asked the Minister of Health if he will make a further statement on his proposal to increase the charges for National Health prescriptions in view of the Government's policy of keeping prices and the cost of living steady.

At present each person on a doctor's list pays on an average about 3¼d. per month for prescriptions; under the proposed alteration the figure will be about 5½d. per month.

Is it not immoral of the Government to give tax reliefs to the Surtax-payer and the wealthy and to introduce a graduated tax upon the sick? Is it not a fact that the person who is sick the most and the longest will pay the biggest tax? Is that the way the Government are going to do business in the future?

That is not a fair deduction. The system will be very similar to that of the prescription charge as first announced in 1949. There is no great difference between them.

It was limited to two years.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any difference in principle between his proposal and that of the Labour Government?

There is no difference at all. We are doing it per item, and they did it per form.

asked the Minister of Health whether, when the new method of charging for prescriptions is introduced, exceptions can be made for certain illnesses which necessitate continued prescribing for several items over a long period.

No, Sir, but doctors will no doubt use their discretion about prescribing larger quantities in suitable cases; moreover, any person who on application to the National Assistance Board shows that he will suffer financial hardship in accordance with the Board's standards will be able to obtain a refund.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the first part of his Answer will mean that those who are likely to suffer more than others under this arrangement will be safeguarded?

Yes, that is the purpose of it.

Is the Minister aware that there is growing evidence which all hon. Members on both sides of the House are having brought home to them—I had it in my constituency this week—that not only will these new regulations cause hardship, but that most people I have spoken to about them say they will be completely impracticable and will, in many ways, retard their good work? Is he aware that there is a universal desire that he should reconsider the regulations?

There is no evidence that the new regulations will be difficult to work. What will not be possible will be to make what are called "shopping lists", which, though comparatively rare, are a material factor.

Has the Minister estimated what the cost of administration will be for these new regulations and how that will be related to the extra revenue which will accrue?

If the right hon. Lady puts down a Question on that, I will do my best to answer it.

When the right hon. Gentleman said that the House would be aware that applicants for National Assistance would be entitled to a refund, did he mean that he has gone back on his previous statement that there would be an extension of that provision to others?

There are some Questions to be answered later on the National Assistance provision and, perhaps, the hon. Member will await the Answers to them.

asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for colostomy patients to receive the four items permanently essential to their hygiene as one prescription for the purpose of payment under the new scheme.

Colostomy belts are supplied initially by the hospital where the patient has been treated. Replacements of the whole belt or parts thereof may be prescribed by a general practitioner and supplied through a chemist. Any number of parts prescribed at one time will count as one item only for charge.

Is the Minister aware that he has completely missed the point of the Question, which is that people suffering from this degree of hardship constantly need cotton wool, cellulose wadding, gauze and vaseline? Is he aware that it is not in their interest, nor in the interest of the community, that they should be forced to economise in anyway on these items? Does he realise that this will mean a 4s. payment every time these people have to buy those urgent necessities?

That is the type of case which will be dealt with in the way I suggested in an earlier reply. Where someone is chronically ill and periodically requires those four items it will be open to the prescribing doctor, if he thinks fit, to prescribe for a long period in advance.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that doctors already prescribe for cases of this kind over a long period and that that does not alter the fact that prescription charges will be multiplied by four? Can he not do that piece of arithmetic?

In that case, the hardship will be spread over a very long period of three months.

asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for distilled water, which is prescribed for use for injections of penicillin crystals or similar substances, to be regarded as part of the main prescription and not separately charged for.

Yes, Sir. Only one charge will be payable in these circumstances.

asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received from the British Medical Association about the proposed changes in prescription charges.

I have received representations against any prescription charges from the General Medical Services Committee and from the Chairman of Council of the Association.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to take any cognisance of those representations? Is he to ignore completely the views of the British Medical Association and other professional bodies in this matter?

Certainly I am going to take full cognisance of ail representations. The representative of the Association emphasised that the Association was opposed to prescription charges. He represented that the proposed method of extending the charges would result in hardship and asked for a reconsideration of the proposals of the Government. What the British Medical Association is opposed to is any prescription charge.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why on a matter of this kind he did not consult the organisations which represent the doctors, which I think he will agree are in a position to advise him on this matter?

