asked the Paymaster-General if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to give guarantees of coal tonnage for export to the continental market.

No, Sir. The National Coal Board has already announced its willingness to arrange for sales of small coal on long-term contracts in order to provide assurance of continuity of supply.

Does not the Paymaster-General appreciate that the re-establishment of our former position in the continental market requires that some guarantee of delivery should be given from the National Coal Board?

I think the National Coal Board is very well aware of the important matter that the hon. Member has raised, but I think it would be quite wrong to issue a direction to the Board I think it is a matter for its commercial judgment.

Without desiring to tempt the Paymaster-General into the disclosure of information which may prove unhelpful to those whose duty it is to sell coal, may I ask him whether he agrees that an annual export target is necessary in order to ensure continuity of supplies to our customers abroad?

It is perfectly true that unless we can assure our customers of pretty regular supplies it is much more difficult to get contracts, and that the selling of spot cargoes is less satisfactory, but I can assure hon. Members that the National Coal Board is very well aware of this and that its commercial department will enter into these long-term contracts whenever it can do so.

Having regard to the importance of coal exports to our national economy, can my right hon. Friend say, in the instance of the year 1958, approximately what additional tonnage of coal he expects to be exported from the United Kingdom?

Not without notice, I am afraid.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board that the mining industry should revert to the hours worked per shift before the 1926 lock out.

No, Sir.

Does not the Paymaster-General agree that this is about the only industry which is working the hours which it worked in 1919, and that from 1926, when additional time was put on, the industry has been working this longer shift? Does he not believe that now, after thirty years, some readjustment should be made?

This is a matter which can be argued, but I often have to say that we will not interfere with the discretion of the National Coal Board in certain matters, and I should have thought that, in the negotiation of wages and hours of work, above all, it would be wrong for the Government to issue directions to the Board. This is, I am sure, a matter between the Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent the policy of selective recruitment of manpower by the National Coal Board is due to lack of demand for coal; and what recent discussions he has had with the Board on this problem.

Recruitment policy is a matter for the Board itself to decide. It had regard to the slackening in demand when it decided on the present pause in recruitment. My noble Friend and I are in constant touch with the Board on all questions of major policy.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is much apprehension in the coalfields concerning the operations of the National Coal Board, and that most of them feel that they would like the Minister to show his feelings a little bit and not to hesitate to give directions when necessary?

I am sure that my noble Friend will give directions whenever it is necessary, but it is my impression that seldom, if ever, has a direction been given by the Minister to the Board. I think that, on the whole, if directions do become necessary, in a sense it will be a confession of failure of the two parties to be able to agree.

Can the Paymaster-General state the total level of manpower which is being aimed at, and, since manpower is so closely related to output, what is the output target? Surely this is not a policy being pursued without a prepared plan?

I must make clear that this is a temporary pause, as has been stated by the National Coal Board. It has had very good recruitment in recent months. This pause is purely a temporary one and does not in any way affect its long-term planning.

asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given the National Coal Board regarding the closure of less remunerative collieries.

None, Sir.

Are we to assume from that answer that there is to be no acceleration in the closure of collieries during this year? Can the right hon. Gentleman allay the anxiety now prevailing in the coalfields by giving a promise that no pits will be closed without prior consultation with the workmen's representatives, especially in those cases where a mutual exchange of views might extend the useful life of a colliery?

The National Coal Board has to take its own decisions as to what pits it can keep open and what pits it can close. The Board has always consulted very fully the representatives of the miners concerned before reaching a decision. Compared with 1947, when the Board took over, there are now 146 fewer collieries in production, and all those closures, I think, have been carried out very smoothly indeed.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is still necessary to keep under review the high-price, uneconomic pits in order, above all, to avoid the disaster of a further increase in the price of coal?

The Board is at the moment paying very close attention to the pits where the costs of production are particularly high.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent, in view of reduced intake of recruits, the development programme of the National Coal Board is to remain unchanged.

I am informed by the Board that the change in its recruitment policy recently made public will not affect its development programme.

asked the Paymaster-General when he expects to receive the next Annual Report of the Iron and Steel Board; and if he will request it to include in the Report an. account of the differences which have arisen between the Board and iron and steel producers over the expansion of finished steel capacity and the use of iron ores.

It is expected that the Annual Report of the Iron and Steel Board for 1957 will be submitted in the early summer. I am certain that the Board will report on all matters relevant to its responsibilities for development of the industry, and I see no reason to ask it to particularise in the manner suggested.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Ministry concurs in the view of the Iron and Steel Board that the steel producers are altogether much too cautious in their development policy?

