available to hon. Members. It is absolute nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to make that accusation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the report says, it is now essential, in view of the high cost of health care, to have a true partnership between the private and public sectors rather than a rivalry between the two?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. However, hardly surprisingly, that was not what this report was about. As to the health of the country, the report has some valuable things to say about prevention. These are matters which the Government fully take on board, as they are entirely in accordance with our policy.

How can the right hon. Gentleman introduce a blanket rejection of the Black report when his answers to me yesterday indicate that he has no idea of the cost of about half the recommendations? Is not his real reason for rejection of many of the proposals the fact that he just does not believe in equal access to the Health Service?

The questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked yesterday—and I have no doubt that it was quite intentional—related to a number of recommendations which it is obviously difficult to cost in advance of detailed plans for implementation, or where the cost would not be a major factor, for instance, in setting up a further working group. But as the right hon. Gentleman well recognises, I said in my foreword to the report that the report is available for discussion, and we can all form judgments as to the effectiveness of the recommendations and whether they are costly. Some are certainly worthy of more consideration than others, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to find out more about my views on the report, perhaps he will try to ask different sorts of questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the delay in payment of the increase in pensions.

Representations in the form of letters and pre-printed postcards have been received from a number of individuals and organisations.

Does not the Minister agree that pensioners have already suffered as a result of cuts by this Government and others? Can he give an assurance that even this Government will not stoop so low as to introduce prescription charges for old people?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about pensioners suffering, he had better look at the arithmetic. The uprating will be 16½ per cent. against a cost of living increase which was measured at 15·9 per cent. in September and which is tending downwards. Therefore, this will be the second year running in which this Government will have increased pensions more than prices.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, so that the Opposition can take note of it, that what he has just said means that the 16½ per cent. increase in pensions starting on 24 November will more than restore the value of the pension for the 54-week period since the last increase? If that is correct, does it not clearly demonstrate the Government's active concern for the elderly and other vulnerable groups at a time when the working population, quite rightly, is being asked to make sacrifices in its living standards?

My hon. Friend is right in every particular. The fact that the increase will have been more than the increase in prices for the second year running is of substantial benefit and should be set against the politically motivated rhetoric that we keep hearing about Government cuts.

Is the Minister aware that under the previous Labour Government's legislation, pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed and the sick would have received their increase yesterday—10 November? It is sheer robbery that, as a result of the Social Security (No. 2) Act, pensioners will lose £12·30 over two weeks.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of mistakes there. First, he referred to the wrong Act—a small point. Secondly, any Government, Labour or Conservative, would have dealt with the creeping forward of the date. The date in 1975 was 17 November, which would have been adjusted, anyway. Thirdly, his arithmetic is wrong. He should not compare a Christmas bonus for a single, retirement pensioner with that for a married couple. The Christmas bonus is £20 for a married couple.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present method of controlling expenditure on drugs in the National Health Service.

The Department has introduced a number of measures over the years to control expenditure on drugs, but I am always willing to consider suggestions for improvement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that I had hoped that he would be able to assure me that a committee would be set up to investigate this area with a view to making considerable savings in expenditure? I had also hoped that he would give an undertaking that pharmacists would be included in such a committee as well as medical practitioners and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

My hon. Friend rightly points out that we have set up a working group to establish an effective dialogue between prescribers and the Department. At this moment, the composition of that group does not include a pharmacist, but my hon. Friend has made a positive suggestion which I should like to think about and then to respond to him.

Have the Government any proposals to restrict the present unrestricted right of prescription by doctors? Is my hon. Friend aware that that is an uncontrolled element of expenditure within the National Health Service? Does he realise that the only way of controlling it is to prevent doctors from prescribing drugs, which, in certain cases, are almost the same as similar drugs but which might cost four, five or six times as much?

No, Sir. The Royal Commission also looked at this subject and concluded that that avenue would not necessarily yield any savings.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on occasions drugs are prescribed which cost more through the National Health Service than they would cost privately? At the same time will he look into the question of the supply of spectacles? I am now wearing a pair of glasses which cost $10—£4. Is my hon. Friend aware that such spectacles are commercially available in the United States at a lower price than the subsidised cost through the National Health Service in England?

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is true that a small percentage of prescriptions can currently be bought at a lower cost than the prescription charge. With regard to his second point, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking at the whole question of optical charges to see whether we can come up with a more equitable solution.

Will the Minister answer the question that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused to answer and say whether he will try to claw back some of the money spent on drugs in the National Health Service by introducing prescription charges for retirement pensioners?