On a question of charges—which is, as it were, a Budget question—they have never been consulted before a decision of the Government has been made—never in previous history.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large section of opinion in this House and in the country thinks he is making a correct and necessary attempt to save waste in public expenditure?

In 1949, when the Socialist Government first introduced this charge, the drug bill was £30 million and the average cost per form was 4s. 6d. Today, I regret to say, I estimate the gross cost of drugs at twice that amount, and the average cost per form is 8s. 9d.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to correct his statement that the Socialist Government introduced the prescription charge? Those were his words.

I said when they first introduced it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was introduced with the power in the Act—

No.

I beg pardon; when powers were taken by the Socialist Government—and justified—to introduce a prescription charge.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange that old-age and other pensioners, when making payment for their medicines, may, on presentation of their pension books, receive a receipt for the sum paid, which they can present to the National Assistance Board so that the charge may be refunded if their circumstances are found to warrant this.

Receipts are already issued on request for this purpose under existing arrangements. The Postmaster-General and the Minister of Labour and National Service are making arrangements under which, from 1st December next, refunds will be made, on request, to anyone receiving National Assistance on any day and not necessarily the day on which the assistance is paid.

What about old-age pensioners who are not receiving National Assistance and who can just manage on their pensions in ordinary circumstances but who, when they receive a bill for three or four shillings extra, find themselves in real difficulty? Ought not something to be done for such people so that, without loss of face and real difficulty, they can get that money back?

A new leaflet explaining the refund arrangements and including the form of application for persons not receiving National Assistance, which would be suitable for old-age pensioners whom the hon. Member has in mind and for others, is being supplied to chemists and dispensing doctors to be given to all persons who inquire.

That will involve a great deal of clerical work. Has the Minister estimated what the cost will be?

I thought that the right hon. Lady was putting down a Question about administrative expenses.

The Minister will recall that, when I put this question to him earlier, he said that there was a later Question dealing with the point, and I thought that this was it.

That is not very fair. The right hon. Lady asked me what the financial and administrative costs were, and I said that if she would put down a Question I would do my best to answer it.

Will not the hardship caused by these regulations and the general interference with the work of doctors be infinitely greater than the trivial saving which the Minister will make? Will he not reconsider the matter?

I very much hope not, but it is most important that I should do all I can to remove all sources of hardship.

asked the Minister of Health why Her Majesty's Government were neither represented nor sent any message to the International Conference on Alcohol and Alcoholism, held this autumn at Istanbul on the invitation of the Turkish Government: and whether he is aware that this conference was attended by representatives of the French and many other Governments and of the United Nations World Health Organisation and International Labour Office, and that President Eisenhower, Mr. Nehru and the heads of other States sent messages of good will to it.

It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to be represented at congresses which are not primarily inter-governmental. I have no knowledge of the action taken by other Governments or of the messages that were sent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that convictions for drunkenness in this country last year show that they have been increasing especially rapidly in the case of young people? Cannot something be learnt from the experience of other countries in the solution of this admittedly difficult problem?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The normal machinery for discussion between Governments on such matters is provided by the World Health Organisation, of which this country is a member.

How many dipsomaniacs are having institutional care?

If the right hon. Lady will put the question down, I shall be very glad to give her a reply.

asked the Minister of Health how many unfilled places in the dental schools of this country exist at present; and, in view of the shortage of dental surgeons which is likely to increase, what steps he is taking to ensure that such vacant places are filled without delay.

I am having inquiries made to find out the extent to which there may be unfilled places in some of the dental schools. From inquiries so far made, it seems probable that only one school still has a few vacancies. The deans of dental schools have been asked to do all they can to accommodate students.

If the figure, which the right hon. Gentleman suggests is correct—and I have not the slightest doubt that it is—is it not clear that the number of dental students in training will in no way provide sufficient qualified dentists for the needs of the country in a few years? Does he not feel it is important to try to obtain places for the training of dentists, by providing dental schools or in some other way?

