HC Deb 13 May 1971 vol 817 cc727-52

9.7 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I gave notice to Mr. Speaker's office and to the Scottish Office of my intention to raise the question of means-tested welfare service charges and their effects in Scotland.

The House will be aware that, in the last week or fortnight, a very expensive national advertising campaign has been undertaken by the Government in an attempt to persuade people how humanitarian and kindly right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are in making sure that people get their means-tested benefits.

The House and the country will recall the election battle-cry of the Conservative Party about the need for selectivity and the need to channel aid to those who needed it most. We were told that there would be great compassion for the sick, the poor, the unemployed and the old, but that there would be a merciless rooting out of the scroungers, and that this exercise would give the Government room for manoeuvre to reduce direct taxation.

So it was that we had sixpence off income tax for the better off one day and increased National Health Service charges the next day for the less well off. So we had the beginnings of the cynical creation of two nations. The basic principle on which the National Health Service was founded, that the healthy would pay for the sick by fair, equitable, progressive taxation, is being eroded and will be further eroded in the course of the next 12 months and longer.

It is abundantly clear that, far from being at the end of the road, we are only just at the beginning. In United Kingdom terms, the increased prescription charges are estimated to save £30 million a year. Another way of saying that is that the sick will pay so that surtax payers and the capital gains people may have their tax reliefs.

Later, we were told that the present 20p per item on a National Health Service prescription is to be increased to 50p later this year. According to the authorities, that will apply to almost half the drugs now being prescribed in the National Health Service. Opticians expect increases of up to 230 per cent. in the amounts that patients will have to pay for spectacles.

My point of complaint, which I shall spell out in a little detail later in my speech, is that the Government's advertisements were designed to deceive the people, rather than to inform them. It is true that the National Health Service charges will not apply to children under 15, to the over-65s, to the war disabled, or to others who are in genuine hardship. The fact remains that many will have to choose between buying medicine and staying ill. As Mr. W. M. Darling, the President of the Pharmaceutical Society, predicts: … many will be seeking their cures from the shelves of supermarkets or old medicines stored away in cupboards and medicine chests, until the money can be found for the doctor's prescription. Despite all the Government's protestations, these cuts and charges are bound to produce a society which will be less healthy, less fair and less civilised.

When the advertisements appeared about free milk, free school meals, free prescriptions, free welfare foods, free optical treatment and free dental treatment, it occurred to me that the word "free" appeared 18 times. It would have been more accurate if it had said "means-tested" milk, "means-tested" school meals, and "means-tested" prescriptions. However, I shall come to a more serious point than that later in my speech.

The advertisements were a wicked attempt to present the Tory barbarian with a human face, with the milk of human kindness flowing in rivers from a gentle, generous, warm-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is hard to conceal the men with faces of flint and hearts of stone. I quote from the Daily Record, a very popular daily newspaper in Scotland, which ran a headline on 29th April saying: School Meals Scandal—50,000 School Children Doing Without. The article expressed the anxiety and worry of education chiefs and health authorities in Glasgow. The newspaper had obtained figures from the City Corporation to the effect that over 9,000 children had already stopped taking meals at school. That is more than one in seven. The Record article went on: 'It's back to the days of the jeelie piece', said the city's Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Archibald Miller. The paper then gave the figures for Dundee—a total of 4,000 fewer meals per week since the increase. That is a 6 per cent. decrease. Put another way, 792 children in Dundee had stopped taking meals. In Perthshire a 12 per cent. drop was recorded, and the Record went on to say that distracted parents were sending their kids off with a sandwich or a penny for a snack. It was either that or begging for free meals.

The allegation was made in the Record article that in some schools underprivileged children were being ordered to stand up in their places and be counted as free-school-mealers. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture will inquire where the Daily Record got that information, and that the Government will take steps to put a stop to it.

That is the kind of thing that is bound to happen with a system of this kind. The Record went on to say: What a testimonial for Prime Minister Heath's 'Better Britain'. A typical response was made to that article by the wee Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education. Bearing in mind his and the Government's determination to maintain a little enclave of privilege in fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh, the reply which the Minister made in the Record the following day, 30th April was typical of the humbug and cant we have come to expect from him. Unfortunately he is not here to answer the debate. He has probably swung off to the Scottish Tory Party Conference in Aberdeen, leaving the baby to be held by the hon. Gentleman, to whom I apologise. He is preoccupied with safeguarding and furthering the interests of the Scottish brewers on Thursday mornings in Committee, and it makes a change for him to come to defend his Government's policy on starving the kids.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education replied in the Record of 30th April: I can well understand public concern at speculation that some youngsters are not taking school meals due to the increase in charges this month, and may thus be losing a valuable nourishment which they need. I can well imagine his Christian breast heaving with compassion as he signed that Civil Service brief and sent it to the Record. He added: In fact, numbers taking school meals normally fall at this time of year—due to factors like examinations—"— I am not sure why the imminence of examinations should make children take sandwiches instead of a hot meal but that is what the Minister said. He went on: … but my Department will be carrying out an all-Scotland survey towards the end of next month to find out exactly what the situation is. Supposing it does carry out that survey. What happens then? Suppose there is a catastrophic decline in the number of school meals. Will the Government abandon the price increase? On the contrary, they have already said that there will be another increase in the price of school meals in April, 1973. No matter what that survey proves, the Government are determined that school meal prices shall rise still further. What is the point of the exercise?