We have no plans to alter the current exemptions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is Government policy to maintain the real value of social security benefits.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for reducing the uprating of certain social security benefits by more than 5 per cent. below the rate of inflation.

In July the House approved increases, to take effect the week after next, in most social security benefits. Pensions and other long-term benefits will go up by 16½ per cent.—now expected to be slightly ahead of prices; unemployment benefit and some other non-taxable benefits by 11½ per cent. Some benefits, such as mobility allowance and family income supplement will go up by more than our estimate of prices.

Since many of the new benefit increases later this month will be considerably less than the rate of inflation, is not the Minister ashamed to be a member of a Government who are reducing the real value of benefits for the sick, the unemployed, expectant mothers and victims of industrial injuries? In view of the fact that the Treasury is calling for more cuts that will result in further attacks on the living standards of some of the weakest members of society, will not the Minister say that he will resign rather than implement those cuts, which will continue to clobber the sick and the unemployed?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that the House debated and accepted the Government's proposals for an interim reduction in some of the nontaxable benefits, pending the introduction of proper taxation. Those matters were fully debated during the summer, and they are now the law of the land. I cannot add anything to what I have already said about the 1981 uprating.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some public disquiet that social security money is sometimes paid to maintain hire purchase payments on luxury items? Will he ensure that a limit is set on both the type and number of such goods that may be funded from the public purse in this way?

I can reassure my hon. Friend in that from the end of the month those payments will be made under regulations under the reform of the supplementary benefits scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that she may comb those regulations from end to end and she will find no mention of colour television sets or any other luxury goods of that sort. I hope that this change will put paid to the widespread rumours that public money is paid out for luxury goods. I have never had any hard evidence brought to my attention during the five or six years that I have been concerned with the subject.

In view of the rumours that are circulating in Fleet Street and in some parts of Whitehall, will the Secretary of State tell the House clearly whether the Government are contemplating cuts in the budget for supplementary benefits nationally, or whether it is the Government's intention to maintain the present real value of supplementary benefits? The Secretary of State should give a clear answer to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman must not expect me to anticipate decisions which will be announced by the Government after the Cabinet has considered all these matters. At a time of economic constraint we can only afford what we can afford. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in these circumstances no programme can be exempt from scrutiny by the Cabinet.

Does not my right hon. Friend accept that people who are working, and who have to accept the economic facts of life and accept wage increases of 5, 6 or 7 per cent. will think it very unfair if people who are not working are given inflation-proofed increases of 17 and 18 per cent.?

I assure my hon. Friend that those factors are very much in the minds of Ministers when we consider these difficult questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what circumstances documentary evidence is requested before a person may receive treatment under the National Health Service.

In an emergency, treatment is not, of course, delayed by any need for documents. In other circumstances, a patient might be asked to produce documents to resolve doubts as to his or her eligibility to receive NHS treatment, or possibly to assist staff in correctly recording the name and date of birth.

Will the Minister give an assurance that it is not his intention that British citizens should ever be asked to produce British passports as a precondition for National Health Service treatment?

We have no plans to introduce any form of documentation as a routine before treatment is administered.

When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to introduce a scheme under which documentary evidence is required for those people from countries for which we have no reciprocal agreements for treatment? When will they have to present some form of evidence to show that they are not entitled to free medical treatment, and can therefore, be charged?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are looking at the question of treatment for overseas visitors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to announce his conclusions before the end of the year.

Is it not correct that there is no legal authority whatever for requiring any documentation before administering treatment on the NHS or, indeed, for any other purpose? Is not the real sting in the proposal that people who may be suspected of being overseas visitors but who are settled here would have to carry about with them their passport and other documents to prove who they were, and that such a practice would be totally different from that applying to those who were born in this country?

Eligibility to use the NHS at the moment is restricted basically to people who are ordinarily resident here, work permit holders, and persons staying for prolonged periods, so it is not the case that everyone in the country at the moment is entitled to NHS treatment. I would deplore any situation in which those from ethnic minorities were, as a matter of routine, asked for documentary evidence before treatment was administered. There is no evidence of that happening and I would deplore it if it did.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of attachment orders made in the last financial year.

In the year ended 5 April 1980 the Department made 469 applications to the courts for attachment orders. Statistics are not kept of the number of orders obtained; but we do know that, of those which were obtained, 302 are still in operation.

In view of the lack of success of the current court orders may I ask what the Government have done about examining the recommendations of the Finer report, which recommended effecting a central collection point for court orders of this kind?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this has been looked into, but not in as much detail as one would like. It has a number of costs associated with it.