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that I am only giving the figures for England and not for Scotland. As he knows, there is an interchange of students between England and Scotland. But I am aware of the general position. The McNair Committee has made interesting observations upon it and at present they are being studied.

asked the Minister of Health what further evidence he has received about the connection between smoking and lung cancer: and what action he is taking thereon.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the further results of research by Messrs. Doll and Hill, as published by the British Medical Association, into the mortality of smokers and non-smokers from lung cancer, details of which are in his possession; and whether, as this research, based on a sample of 40,000 people, now shows a death rate from lung cancer among heavy smokers of 20 to 40 times that of non-smokers, he will now revise his decision not to institute a national campaign of information on the dangers of heavy cigarette smoking.

A recent paper by Professor Bradford Hill and Dr. Doll confirms the statistical association between smoking and lung cancer, about which I made a statement in the House on 7th May. I will ensure that the public are kept informed of all relevant information as and when it becomes available but, I do not consider that a campaign such as the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) suggests would be at present appropriate.

Now that evidence is clearly piling up to show that smoking and lung cancer are connected, has not the time come for the Minister officially to sponsor a nation-wide campaign in schools and through local health authorities drawing attention to the menace to health of spending £800 million a year on smoking? Surely this state of affairs cannot be tolerated much longer?

What is done in the schools is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, who is, in fact, including in his new handbook on Health Education, which contains suggestions for teachers, a passage on the possible dangers associated with smoking. This is a very important paper by Dr. Doll and Professor Bradford Hill, and I am anxious to see that it gets full publicity; but it only confirms the facts previously known and mentioned on 7th May.

In view of the fact that the Minister has said that the particular paper in the British Medical Journal of 10th November, which I presume the Minister has read, confirms these facts, is he still not prepared to take any action? How can he reconcile that with his previous statement when he suggested that the facts had not been confirmed, and can he say that his statement this afternoon is directly related to the advice which he has received from the medical division of his Department?

The right hon. Lady is well aware that it is never the practice in the House to disclose advice given by departmental officials, and therefore it would be improper for me to reply to that question. I am not quite certain to what the right hon. Lady was referring when she stated that I had said that the evidence had not been confirmed. What we have always said is that no scientific proof of the connection has yet been found. It may well be that it will be some time before that evidence comes. What is happening is that statistical evidence is piling up to show a connection between lung cancer and heavy cigarette smoking.

In view of the anxiety which this has aroused so widely in this country, would my right hon. Friend consider referring the matter to the Medical Research Council, so that the views not only of Professor Hill and Dr. Doll can be expressed but other medical scientists can examine it and report for the benefit of us all?

I will consider that, but I think that the Medical Research Council is well aware of the research at present going on.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Health what consideration he has given to the list of life-saving drugs, combined with the appropriate diseases for which they are a recognised cure, submitted to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle; and if he will make arrangements for these drugs to be available free to all patients provided that they are prescribed for their appropriate diseases, whether by National Health Service or by private doctors.

I have considered this list, but I fear that I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent test made by a London chemist such prescriptions as these came to slightly less than 5 per cent. of the total? While I appreciate the difficulties, will he keep this suggestion under review both for National Health and for private patients?

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable divergence of opinion between those who ought to know as to what are life-saving drugs and when they ought to be used?

That is why I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. Under existing legislation, a doctor must order any drugs necessary for treatment, and provision of free drugs for some conditions and not others would be most difficult to justify. It would really mean that I would be infringing the doctor's freedom to prescribe whatever is necessary.

Is it not true to say that drugs for V.D. are quite free?

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Food Hygiene Regulations which have recently come into force make refrigeration a virtual necessity for healthy catering; that the present hire-purchase restrictions and high rate of Purchase Tax on refrigerators constitute a strain on the resources of smaller hotels and boarding houses; and what steps are being taken to remedy this situation.

Refrigeration is not specifically required by the Regulations, though artificially cooled storage may in some circumstances be desirable or necessary. The questions of hire-purchase restrictions and Purchase Tax are matters for my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respectively.