I think this is a matter on which there is always a possibility of there being two views. The judgment as to the exact level of steel demand in five or six years' time is open to a very wide margin of error. It is important that we should have in mind not only the views of the steel industry but very much the views of the Iron and Steel Board.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will consult the Electricity Council as a preliminary to giving a general direction on the carrying out by the electricity boards of Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957, which requires the fixing of maximum charges by the boards for the resale of electricity to sub-tenants and other persons.

No, Sir. My noble Friend considers that this power, which is permissive, can best be exercised by the boards themselves in the light of local circumstances.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter of great importance and interest to the consumers of electricity, and is it not desirable that there shall be a national policy to be followed by all the boards generally?

I understand that the boards are, in fact, considering the matter in the light of local circumstances and in consultation with the Electricity Council, which has itself referred the question to its Retail Tariffs Committee.

asked the Minister of Supply (1) what progress has been made in reaching agreement with Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox on the takeover of the Royal Ordnance Factory, Dalmuir; and what steps he is taking to ensure the full utilisation of men and machines at the factory;

Agreement has been reached for the transfer of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Dalmuir to Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox on 1st January next. They wish to utilise the factory as fully as they can and, in the light of discussions that are in progress, I have every hope that they will need a high proportion of the labour force, as well as much of the machinery. Although the time has not yet come for them to make offers of employment, they propose to set up an employment office at the factory next month to receive inquiries. There are now about 430 skilled workers at the factory.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the skilled established men and the skilled unestablished men at Dalmuir have been informed that very few of them will be required by Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox for the type of work which will be done at the factory, and that much of the highly specialised machinery in the factory will not be required by Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox?

There are differences between the work at the Royal Ordnance Factory and the work of the firm, in consequence of which the pattern of their labour requirements will be somewhat different, and the balance between grades of employee may alter with the change from military work to civil work. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are making the very best efforts to ensure that the maximum number of workpeople are offered re-employment by the new owners.

In view of the difficulties surrounding this matter, and because I feel that in reply to my three Questions I have not been given a complete answer to the problem, I beg to give notice that I shall take the first opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Supply when he will introduce the scheme for compensation to redundant employees at Royal Ordnance factories.

The payments which may be made to these employees on redundancy are governed by the Superannuation Acts, 1834–1957, which apply without discrimination to all Civil Servants, including the workpeople at Royal Ordnance factories. The provisions of these Acts are somewhat complicated, and I am sending the hon. Member a summary of them.

I am fairly well aware of what the Parliamentary Secretary is going to send me. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the growing alarm in the country, in view of the Cohen Report, about pending unemployment? Is he aware that the difficulties of the employees in the Royal Ordnance factory represent only the first stepping-stone? Might we ask the Minister to look much more seriously into the matter and to go beyond the Superannuation Act, 1957? It is impossible to expect these people at a late age to be transferred to other employment if it can possibly be avoided.

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is related to a much bigger question, which, I think, will be dealt with in the debate later today. As to the second part of his supplementary question, with the declining military requirement and the reduced needs of defence generally and the Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply can keep factories going only to make goods which are ordered from it, and I have no authority in that respect. With regard to a possible alteration of the Superannuation Acts, that is a matter which should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Minister of Supply what was the nature of the textiles ordered to meet Service requirements and for which he needed a Supplementary Vote of £2,750,000; when these textiles were ordered; and to what purpose they are now to be put.

These textiles are mainly a residue of purchases made in the exceptional circumstances of the Korean re-armament, after consultation with the Service Departments concerned, to meet expected Service requirements. They consist mainly of cotton and woollen cloths, duck and canvas, narrow fabrics, and machine thread. The items are now surplus and are being offered for sale through the normal disposal machinery.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is a little late in the day to find that these were not needed? Could not some money have been saved if the contracts had been combed earlier on?

As I have said, these purchases were made several years ago, and in the interim period there have been very much reduced requirements in the Services, with a consequent throwing up of these surpluses. As to our present policy, I can assure the hon. Member that we are trying to keep our demands exactly in line with what the Services will require.

asked the Minister of Supply how many Comet aircraft Marks I and II have been bought by his Department; for what purpose; and at what cost.