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) continued: I think it is right that people who can afford it should pay the higher charge—which at 12p is still only three-fifths of the economic cost of the meal—so that an unfair burden should not be carried by the taxpayer. That confirms what we have been saying. The Government are charging these kids and their parents the increased meal charges to give surtax benefits to people earning over £4,000. That is the wealth redistribution that the Government have stood for and are standing for.

The hon. Gentleman went on, in appalling language: But it is vitally important that no one should go without because of financial circumstances. I was 100 per cent. in support of the Government's decision to raise the level of family income qualifying for free meals, As a result of our decision, more children in Scotland than ever before are entitled to free meals as a right. He estimated that the number of free school meals could rise from 96.000 by about one-third, and that that represented nearly one-third of the total numbers who were taking school meals. We had the usual sanctimonious humbug which we have come to expect from that particular Minister, especially with the imminence of some critical local elections in Scotland. No wonder he and his friends got a drubbing in Scotland, especially in Glasgow, and not least in his constituency of Cathcart. His double-dealing and double-talk are at last being exposed for what they are. He is one of the juniors Ministers who is fighting hard for an increase in his own salary of £5,000 a year. I hope that the people now paying the increased school meal charges in Cathcart will note that. He is very militant when it comes to his own salary.

I quote a specific example of the school meals issue. On Sunday, 9th May, I wrote a few caustic comments in the Sunday Mail about our brand new soup kitchen economy. I quoted the exact figures from the Government's advertisement, and on the following Monday I was approached by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who said that he had had three telephone calls challenging the figures from people who said that they had incomes below the figures in the Government's advertisements and had been told that they did not qualify for the free school meals.

I had an immediate response from a lady in Stranraer. She has two children, one going to school, and she says: I read with interest your article in the Sunday Mail, 9th May. I would have thought that you were the last person to be taken in by Tory propaganda. She was right. She continues: My husband earns £16.52 per week. This includes 90p family allowance. You show me the Scottish farm worker who earns any more. I enclose the replies I received when for the first time in my life I swallowed my pride and applied for anything free. We have two children, one 13 years old, who travels 15 miles each morning to school and so has no chance of coming home for lunch, and one aged three months. The letter dated 29th April is the reply I received when I asked for an explanation of why I did not qualify for free meals at school. So what about the £20.75 the Tories have splashed over the newspapers? Is this the same old double talk and eyewash we have come to expect from them or is there a different table for Scotland? I hesitate to write my Member of Parliament for Galloway for an explanation as he is of course a Tory and I feel he would try to put me off with the usual excuses. I look forward to hearing your reply. I hope that she gets it tonight, because I quote now from the letter which the Tory-controlled County Council of the County of Wigtown sent: Thank you for your letter … enclosing cutting from national newspaper and asking why your son does not qualify for free school meals. I would point out that the table you enclose is a guide only and according to the table issued to us by the the Scottish Education Department you do not qualify. So there are two tables—one that is put out to con the public and another sent to education authorities which has some different figures. Prior to this Adjournment debate, I went to the Library and asked for that table. The Library produced a table to me. I have conferred with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), but neither he nor I can understand the table.

I quote first from the Tory propaganda sheet that went out as an advertisement. It says that a married couple with two children, if the gross earnings including family allowances are £20.75, will be entitled to free school meals. I have a photograph of the annexe to Circular 3/71, a document issued to education authorities. I do not know whether it is the same as that which was issued by the Scottish Education Department. This is part of the English document, but the table is the same. According to this, the net income scale for a family with two children who would be entitled to free school meals is £13.20, not £30 gross earnings.