Is the hon. Lady aware that this country has fewer refrigerators installed per head of the population than almost any other country in Western Europe, and should not financial and health policy be directed towards encouraging the use of refrigerators?

asked the Minister of Health what are the criteria by which the Medical Practices Committee judge the value of a doctor's house, when asked to give a certificate under the provisions of Section 35 (9) of the National Health Service Act as to whether they are satisfied that the transaction for its sale does not involve the goodwill of a medical practice.

The Committee decides whether or not the consideration for the sale, letting or other disposition of the house is substantially in excess of the consideration which might reasonably have been expected if the premises had not previously been used for the purposes of a medical practice; this criterion is laid down in Section 35 (3) of the Act.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent case of Dr. E. J. King who suffered substantial loss owing to the valuation of the house in his practice at Cleator Moor, Cumberland, as fixed by the Committee, being controverted by subsequent High Court decision? What explanation can he give of two different values being fixed for the same house? Will he endeavour to see that this Committee gives greater care and consideration to all the aspects of its duties in this respect, particularly in cases where the price is in dispute?

I am aware of the case of which my hon. Friend has sent me details. It is quite untrue to say that the High Court controverted the decision of the Medical Practices Committee. The Medical Practices Committee said that it was not satisfied that the price was not above the ordinary market price. The High Court was dealing with quite a different aspect of the matter and, therefore, it was not a case of one decision controverting the other.

asked the Minister of Health what assistance and advice in this country is made available to immigrants from Eire and the Commonwealth countries to protect them from infection from pulmonary tuberculosis; and what form of collaboration has been agreed with the health authority in Eire.

The assistance and advice available to the people of this country is also available to these immigrants. The Department's officers maintain close contact with the health authorities in Eire, and with the consent of patients detailed clinical information is freely exchanged with medical officers there.

Can the hon. Lady tell the House whether welfare officers have been appointed specifically for these cases in certain areas, such as Paddington and Liverpool, where these people mostly tend to concentrate?

They would come under the general services of the welfare officers for those areas.

asked the Minister of Health why a box of important documents taken by Mrs. Harriet Thornton to Cane Hill Mental Hospital was allowed to remain in a ward for three and a half years despite correspondence on the subject from the official solicitor appointed to look after Mrs. Thornton's affairs; and, in view of the fact that this is a breach of the lunacy law, what action he proposes to take.

My information is that Mrs. Thornton did not bring the box with her on admission, and it was therefore not included in the inventory of her belongings. Later she asked the ward sister to put it in the ward store room saying that it contained private letters; and she did not mention it when the medical superintendent subsequently asked her about the whereabouts of certain documents required by the official solicitor. She did not ask for it until after her discharge, when after a search it was found still locked away. Owing to the lapse of time the box had been overlooked, but I am not aware that there was any breach of the law.

Is the Minister aware that this lady, when she was forcibly taken to a mental home, took these important documents with her? When persons are certified, surely the authorities want to know what certified patients are taking into mental homes, and is not there some degree of slackness if they were unaware that these documents were there the whole of the time?

I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension? She did bring in certain documents on her admission. They were included in the inventory, and in due course those wanted by the official solicitor were handed to him. The other documents in this box were brought in later, I am informed, by a visitor.

asked the Minister of Health (1) under what authority the Cane Hill Mental Hospital Management Committee asked for and received from the official solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs. Harriet Thornton payment of money from her estate whilst she was still certified and a National Health Service patient;

While this patient was in the hospital her maintenance was the financial responsibility of the management committee. An order made under the Lunacy Act, 1890, appointing the official solicitor receiver of her estate provided for the payment of £39 a year for extra comforts, which she duly received. When she was granted leave on trial and went to the after-care home, the committee made an allowance towards the cost as they have discretion to do under Section 55 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. They neither requested nor received payment for her maintenance from her estate, and they were not concerned with any liability of her husband to contribute.

This is a fantastic state of affairs Is the Minister saying that the official solicitor was not asked that money should be paid towards her maintenance and that the official solicitor did not pay that money and that it is there in her estate, and that her husband, who was responsible for getting her put away in this place, was not asked to pay one penny piece? Will the Minister have another look into this matter, because all the evidence indicates that he has been bamboozled by the reports he is getting?