Does not the Minister accept that the Finer report's recommendation for the setting up of an enforcement office was one of its most important recommendations, and that unless the Government implement that recommendation, far more maintenance defaulters will continue to go to prison, rather than, as the Finer report suggested, eliminating this as being an essay in social and economic futility?

I accept that there is grave concern about the matter, but, in the social assistance report, which dealt with the other changes being introduced this month, the general issue of liability upon spouses and upon parents to maintain their dependants who receive supplementary benefit was left for later consideration. The subject will be considered as soon after this month as the existing priorities in the first part of the review will allow.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the additional staff appointed to investigate fraudulent claims are of a sufficient number.

This matter is kept under constant review. In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) on 13 February 1980 I gave details of the Government's special campaign against social security fraud and abuse during 1980–81; of an additional 1,050 staff, 270 were specifically allocated to the investigation of suspected fraud. I shall be considering the adequacy of these measures as part of my analysis of the current year's results.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the additional office staff have had a deterrent effect upon intending offenders? Will he also agree that it is possibly one area of public expenditure where we may increase the number of staff because of the return gained?

Yes, Sir. There is a quantifiable result, which we are measuring by rather more sophisticated measures than we have used in the past. [Laughter] Well, most people in this country take the view that fraud and abuse should be dealt with, whatever view is taken by Labour Members. But my hon. Friend is correct in saying that in addition to that there is the deterrent effect, which cannot be quantified but, nevertheless, may be much larger than the figures on paper would suggest.

If the Minister is using these sophisticated measures, why is it that we cannot have a progress report on the effectiveness of the measures before the end of the current financial year, which is what the Minister has said, bearing in mind that the amount of benefit to be recovered will rise from less than £100,000 a week to more than £1 million a week? If the difference is so great—and those are the Minister's figures—why cannot the House and the country have a progress report before the end of the year?

Because the House will want—I think that the hon. Member was confirming this—a figure to be attached to the quantifiable savings. [Interruption] Yes, the target of £50 million has been quoted. I have answered questions in the House before saying that we appear to be on target in regard to that figure. But a quantifiable figure will have the greatest possible meaning when it is at the end of a complete financial year and therefore can be compared with previous figures for previous financial years.

Will the Minister confirm reports that the claims made by his Department about the income derived from these investigations are wildly exaggerated? Could he estimate the number of genuine claimants who have been deterred from claiming by virtue of his very strident campaign against a small minority?

The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir". There is no evidence whatever that our expectations in the campaign will be disappointed. With regard to genuine claimants being deterred, the right hon. Member is exactly 180 degrees wrong. A number of people, particularly very elderly people, still feel embarrassed about applying for benefits to which they are entitled, and one of the reasons for that is that the scroungers have got the whole system a bad name.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the British Medical Association about ways of controlling private cosmetic surgery clinics.

None, Sir. When section 16 of the Health Services Act 1980 comes into force these clinics will need to register with the local health authority under the Nursing Homes Act 1975. The registering authority is concerned with the standards of facilities and staffing. The clinical practices of doctors and professional ethics are matters for the medical profession.

Is the Minister aware that that is a very disappointing reply to a question relating to an increasingly serious problem? Is he aware that the BMA now receives complaints about these cowboy clinics more or less every week, that the clinics are allowed to advertise—which is doubtful clinical ethics—and that they are wreaking damage on the women and, indeed, the men who patronise them? Does he not think that they should be brought under control, as other private clinics are?

If the hon. Lady has any evidence of professional misconduct she should bring that to the notice of the General Medical Council. As she rightly says, the BMA is concerned about this matter and is seeing whether it can introduce some more effective guidelines for doctors. Any member of the public contemplating the use of such clinics should contact his general practitioner and take advice before going to any clinic.

In view of the BMA's concern, will the Under-Secretary hold two Departmental inquiries? First, will he have an inquiry into the way in which the provision of consultants in plastic surgery is being diminished merely because of the possibility of their doing two jobs, one in a private clinic and one in the NHS, so that a number of senior registrars are not getting promotion? Secondly, will he hold an inquiry into the drain of skilled theatre nurses from the NHS to the new clinics and private hospitals, which art taking away from the NHS the important speciality of qualified, theatre-trained nurses?

The hon. Gentleman's question goes slightly further than the matter of cosmetic surgery. I shall look into the two matters that he has raised. Cosmetic surgery is available under the NHS in certain conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he plans to take in 1981 to improve antenatal care and reduce perinatal mortality.