There are some peculiar figures in this document which neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell could understand. The left-hand portion, which is headed "Part A", is the size of the family. The horizontal lines under "Weekly Income" given in decimal pounds and pence is "Part B". So reading across from 2 in the vertical column, which I suppose means two children, the net income on which presumably they would get free school meals is £l3.20. There is a figure before that figure on the same line—£13.65. Going further down for a family of 10 the first figure in the horizontal line is £34.45 and right at the end of the horizontal line there is the figure £30.40.

I will hand this document to the Under-Secretary, and he can interpret it for me in due course. As neither my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell nor I could understand it, I wonder how many people in the country will be able to. The advertisement said that it is a guide only, but there is a great discrepancy between the figures in the newspaper advertisement and those in the Circular. Are there other tables for prescriptions, welfare milk and foods and optical and dental treatment, and are the guides which are going out different from the figures in that newspaper advertisement?

I received another letter from Glasgow. Interestingly enough, this person asks me not to mention her name. This shows some shame and distress at being in this situation. The letter says: We read your letter in the Sunday Mail, 9th May, regarding free prescriptions etc. My husband is retired through illness and has a pension of £4.29 and sickness benefit of £8.10, which amounts to a total of £12,39 for two. We also read in all the papers of the leaflet issued by the Department of Health and Security about all the benefits. My husband applied as we were well below the amount stated in the papers. On 27th April, he got a reply stating that if our circumstances are the same, our prescription charges can be refunded in full if they are 73np in any one week. Just who do they think they are kidding? I do not know what answer I can send: I will wait for the Minister's reply.

But hundreds of thousands of people will not have a clue about their entitlement, and those advertisements will not help them, en the contrary, false hopes will have been raised and obviously have been raised by the figures in those advertisements. The Government are creating a form-filling, means-tested, frightened, bitter, disillusioned nation, divided between those who have not and who are being bled even further and those who have and are being given more.

We will have further evidence tonight, after the votes are counted in England, of the continuing disillusion and the anger which most people feel for the Government who have so bitterly deceived them since they were elected. I hope that the Minister will reply to the facts and figures which I have given, and give people the truth, tell them exactly what they are entitled to and correct what I believe are errors and extravagances in the newspaper advertisements of the last fortnight.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

I know that it is awkward for a Minister to get a telephone call to the effect that the House is likely to collapse and that some hon. Members want to throw questions at him. I thank him for his courtesy in coming here. I do not think he will be able to answer some of these questions precisely, but they should be asked and we should be failing in our duty if we did not use an opportunity like this to ask them.

I have only one question, which does not relate to children. We are concerned that those advertisements concerning prescriptions, school meals, dental and optical forms are urging people to make application. The pamphlet I have with me indicates that under certain circumstances certain things will be given free. Although I am usually more cautious than my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in complaining about these matters, I agree with him that the word "free" is often too liberally used in this context.

At the beginning of April my attention was drawn to the case of an old man who had applied for free spectacles and had been refused. In fairness, I must admit that the application and refusal had been made prior to 1st April, the date from which certain new arrangements came into force.

I took the matter up with my local office which deals with these matters—the staff there are extremely helpful and always respond well—and I was surprised at the reply, which was dated 13th April. I will not divulge the name of the man whose case I am raising, except to say that he is an ex-miner with an industrial injury benefit of £3.35 and a mine worker's pension of £1.50. He and his wife have a total income of £12.95.

The local office worked out the disregards and, taking account of his entitlement, told me that his application for free spectacles had been refused because it was considered that he could meet the charge for his spectacles by saving over a short period; and the Supplementary Benefits Commission did not think that free spectacles should be given in his case.

That seemed fair enough, and this old man had to save a little extra for his spectacles. I replied to that letter and enclosed one of the forms I have with me, pointing out the liberal use of the word "free". I also pointed out that the figure shown on the pamphlet, under the heading "Free optical or dental treatment", was £17.95 for a couple, £5 more than this couple's income. I accept that the larger figure is gross, but so is this couple's income. I said that I was surprised at the date on the local office's letter of 13th April. They must have known of the new circumstances that applied from 1st April.

I could have understood an answer, "If Mr. So-and-so had applied subsequent to 1st April he would have been treated in such and such a way; but, as his application was prior to 1st April, he is on the old scale." There was no such indication.

When I wrote enclosing this leaflet and asking for observations, I got a brief note saying that what I had to say would be investigated and they would write to me again. That did not suggest to me that the officers dealing with my letters had in mind that a new set of circumstances were now applicable and that the answer might have been given at once.

I suggest that, with this wide dispersal of information, by 1st April everyone concerned should have been aware of the position and should have been able to answer my question right away. The fact that it was not answered right away indicates that things are not so cut and dried as the widely dispersed advertisements suggest.