If the hon. Gentleman studies the Answer, which I am afraid was very long, he will see quite clearly what the position was and that nothing wrong was done. The procedure for ensuring that the husband pays for the wife's maintenance in a mental hospital is through the matrimonial court

Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to make a statement regarding the installation of mechanical stoking boilers in the St. Luke's Hospital, Rugby.

My right hon. Friend is informed that the regional board has placed the order for this work.

May I say to the hon. Lady that my long-suffering constituents will be most happy about this decision? May I offer her their thanks?

asked the Minister of Health what record he keeps of patients who enter hospital as voluntary patients and who are subsequently certified while in hospital; and what is the number of such patients during the last most convenient year.

Records for England and Wales are kept by the Registrar-General. In 1954, the latest year for which figures are available, 576 persons who entered as voluntary patients were subsequently certified whilst in hospital, representing 1·12 per cent. of total voluntary admissions.

Will my hon. Friend take such steps as are possible to see that this figure is reduced to an absolute minimum so that voluntary patients may have no feeling of apprehension about being certified when they enter hospital?

I think the recently published figures, showing that the number of voluntary patients has gone up from 45 per cent. to 75 per cent., show very much that, so far as possible, we have voluntary rather than certified patients.

Will the hon. Lady also keep in mind the need of the public to be protected from dangerous persons?

Will my hon. Friend say whether such people are certified by one doctor only, or is it required that more than one doctor should certify them?

asked the Minister of Health when the plans for a new dental hospital were forwarded to him by the United Birmingham Hospitals Board; and what modifications of the plans have been suggested by him.

Sketch plans were sent on 3rd July, 1956; the modifications suggested to the board of governors consist of a proposal to reduce the size of the building with a view to reducing cost, and a number of detailed comments mainly of a technical nature.

Is it reasonable, after plans have been considered for about two years, that the Ministry should hold up performance plans on the grounds of cost? Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to take steps, when he visits Birmingham this week—as I am pleased to see he is to do—to see that no obstacle is placed in the way of the completion of this hospital at the earliest practicable moment?

I have every desire to see that it is built at the first practicable moment, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will be willing to look at this matter when he goes to Birmingham. However, it is fair to point out that when the estimate was first submitted we were given a figure of £600,000. Now that the plans have come in, the sum of £1,256,000 is wanted, which is more than double.

asked the Minister of Health what steps were taken to trace the brother and other relatives living in Leeds, of Mr. E. Murtagh, who died in St. Luke's Hospital, Bradford, on 10th October; and if the Bradford police were informed, or inquiries made at 23, North Street, Bradford, from where the deceased was taken by ambulance, or his last place of work and through that his trade union.

According to my right hon. Friend's information, this patient had more than once clearly stated that he had no relatives, and none of the steps mentioned was therefore taken

Does the hon. Lady realise that it is very serious indeed if, when a person goes into hospital, dies in hospital and is buried by the authorities, no steps whatever are taken to trace relatives? Is she further aware that this matter was brought to my notice by the man's trade union secretary, who is very concerned lest his many members doing casual work in different parts of the county have this kind of thing happen?

In fairness to the hospital authorities, the hon. Lady should know that not only on this but on previous occasions when the same patient went into hospital he emphatically stated that he had no relatives. There was the same record at the lodging house where he had stayed. During the time he was ill he was visited by a Catholic priest, and a doctor asked him about relatives. He emphatically proclaimed that he had no relatives and, in those circumstances, the hospital cannot be blamed.

asked the Minister of Health what administrative arrangements exist for informing relatives of the death of a person in hospital; and if he will give an assurance that these arrangements are put into operation, even if the deceased, through illness or stress of entering hospital, does not give the name and address of next of kin.

It is the normal practice of hospitals to ascertain the next of kin of patients where possible and to inform them of deaths. I have no reason to suspect any inadequacy in the arrangements for getting the information when the patient is unable to answer questions.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the Answers to this and the previous Question have been entirely contradictory? In the case I mentioned in Question No. 23 no steps whatever were taken to trace the man's relatives who lived only eight miles away. If these administrative arrangements are put into operation, why was that not done in the case of Mr. Murtagh?