I ask the hon. Member to await the reply to the recent report of the Social Services Committee on perinatal and neonatal mortality which the Government will present to Parliament shortly.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the distinguished committee under Professor Black calculated that a great deal could be done to improve the welfare of mothers and babies, particularly in the deprived areas of this country, by an expenditure of £30 million? Will he stop putting about the notion that the Black committee requires an expenditure of £2,000 million in order to do anything effective?

I quote the figure of £2,000 million from the Black committee I am quoting figures for precisely costed measures which it recommended should be introduced, including a whole range of new social security benefits.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he does not need to wait for any reports to know that in the Northern region the infant mortality rate is 5 per cent. above the national average, that the perinatal mortality rate is 13 per cent. above the national average, and that the male mortality rate is 10 per cent. above the national average? Does he think that it would be reasonable to take these figures into consideration when he considers his allocation of resources for the NHS next year?

These figures are built into the resource allocation formula, on the basis of which money is now distributed differentially to the different parts of the country. A region such as the Northern region had twice as much growth of resouces this year than regions such as the Thames regions, which are better provided for. I hope that we shall be able to maintain this progress, and that where we have greater growth in the future we shall be able to intensify the reallocation process.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further savings he can make in the hospital service by reducing administrative and bureaucratic costs.

The changes we have announced to the structure and management arrangements of the National Health Service should enable management costs to be reduced by 10 per cent. by 31 March 1985, excluding transitional costs such as compensation and protection.

In abolishing the area health authorities, however, has not my right hon. Friend just melted the tip of the iceberg? Is it not a fact that the administrative and bureaucratic tail in the NHS has more than doubled in size in the past 10 years, and that it is for that reason, rather than public expenditure cuts, that our financial resources have not produced more hospital beds and more operating theatres?

It is true that the number of people engaged in management and administration has grown. I accept broadly what my hon. Friend has said. It is not only the elimination of the area tiers that we are seeking in our reorganisation; it is a substantial slimming down of the management structure between the level of the district health authority and the unit, be it the hospital or the community services. We intend to set district health authorities clear management cost targets, so that they may introduce management structures which achieve what we are looking for. But, of course, there have been other changes which have increased the administrative load. For instance, now it is almost inevitable that in wards there are lay clerks doing clerical work that used to be done by nurses. It is right that nurses should be left free to exercise their professional skills and that laymen should do the jobs that they—

Order. That reply was inordinately long, as have been many supplementary questions this afternoon.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way of cutting administrative costs would be to reduce useless planning? Will he, therefore, issue the long-promised and long-awaited code of practice under section 5 of the Health Services Act, and in that code of practice will he issue a prohibition to health authorities concerning the sale of human tissue and human blood as a way of raising money?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has made it abundantly clear that we entirely accept the point that transfers of human tissue and human blood are not a proper area for commercial operation. I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there could be vast savings in administrative and bureaucratic costs if a greater proportion of the ancillary services of the NHS were handed over to private enterprise? Is he aware that, in view of reorganisation, administrators are tending to go back more to direct labour? Will he see that the sensible circular on this subject which he sent out in the summer is heeded by health authorities?

The circular that we sent out was a draft circular for consultation. We are currently consulting within the Health Service. We have it in mind to send out a full circular on this subject in the near future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the slimming down that is going on is of the Health Service itself? Does he accept the deep concern expressed by the National Association of Health Authorities about the cuts that authorities are having to make in wards, nurse training and essential building tasks?

It is fair to point out that this year we are spending more in real terms on the NHS than was spent in any year under the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will make a statement setting out the steps which he is taking to improve the take-up benefits.

This month the Department will be running an advertising campaign further to improve the take-up of family income supplement among working families with low incomes. We shall also be publishing a new edition of our guide "Which Benefit?" and this, like other leaflets about individual benefits, will include the new rates. They will be available from local social security offices.

Does not the Minister accept, however, that during the time of this Government-induced depression, it is vital that those who are entitled to benefits claim them? Will he, therefore, commend to other local authorities the admirable initiative of the Strathclyde council in promoting the take-up of benefits in its area? If not, why not?

No, Sir. The activities of the Strathclyde council in this respect were just as much a piece of cheap political propaganda—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish"]—as are so many of the speeches that we hear from Opposition Members. But, of course, I accept that we want to see the utmost take-up of benefits in any period—whether it be a recession or any other period—by people who are entitled to them.

While I endorse the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of the organisations of disabled people have become more concerned that, in some localities, there are fewer and fewer benefits to take up? Is he aware of the case of East Sussex county council? What action is he taking about the charge that that council has now entirely suspended the operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in the matter of assessing the needs of disabled people?