When we are told that an income of £17.95 for a couple entitles them to free optical and dental treatment, I wonder what is the catch. The Minister may say that there is no catch. If so, I shall be very happy. If he tells me that he cannot give me a precise answer now, I shall expect an answer in the near future. However, I hope that he has a good idea about the matter and can at least give a partial answer tonight.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for raising this matter tonight. Whatever the Minister may think, this is an issue of real importance to the people of Scotland.

Hon. Members could not but be struck by the reaction of their constituents when the Government announced the charges. I recall people coming to me and inquiring how they would be placed. They were people having to buy prescriptions every month. I knew that they were not exempted. There were deficiencies in the Labour Government's scheme, but under this scheme many people who are chronically sick, in the terms which reasonable people use, do not qualify for exemptions.

These charges are attacks on the sick. They are an attack on our National Health Service and on the principle that everyone should be entitled to the best facilities which the Health Service can offer regardless of income. They are a deterrent to people who wish to keep themselves healthy.

The Minister may say that that is the inevitable Socialist Pavlovian reaction. But it was not only ordinary people who reacted in that way; it was the medical and dental associations, which are in no way sympathetic to the aims of the British Labour movement.

The British Dental Association said: The charges will fall most heavily on those in the greatest need of treatment and those who are already overdue for treatment will be encouraged to neglect their mouths still further. Even patients who might on examination have been found to need minimal treatment will be deterred from consulting the dentist. I could go on at length, but I shall not do so.

I had an interesting experience with my own dentist. I knew that the charges were coming into operation, so I phoned, two or three weeks before, asking for an appointment, which was overdue. The receptionist said, "I do not think that the charges are coming in. We have heard nothing about them." I said, "You can take it from me that they are coming in on 1st April."

I made the appointment and went to the dentist about three weeks ago. My dentist knows that I am now a Member of Parliament, but he has never discussed issues with me and has never indicated his political views. But he was very agitated about these proposals. He gave me a form which he had received at the beginning of April. He asked me to take it away, because he thought that it was incredible that a Government Department could issue such a complex document to be completed in respect of every patient. I took the form away, and I have tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for Social Services. This is an outrageous document.

We have not seen the end of the matter. We have been told that prescription charges will be related to the cost of the drugs. The Sunday Times says that the Government are having difficulty in working out the details—that they are meeting severe opposition—but when the Prime Minister was asked about the Sunday Times article he expressed confidence that the Government would be able to work out methods imposing these massive and disgusting charges on our people.

The main point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West concerned not the extent to which we abhor these charges or believe fundamentally in the ideal of a free Health Service; it was a much more serious charge. It was that the Government are deliberately misleading our people. That charge is justified. We are seeing the perversion of the Government's information services.

The process began with the documents issued on the Common Market. Regardless of one's view on that matter, if one reads those documents one appreciates that they are not straightforward, factual accounts of the E.E.C.; they are subjective statements, written by someone who obviously supports the idea of Britain's entry. If anybody doubts this he should read the statements about the economic growth of the Community, and how it is said to be attributable to the existence of that organisation. That is not a fact; it is an opinion, which is challenged by many of our economists.

But the latest development is far more serious, as shown by what appeared in the Daily Mirror, a mass circulation newspaper, on 3rd May. It carried an advertisement concerning Government expenditure which reads more like something from the Conservative Central Office than a Government Department. The big banner headline refers to free milk, free prescription charges, free welfare food, free optical treatment and free dental treatment, but it contains one sentence which I particularly resent. It says: If your weekly family income is roughly the same as or less than the figures below you should qualify for benefits either free or partly free. It is the word "should" which gives the game away. If the Government had said, "You may qualify, depending on your rent, or on the amount of money that you have to spend in order to get to work", they might have had a case. But they did not say that. They said, "You should qualify". That gave the impression that if one did not qualify a mistake had been made by the Department.

If one looks at the document which my dentist gave me, one gets a different view. It contained a table—different from that referred to by my hon. Friend—concerning the size of family, rent, rates, expenses in connection with employment, and income limits. The income limits are a function of rent and rates, and a function of the expenses incurred in connection with employment. If the rent is substantially out of line with these figures, then the income limit is substantially different, and the same is true with expenses in connection with employment.

Why did the Government not publish this table? Was it too complicated'? Is that the reason with which we are to be fobbed off tonight? I think that this table did not meet the Government's purpose in seeking to give their party a boost at an appropriate moment-3rd May, 1971.

I suspect that a farm worker will be at a serious disadvantage with these charges. I do not want to be dogmatic, but how will a farmworker's rent be estimated? Will it be on the same lines as that used by the Agricultural Wages Board, which is an estimate which farmers have said is too low? Does a farm-worker, if he lives on a farm, automatically have no expenses in connection with employment? I am not sure. I simply put these things forward. The Government stand condemned tonight, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West on giving us the opportunity to expose them in this fraudulent exercise.