When the hon. Lady reads the Answers tomorrow, she will see that they are not contradictory. My last phrase was, "when the patient is unable to answer questions." In this case the patient was repeatedly asked and repeatedly affirmed that he had no living relatives. Where patients are not in a condition to give information about themselves, the hospital authorities endeavour to ascertain the next of kin and use the services of the police for so doing.

Is the hon. Lady not aware that when a man goes into hospital and is likely to die within a few days—as happened in this case—because of going into hospital, or illness, or something of that kind, he may give wrong information? Will she alter the regulations to see that some action is taken to find relatives?

In this case the patient walked out of the ambulance unattended into the hospital and was perfectly capable of giving information about himself. The hon. Lady must appreciate that it is very difficult to trace people when one has no sources from which to work and when a patient insists that he has no living relatives.

asked the Minister of Health how many beds are available in Stoke-on-Trent for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis; and whether sufferers from pneumoconiosis and other disease of the lungs are now to have additional beds provided in the former fever hospital at Bucknell.

I am informed by the regional hospital board that there are 46 beds at the City General Hospital, and that 24 additional beds will become available this week at Bucknell Hospital solely for persons suffering from pneumoconiosis.

May I thank the hon. Lady for that Answer?

asked the Minister of Health what limitations are placed, under his regulations, upon the entitlement of part-time consultants to payment for travelling-time and travelling expenses to and from hospitals.

As the rules which apply are necessarily rather long and complicated, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of them.

Would the hon. Lady not agree that the arrangements are also rather generous, to say the least of it? Is it not possible for a doctor to have a consultant appointment in London and live in the north of Scotland and then claim travelling time and travelling expenses involved in getting to the hospital?

The revision of the present arrangements is under consideration by the Medical Whitley Council at the moment. I would rather not add anything to that.

asked the Minister of Health what is his policy in regard to the acceptance by part-time consultants of sessional contracts in excess of nine-and-a-half sessions per week.

Sessional contracts must be entirely governed by the amount of work that can be undertaken by the individual part-time officers concerned.

Is the hon. Lady aware that there are consultants who are undertaking contracts about double that of the theoretical maximum for part-time consultants? Does that not mean that not only is the work not done properly, but also that younger consultants are being done out of appointments to which they would otherwise have access?

While it is true that terms and conditions of service of hospital medical staff do not prohibit part-time medical consultants being employed for a specific number of sessions or hours per week, they also provide that however many hours weekly a part-time consultant is employed he may not be paid more than nine-and-a-half elevenths of the whole-time rate.

asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will publish the amount of the grant which the Government has made in the latest five years, showing each year separately, to the Cancer Research Organisation.

I understand that the hon. Member has in mind the British Empire Cancer Campaign. This organisation is supported entirely by voluntary contributions and receives no grant from the Government. I should add that there is, of course, substantial Government expenditure on cancer research through the Medical Research Council which cooperates closely with all voluntary organisations concerned with the problem.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this organisation is doing a very useful and valuable job and ought to be encouraged? Is not the best way of encouraging it to spend more of its own money to give some assistance from Government funds?

I know this organisation is doing most valuable work, but I do not believe that it would welcome a Government grant. I think the present system, whereby the Medical Research Council works very closely with voluntary organisations, is far better.

If I send the right hon. Gentleman a communication I have received from this organisation asking for this to be done, will he change his mind?

I should be most inter-tested to see the communication.

asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps he is taking to stimulate research into mental disorder and to encourage the entry of research workers, both medical and nonmedical, into this field.

The Medical Research Council is taking every opportunity of promoting further research on mental Health, and during the past 18 months a survey of existing projects in this field has been carried out by the Council with the advice of the Clinical Research Board. Arrangements for the future support of these projects, and of other research on mental health, are now being made in consultation with my Department and the hospital authorities concerned. In addition, the Council has a scheme for the award of scholarships and fellowships for training in research methods which is open to both medical and non-medical workers in this field.