That matter does not arise from this question, which relates to State benefits. But once again, the right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun on information that will not be confirmed. If he looks into the matter, he will find that the situation in East Sussex is nothing like the situation which he has tried to imply.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to introduce legislation to amend the principal Act so that patients receiving radiotherapy and renal dialysis do not lose their unemployment benefit.

The proposals which I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 29 October will enable anyone incapable of work through undergoing renal dialysis, or, possibly, other treatment for a serious condition, on two or three days in a week to receive sickness or invalidity benefit. This change will apply to people who are not in employment as well as those who are. Neither this change nor the new provision it is designed to modify affects unemployment benefit.

Is the hon. Lady aware that we welcome her reply today and her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall)? Will she state whether this proposal will need amending legislation? If so, how quickly shall we see it?

This proposal will need amending legislation, which will be brought in as soon as possible. In the meantime, however, as soon as it was discovered that this situation had occurred through the Social Security (No. 2) Act, extra-statutory steps were taken to make sure that there was no hesitation and that the benefit continued to those people undergoing renal dialysis on two or three days a week, through a statutory note from the Treasury.

In view of the hardship that has been caused in the interim in some circumstances, will the Department circularise the information to directors of dialysis units so that the information is available to their patients?

I am sorry to hear that there has been difficulty. Notices were sent to local offices before the date of change. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he will let me have a note of specific cases, I shall take them up myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations he has been having with the tobacco industry on the sales promotion of cigarettes: and if he will publish in the Official Report the dates upon which meetings have been held and the names of the negotiators, together with the company they represent.

The negotiations are continuing, and, as my right hon. Friend has said in the House on several occasions, he will make a statement when they are concluded. Both sides agreed that the details of the negotiations should remain confidential.

Is the Minister aware that it seems that the industry is running rings round the Department in the negotiations? It seems that no one in the Department is prepared to stand up to the vested interests of the tobacco barons. Will he take the opportunity of having legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech that would expedite the negotiations?

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have said that we shall proceed by voluntary agreement for as long as it is possible to do so. If that is not possible, we shall, as my right hon. Friend has said, consider other measures.

Have not the negotiations been continuing long enough? Is it not about time that the Department differentiated between health needs, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) alluded, and interfering with the general marketing function of any consumer goods manufacturer?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are already considerable constraints on the marketing of tobacco. For example, it is illegal to advertise cigarettes on television. I share his wish to achieve, if possible, an agreement by consent.

Will the Minister give us a date when the Government will make a statement? The negotiations have been continuing for 18 months. The House is entitled to have a definite date and to hear the Government's proposals.

The negotiations have been continuing for about 11 months and not 18 months. I agree that at some stage the negotiations will have to stop. I do not find it helpful to announce in advance the date on which the Government will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children born in the United Kingdom are not covered for medical treatment in EEC countries.

I regret that information to make a reliable estimate is not available.

Is not the Minister aware that thousands of children whose parents have paid national insurance contributions for many years are denied medical treatment in EEC countries because their parents are not EEC nationals? Is he aware that this causes tremendous difficulty—for example, for school parties when going abroad? When is the EEC likely to change its attitude and what are the Government doing to persuade it to change its attitude?

We hope that it will be changed very soon. We share the view that the hon. Lady has expressed. The Government have been taking the initiative within the Community to try to get an amendment accepted that will cover children in the position that she has described. We hope that the issue will come before the Council of Ministers on 27 November and that a solution might be reached at that meeting.

What is the current position for the children of self-employed persons requiring medical treatment in EEC countries?

That matter also will probably be on the agenda on 27 November.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for the percentage of burial and cremation expenses represented by the death grant: if he will now take steps materially to increase this grant; and if he will make a statement.

The costs of burials and cremations vary widely, but on the assumption that an average funeral now costs between £250 and £300, the death grant represents between 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the cost. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have for some time been considering the whole question of the death grant. We shall make an announcement about our conclusions as soon as ever possible.

Does the hon. Lady accept that it is high time that something was done? Is it not disgraceful that elderly persons are afraid of not being able to meet the cost of their own burial? Widows and widowers have to turn to supplementary benefit to obtain money to meet the cost of burying their life partner. Does not the hon. Lady feel that it is time to bring the death grant to a level much more in line with the actual cost of burial and to have it linked to the cost of living?

We shall resolve this issue as soon as possible. It has proved much more complicated than the Opposition have recognised.