9.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

May I first thank the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for his customary courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise this debate? I am glad to have the opportunity of replying to the points that have been raised. May I also thank the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for his kind words? We are a very flexible and adaptable lot in the Scottish Office, ready for any eventuality that may arise at any hour. I hope that this evening's events and the way in which we have tried to meet the demands made upon us bear this out. Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for his remarks, I am sure that the House would not want me to go into the details of the Common Market and certain attendant publicity.

I should like to deal with this question of the publicity campaign, the way in which it has been conducted and the results which it may have had. I will not be able to answer some of the detailed points raised because these are personal matters affecting individuals and I am not in possession of the full facts of each case. I will, however—and this applies particularly to the hon. Member for Motherwell, who raised this genuine problem over spectacles—be happy to investigate any matters which hon. Members bring to my attention in writing.

I pay tribute to those who administer these welfare schemes through the offices of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, local authorities, education authorities and welfare authorities. No Government has a monopoly of complex schemes and I am sure that in what hon. Members have said there was no criticism implied of the normal courtesy and efficiency and the lengths to which various welfare workers will go at national and local level in dealing with these matters.

As a constituency Member I have received the greatest courtesy, help and understanding from my own local departments and welfare offices in the Department of Health and Social Security. There are occasions when things go slightly wrong and when people feel that they have not been properly dealt with. However, in general, those who work in the welfare services at all levels do extremely good jobs in handling some very complicated cases.

I do not wish to make any party political points, but the hon. Member for Fife, West entered into his task with customary bitterness and acrimony. I resented very much his personal remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who carries out duties at the Scottish Office in an exemplary and most able fashion. What the hon. Gentleman said tonight was undeserved in relation to the hard work of my hon. Friend. He has a deep interest and concern for those for whom he is responsible in Scotland and for his own constituents. He has worked untiringly and unsparingly over the last six years. I say no more than that. I refute every word sp id by the hon. Gentleman about my hon. Friend.

There is a deep division of approach on the welfare services. What has been said tonight has served only to underline how great are the differences and how completely different is the approach to these problems on both sides of the House. I feel that we on our side are nearer to getting the right answer, not only in regard to the country as a whole but in respect of individual sections of the community. There is no question of dividing the country, as the hon. Member for Fife, West tried to make out.

Mr. William Hamilton

Pathetic.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The hon. Gentleman, from a seated position, says that it is pathetic. Time will prove which of us is right. He must remember that charges are not new. The Labour Government took them off and then put them on again, and they certainly increased the charges. There was a deep division of principle among hon. Members opposite. Those same hon. Gentlemen should not now put on their white robes and set themselves up as champions of the underprivileged. The division is not all that great. There are hon. Members opposite who realise that there must be priorities in social service spending.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas (Abertillery)

A few moments ago I understood the hon. Gentleman to be underlining the great divide between the two sides. Is he now saying that there is a firm consensus between the two sides? I think he should make clear what he is saying.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I said that there was a deep division, but I said that it was not as deep as some people might think since, even among hon. Members opposite, there has been a full admission of the need to look at priorities. In fact, the Labour Party have never operated a completely free social service system.

When we came to Government nearly a year ago, we found that things were not in a happy state that hon. Members opposite seemed to think. We found a high rate of marginal taxation which undoubtedly was having an enormous effect on hindering the development of incentive. In the social services we found many large gaps in provision, problems affecting the chronic sick and disabled and questions of family poverty—all matters which hon. Members opposite were prepared to point out to their own Government at the time. We found certain neglected sectors in the National Health Service. We had these problems to tackle, as did the previous Government. We had to look at the question of priorities to make sure that we got our spending right, to get the best results for the country as a whole and for those sectors of the community who may be less well-off.

In many ways, in the past nine months we have done nothing on the lines of the picture which the hon. Member for Fife, West tried to paint to hurt those who are less well-off. It is true that certain charges for certain services have gone up. At the same time, what the hon. Gentleman has ignored is that we have increased to a great extent the numbers of people who qualify for free services of one kind and another. It is that side of the picture that we have to consider, and it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to paint so completely one-sided a picture as he has. One has only to look at the family income supplement, at what has been done for the disabled, at the attendance allowance, to see that we have taken a number of measures which will help certain groups in our community who were neglected under the previous Government.