While welcoming that small step forward, might I ask the Minister whether he ought not to look beyond the Medical Research Council for adequate work in this field? Will he take steps to encourage the introduction into mental hospitals of clinical research teams to take advantage of the wide clinical field for research which is available there?

Apart from the work of the Medical Research Council, work estimated at about £70,000 a year has been carried on under the National Health Service. That work will be taken over in due course by the Medical Research Council, and that will entail the setting up of at least two new units by the Council.

asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the safety of those British civilians who were in Egypt during the recent Anglo-French military operations in that country; what provisions were made for their safety by the Government of Egypt; and what efforts were made by the Supreme Allied Commander to rescue these people during the operations.

rose—

On a point of order. May I ask, Sir, whether the discussion that took place on the previous points of order ruled out supplementary questions on the previous Question? We were interested in listening to the Minister of State on the Bagdad Pact, and there were a number of questions we should have liked to have pursued.

We have passed from that Question now. I hope that the House will excuse me if, with the number of points of order that were raised on Question No. 34, I omitted to call the supplementary questions on it, but some of the points of order were, I think, in themselves in the nature of supplementary questions.

Her Majesty's Government have received no reports that any of the British subjects residing in Egypt have suffered injury as a result of the military operations. We are given to understand that the British community are, in general, safe and well. The prime purpose of the Franco-British action was not to rescue but to protect the British community. This was achieved by stopping the war. British subjects in Port Said are, of course, now under the protection of the allied forces there.

In view of the fact that the Government, at the very beginning, did state the safety of British civilians as one of the objects of the act of aggression against Egypt, may I ask the Minister whether he has made any efforts at all to find out how these civilians are; whether there have been any efforts made by the Supreme Command to rescue them; whether he will say to what he attributes the fact that these civilians are safe, and whether he will kindly make a statement about the future safety of these civilians in Egypt?

Yes. I attribute the safety of these British civilians to the intervention of the Anglo-French forces.

Whilst wishing to dissociate myself from everything that has been said, is said, or will be said by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), may I ask a question about these civilians? There are two aspects to it. First, there is the anxiety felt by relations in this country about their safety. Secondly, there is the fact that these people in Egypt are being held incommunicado and do not get any news of their relations in England. Can my hon. Friend assure me that efforts are being made to get messages through to these civilians, as well as to get them back to this country?

Certainly, Sir. We are in touch with the Swiss Government, who are the protecting Power in this case.

Has not the Minister's attention been drawn to the evidence from both Egypt and the Sudan that there was no risk to these British civilians until our invasion, and that the only reason for the respect that has been shown to these people, in spite of our Government's action, is the recognition by the Egyptian and Sudanese people that not all British people are equally guilty with Her Majesty's Government?

On the contrary, if hostilities had continued without our intervention there would, without any doubt, have been risk to these individuals.

May I ask about the 400 British civilians in the Canal Zone today who are looking after the equipment in what was once the British base? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, before we intervened, these people were perfectly happy looking after the equipment, but that after we intervened they were all arrested? Could he please bother to tell the House what has happened to these 400 people, who were arrested entirely as a result of our intervention?

The Swiss Government have informed us that employees of the contractors, numbering 450, have been interned.

asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement giving details of the arms supplied to Egypt in the last five years.

I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 14th November.

That was no Answer at all. Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that the Foreign Office has now confirmed and published the Israeli figures of last July of Russian arms supplies to the Middle East? Will he now confirm or deny the Israeli figures published at the same time last July, showing that this Government supplied to Nasser's forces 390 tanks, including 40 Centurians, and 100 jet 'planes, as well as two destroyers and seven frigates? Are those figures from Israel as correct as the Israeli figures about Russian arms, confirmed from the Foreign Office?

No, Sir. From the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—[Interruption]—was Minister of Defence, it has been said that it is contrary to the normal practice to disclose details of exports of military equipment.

On a point of order. Owing to the noise, it was quite impossible to hear the Joint Under-Secretary's reply. May we now be allowed to hear it?