I turn now to those who have been affected by some of these increases in charges, and I deal first with the higher prescription charges to which a number of hon. Gentlemen have referred. I content myself with repeating what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services said about a fortnight ago when we debated prescription charges. In seeking out the priorities that I have mentioned, we have no intention of deterring any patient from obtaining necessary treatment. We shall certainly watch extremely closely as the new charges take effect what their impact is, and we shall look to see what changes may be necessary to avoid anyone who is deterred from getting treatment which he needs. This is very important.

What is also important is the large number of people who are already exempt from paying for prescriptions. Some 23 million people, or 42 per cent. of the population—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I was saying that 42 per cent. of the population are exempted from prescription charges, in any event. That demonstrates the extent to which exemption applies already.

Before I leave the general question of the Health Service and move on to some of the other services, perhaps I might mention that this is not a simple operation for the benefit of those who will gain from the reduction in income tax at the higher income levels, as the hon. Member for Fife, West tried to suggest. The reduction in income tax is welcomed not just by those in receipt of high incomes. It is widely welcomed, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Unfortunately, he is not prepared to admit it.

The other point about these increased National Health Service charges is that by asking those who can afford it to pay for some of the services, it enables us to widen the scope of the existing services. In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, we announced last October that, over the next four years, another £110 million will be spent on the National Health Service. That is over and above what was planned by the previous Government. The money will be concentrated on those sectors which need it most, the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped.

Mr. William Hamilton

The Government also intend to cut housing subsidies by between £100 million and £200 million, which means greatly increased rents for those who live in council houses.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The hon. Gentleman is trying to widen the debate and, as usual, is twisting the facts. They have been debated many times in the House. The money which is at present spent on housing will be spent in a more effective way to benefit those who need it most.

Mr. Hamilton

Read the White Paper.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

However, I dislike talking about the extra resources that we intend to devote to the Health Service. It is more important to look at the situation in real terms than in money terms. The money will be concentrated on those sectors which have been neglected in recent years. We hope to see an increase in expenditure in 1971–72 of the order of 6.1 per cent. That compares with an increase in real terms in 1970–71 of 3.8 per cent. and with an average over the years of Labour Government of a little over 4 per cent.

The result of what we are doing will be that the available money will be spent more effectively to help those who need it most. It is not being dissipated on those who do not need it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

I turn to the subjects of school meals and free milk. The hon. Gentleman made great play of the reduction in the number of children in Scotland taking school meals. I assure him that we shall watch the position. We shall make a survey later this month of what is happening in schools, and reach an assessment on the basis of it. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be asking Questions about the results of the survey, and I am sure that he will press us to say what we intend doing about it. We estimate that about one-third more children in Scotland will qualify for free school meals. We expect the present number of about 96,000 to rise to 129,000. Therefore, as a result of what we are doing, a further 33,000 children in Scotland will benefit by having free school meals.

Mr. William Hamilton

They will qualify—not benefit.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

We shall see what happens in the event.

It is true—as we said from the beginning when we announced our proposals for welfare milk—that those who qualified for cheap welfare milk will lose that qualification. But the important point to remember—and this is where the philosophy of the two parties is completely divided—is that instead of spreading what we can spend on this service across the board, whether or not everyone needs it, by concentrating our resources on the free milk for those who need it, we can provide it for a far greater number of children in Scotland than have benefited up to now. The average number of those who have benefited from free school milk in Scotland has been about 50,000. We expect this figure to rise to 70,000. In other words, another 20.000 people in Scotland, particularly children, will benefit from free milk. This is a step forward, not a step backward. It will certainly be a step forward for those individual children and their families.

The debate has gone fairly wide, and I have tried to answer some of the more general points. I turn to the specific question of the publicity campaign about the new benefits introduced by the Conservative Government which are available for the first time, such as pensions for the over-80s, the family income supplement, attendance allowance, more help for the disabled, and the extension of free services to those who need them. The whole question of the publicity campaign was dealt with in the debate for prescription charges to which I referred. Much of the reasoning behind it was mentioned then. In a moment I will speak about the effect of the campaign, which is its most important part, but first I should like to deal with the specific point about those who thought they could benefit because of the advertisement they saw in the Press, but then found that they could not benefit. If anybody has been misled, I am sincerely very sorry. I will examine the examples the hon. Gentleman raised. I hope that he will give us these examples, and not just examples of types of welfare such as those raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell.

Mr. Lawson

I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to be able to answer precisely the more or less precise matter I put to him, but since he says that he has given a great deal of thought to the subject matter of our debate, it is not too much to ask him to tell us about the £17.95 and the statement about free optical and dental treatment. Is there a catch in that? What are the limits? How is the scheme operated?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was the precise point which I was about to come to. There are two particular points I wish to make on this matter. The first is the entirely general point that one has to make up one's mind, in the first place, whether a publicity campaign is worth while. The hon. Member for Fife, West slightly questioned, in a rather cynical way, whether one could justify the public money spent on the campaign. He says that he doubts the value of a publicity campaign at all. I put aside the results of the campaign for the moment. Some hon. Members may not go with the hon. Gentleman on the question of whether the campaign is worth while. I do not go with him, as a constituency Member of Parliament, and I am sure that it is not the view of other hon. Members of the House.

One of the most sorry things I find very often, when dealing with constituents—not so often the ones who come to me but the ones I chance upon, for instance, when I see someone who has written to me and meet someone else by chance when I am going around the constituency—and what has always concerned me in my six years as a Member of Parliament—and I am sure this is true of the hon. Member for Fife, West and the hon. Member for Motherwell, with their far greater experience as Members of Parliament—is the number of people who are unaware of their entitlement to benefits and who fail to get the benefit they should because they do not know about it. Therefore, any publicity which we can give, by shouting about our schemes on the public and political platform and by telling our friends how good they are, is unsatisfactory unless we take the message to those who really need to know what the schemes are. If we do not do that we are failing. To that extent, a publicity campaign is absolutely necessary.

This leads on to the question whether the kind of publicity campaign that we have will make the greatest impact. It is true that if we were to answer the needs of every person who has a problem who could qualify for help under the different schemes, we should be producing sheaf upon sheaf of leaflets which could never be included in a Press or television campaign. After all, it is in the Press that we have carried out most of this campaign. For example, we have distributed 30 million leaflets in the course of the campaign. On television we have made 140 showings of a 30-second film. We want to have the impact to make those who are entitled to help aware of it, so that they can inquire and obtain details. If we give all the details in something which is meant to have an impact, we shall lose the impact to make our publicity a success. It is inevitable that we simply cannot, in physical terms, put in all the details needed for every individual to assess whether he is entitled or not. That is the first point.

The advertisement—I have a print of it here—is couched in fairly general terms. It is couched in average terms, as I call them, which we believe will arouse the interest and bring forward the inquiries to help us to meet the needs of those who are entitled to benefit. If, at the same time, it brings forward those who are ultimately disappointed, I would say that I am sorry about it. But we will judge this by the kind of response we have had to the campaign and the help that has arisen from it.

My second point is about the question of it being misleading. In all these advertisements—and this relates to the table in particular, and to the questions—although the hon. Member for Fife, West made a certain amount of fun of this, it is clearly stated in heavy type that the table is "a guide only." In other words, there is no question of trying to mislead or of this being political propaganda. The hon. Gentleman is drunk with his speeches on the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill in Committee morning after morning and is carried away by his enthusiasm for his exaggeration. His enthusiasm for exaggeration did not fail him tonight.

Anybody reading the table would be bound to read the cautionary note above. The table states that a married couple with an income of £17.95 may qualify for free optical or dental treatment but there is this cautionary note Examples of income at which you may qualify are given below. They can only be a very general guide because the limits are affected by the age of children, and such variables as rents, rates and expenses connected with work. The incomes shown are gross earnings and include, where payable, family allowances. Without knowing the personal circumstances of the constituent of the hon. Member for Motherwell, this explains why a married couple with an income of £17.95 might not necessarily qualify. It comes under the qualification of gross earnings and other variables. I hope that the advertisement would have aroused in the person concerned sufficient interest for him to find out just what he would qualify for.

Mr. Lawson

The difference is so great. This old couple had an income more than £5 less than the gross figure stated but they did not qualify. This means either that the Government are very much less generous than they claim or that there is something wrong.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

This is why I should like to know the details of the case. I have spoken in terms of averages. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has hit on an extreme from an average. An average is always made up of a very wide wide range. If the advertisement is misleading, I should be interested to know and to take cognisance of it in any future advertising campaign. I accept that there seems to be wide discrepancy there.

Apart from the advertising campaign in the Press and on television, leaflets have been distributed. A little red book entitled, "Family Benefits. Your Right to Claim them" has been made widely available. This leaflet describes in much more detail all the different welfare services which are available. Most people on reading the leaflet would be able to get a clear picture of whether they would qualify. In fairness, where questions of detail are involved it is carefully qualified so that people should not be misled.

In addition, there has been a small edition of the red book which summarises what was in the Press. There is a leaflet entitled, "Free Prescriptions or Refund of Charges on Grounds of Income". There has been a leaflet entitled "Dental and Optical Charges: How to claim exemption or help". There is a leaflet entitled, "Your right to free welfare milk and foods". We have conducted an advertising campaign of unprecedented scale in an attempt to bring to the notice of those in need how they can qualify and claim their entitlement.