I said that from the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington was Minister of Defence, it has been said that it is contrary to normal practice to disclose details of exports of military equipment.

asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the information about Soviet arms supplied to Egypt given to the Press by his officials on Sunday, 11th November, was not in possession of the Government on 29th October, 1956.

asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date he was first informed that the Soviet bloc were sending large quantities of military equipment into Egypt.

All the information which was given to the Press on 11th November was in the Government's possession on 29th October. Her Majesty's Government have known since September, 1955, that an arms deal had been made and this was announced at the time. The events of the last few weeks have provided confirmation of the great extent of these deliveries and of Soviet penetration in the area.

Does not that Answer show quite conclusively that the Government have worked through all their excuses and have now come down to the old corny one of a Russian plot? Is not this just another Government lie?

My Answer makes it quite clear that the Government had had this information for some time and that it has now been confirmed by recent events.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he has had the information for some time, how came it that the President of the Board of Trade said that certainly our intervention disclosed that there had been arms supplied in this way?

I think that the Government have made the position quite clear. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in last week's debate, hon. Members said that they had had this information for some time.

If the object of Her Majesty's Government's policy was to maintain the balance between the forces in the Middle East, did not the events of the Gaza battle show that the Israeli forces were certainly at no great disadvantage?

Yes. I think that the statement made last year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, that Israel was in a position to defend herself, has been fully borne out by recent events.

May I follow up what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)? Does not the Minister think that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in the debate last week that recent events had disclosed what he imputed to be a quite new state of things—but it is not new at all—was meant to deceive the country into believing that something quite new had happened?

I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would never accuse the President of the Board of Trade of trying to deceive the country. What he was saying was that this information had now been confirmed.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that I do accuse the President of the Board of Trade of attempting to deceive both this House and the country.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) should know that he should not accuse anyone in this House of deceit. That is certainly out of order. He should not say that an hon. Member is "deceiving" the House, because that is an accusation which is not in order.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if you will study the reports in The Times, for instance, which is supposed to be a reputable paper, you will see that in its issue of 12th November The Times says that the President of the Board of Trade used the word "disclosed," when he ought to have said "confirmed." I would submit to you that the use of the word "disclosed" was quite an improper use of that word by the President of the Board of Trade in describing the then situation.

It may be that the right hon. Gentleman can say that he was misled by it, but to accuse another hon. Member of the motive of deceit is wrong. I allow the greatest possible freedom of language, because I believe in it, but I know that an hon. Member should not say of another hon. Member that he is telling lies. The intention of deceit, or deceiving the House with intention, is wrong.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not call him a liar, although I thought he was.

This is really getting beyond what is right. The right hon. Member should not accuse another Member of that. I must ask him to withdraw the expression.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not call him a liar. I said that he had made a misuse of a word. You provoked me into saying that I thought he was a liar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Certainly, what I said was that he used the word "disclosed" in the wrong sense. What he ought to have said was what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of State now says, that the figures which he then talked about confirmed what the Government already knew.

The right hon. Gentleman has made some sort of withdrawal. He says that he misunderstood or used the wrong words. I think that if an hon. Member in heat uses a word which he should not, it raises his credit in the House if he makes a manly withdrawal. While I dislike intensely the word used by the hon. Member for Billericay, I could not believe that it was seriously intended to mean that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was in fact a lackey of Nasser. A lackey means a paid servant on his staff, which is absurd. It was merely a word of abuse.

On a point of order—

Order. The hon. Member has his point of order, but so have I. I really think that the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) ought to obey the custom of the House.

Very well. Out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the House, and as a guide to the hon. Member for Billericay, I have pleasure in withdrawing my statement.

I am much obliged. Mr. Teeling.

Mr. Speaker, as it Was my original Question, may I ask quite calmly—

No, the hon. Gentleman may not.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a little bit earlier it was stated that I had used a term which, perhaps, in the view of some hon. Members should not have been used, I would have risen to my feet, but I got the distinct impression that the word "lackey" used in the particular context in which I confess I used it was not an unparliamentary expression. It was for that reason, and for that reason only, that I did not rise. I feel quite justified in my mind in having used that phrase in that context. But if it would help the atmosphere in any way—

Do not bother.