I turn to the impact of this campaign. I should be completely with the hon. Member for Fife, West, if we had issued a form of publicity campaign which showed only the bones of what there was and which misled people, but that is not the case. I should be with the hon. Gentleman if this were a very expensive campaign—as it is; it is not cheap to conduct such a campaign—and if it were not bringing results. In those circumstances, I should question it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett) asked a Question of the Secretary of State for Social Services about the results on 11th May in column 70 of HANSARD. I have some more details since then.

The campaign took place about the end of March and the beginning of April. On milk and welfare food, the average weekly claims before 1st April were 32. The weekly average for the first three weeks of April was 6,449, the total for the week ending 27th April was 26,350 and for the week ending 4th May 24,157 —a cumulative total of 69,854.

The average weekly rate for prescriptions before 1st April was 346, the average for the first three weeks of April was 1,800, for the fourth week 12.793, for the week ending 4th May, 15,742—a cumulative total of 33,935—

Mr. William Hamilton

rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot take it, but I want to give these figures.

On dental services, the weekly average before 1st April was 1,024. the average for the first three weeks was 1,463, the fourth week it was 5,438, and for the week ending 4th May it was 5,992—a total since 1st April of 15,719. I appreciate that claims merely measure interest aroused.

On optical services, the weekly average of claims before 1st April was 1,572, the average for the first three weeks of April was 2,004, the total for the week ending 27th April was 10,099 and for the week ending 4th May 12,002—a total of 28,013.

I ask the House to judge whether this campaign has been a success in terms of interest aroused. Every penny invested has been justified and in percentage terms the increase has been astronomical.

Mr. William Hamilton

Are these Scottish figures or statistics applying to the United Kingdom as a whole? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is pointless for him to give the number of applications unless we are told the number of those which were successful and those which were rejected?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

That is what I was about to do. I am always frank with the House.

Mr. Hamilton

I would not say that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I am always straight and honest in dealing with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not like to give only one side of the picture, as the hon. Gentleman did. I intend to paint the whole picture on this occasion so that, when people read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate, they will be able to judge for themselves.

These figures cover the whole country. I do not have specific Scottish figures. I will make inquiries to see whether they can be made available. The Government react quickly, though we cannot react in a few hours in such a way as to provide every possible statistic the hon. Gentleman might required. Considering the short notice that he gave us of raising this subject on the Adjournment, he must be quite surprised at the number of statistics he is getting, and I am not finished yet.

I come to the meat of this campaign and, as the hon. Gentleman said, both sides of the picture are necessary if the statistics are not to be misleading. As he says, what matters is the number of awards. One cannot assess whether they result directly from individual inquiries but one can make a fair comparison by taking the average number of weekly awards before 1st April and comparing them with the average number since that date. I will deal with the four services which I mentioned previously.

First, milk and welfare foods. The average before 1st April was 29 a week. For the first three weeks of April, the average was 2,291. In the fourth week of April, the figure was 7,621. In the week ending 4th May, the figure had risen to 10,400, giving a cumulative total since 1st April of 24,894.

Now prescriptions. The average weekly number of awards was 253 prior to 1st April. For the first three weeks of April, the figure was 935. In the fourth week, it was 3,335. For the week ending 4th May, it had risen to 5,643, giving a cumulative total since 1st April of 11,783.

Let us look at the dental services. The weekly average before 1st April was 438. This rose in the first three weeks of April to an average of 642. In the week ending 27th April, it was 673. In the week ending 4th May, the figure had risen to 1,410, giving a cumulative total of 4,009 since 1st April.

Let us consider the awards made in respect of optical services. The weekly average before 1st April was 726. The average of the first three weeks of April was 972. For the week ending 27th April, it was 1,565. For the week ending 4th May, it had risen to 2,854, giving a cumulative total since 1st April of 7,335.

Mr. Lawson

rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I will not give way.

Mr. William Hamilton

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I have given way generously. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had ample opportunity in which to speak.

Mr. Lawson

I thought the hon. Gentleman said he was always fair.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

These figures demonstrate beyond peradventure—

Mr. Lawson

The hon. Gentleman should give way.

Mr Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

These figures demonstrate how wrong hon. Gentlemen opposite are when they say—

Mr. Lawson

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that he must not keep intervening from a seated position.

Mr. Lawson

On a point of order. We have been very orderly tonight. This has been a good-humoured debate.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and I know each other very well. He will appreciate that hon. Members must respect what the Chair says.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House Without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.