Three Comet I's were purchased as prototypes in aid of the development of the civil type, and eight in aid of the Ministry of Supply's research programme, the majority being for ground fatigue tests. Two Comet II's were purchased in aid of the development of the military version, one of them being for ground fatigue tests; thirteen Comet II's were purchased for the Royal Air Force. The Ministry of Supply also bought, as a reserve backing, three airframes, which are no longer required and which are to be disposed of. The cost of these twenty-nine aircraft, excluding engines, was rather more than £9 million.

Is not the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman's Department requires eight new Comet aircraft for testing purposes quite ludicrous? Is it not a case that these purchases were made simply in order to help he firm out of its financial difficulties? Is it not wrong that this amount of taxpayers' money should be paid out?

No, Sir. The House will recall that, after the inquiry into the Comet accident, it was found necessary to provide aircraft for very extensive and exhaustive tests in order that the aircraft could be re-proved for civil use. I do not accept the hon. Member's imputation that more aircraft were bought than were necessary. As for the rescue operation of the company concerned, that is fully dealt with in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Ministry of Supply's Appropriation Account for 1954–55, and the Sixth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for 1956.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government had not been so extravagant in their subsidy of the aircraft industry at this time, it would not have been necessary this year to have taken the other course and carry out economies which themselves are proving just as wasteful?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the progress of poliomyelitis vaccination in the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Health if he will now authorise the importation from the United States of America of large enough quantities of the Salk vaccine to allow all school children in the country to be inoculated against poliomyelitis this year, including a third dose.

asked the Minister of Health what is the Government's policy towards the vaccination of adults against poliomyelitis.

Vaccination with two injections is at present available for children over six months who were born in or after 1943, expectant mothers and certain other special groups. At the end of December over 1½ million persons had been vaccinated in Great Britain, and vaccine has since been issued for a further 1½ million. I am informed that similar arrangements are in operation in Northern Ireland. Considerable quantities of Salk vaccine are being imported, in supplementation of British vaccine. The programme is being kept under constant review. I am advised that two injections give a good degree of protection and that our first objective should be to increase the number of persons so vaccinated.

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his helpful statement, but will he do all he can to accelerate this programme, bearing in mind that there have already been considerable unnecessary delays and that the effect of those delays is that a number of children develop poliomyelitis who would not otherwise have done so?

No, Sir. There are no delays in the announced programme, which is progressing properly and favourably, but I have in mind what the hon. Member said with regard to acceleration. My first objective is to secure a high acceptance rate in the present groups which are eligible.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that imported vaccine is kept within the temperature range of 2 degrees and 10 degrees Centigrade until shortly before use, and, where Salk vaccine is imported privately, publicise the fact that it loses all its efficiency if it is allowed to go outside those temperatures?

I shall certainly see that all appropriate technical requirements and safeguards are carried out in the case of imported Salk vaccine.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it would be better to give the third vaccination and thereby ensure that certain people have a guarantee of safety, rather than give two vaccinations only and so allow a lower degree of safety?

No, Sir. The right hon. Lady is wrong in her implication. The third injection does not guarantee safety, according to American experience. As she will know, I am advised in this matter by the Joint Committee on Poliomyelitis Vaccine, which has recently reiterated its advice that more is to be gained by giving two doses to more persons than by giving third doses.

asked the Minister of Health how many nurses were employed in the Home Nursing Service at the end of 1955 and 1956, respectively.

The figures are 9,884 and 10,104.

asked the Minister of Health how many visits to patients were paid by home nurses in 1955 and 1956, respectively; and how many of these were made to people over the age of 65 years at the time of the first visit during the year 1956.

The figures are 24,292,250 in 1955 and 24,652,655 in 1956; including, in 1956, 13,598,502 visits to patients aged 65 and over at the time of the first visit.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that there is a great and growing need for the visits of these nurses to the older people in the community? Is he further aware that by such visits these old people are often enabled to stay at home with relatives who, without the assistance of the service, would be unable to have them when they are in failing health and no longer able to look after themselves?

indicated assent.

May I ask whether these numbers of visits met the demand?

I have no information about that, but the figures I have quoted show that there is a welcome increase in the facilities for home care, particularly to the aged.

asked the Minister of Health what evidence exists to support the statement in the Annual Report of his Department that a breaking away from addiction to tobacco, even after a long period of indulgence, may reduce the risk of lung cancer.

The evidence was referred to in the statement on tobacco smoking and cancer of the lung issued by the Medical Research Council on 27th June, 1957. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the position is something like this: that if there is a known tendency to cancer in the family and if one is a heavy smoker, obviously the risk is very great; but that if there is no such tendency and one is a moderate smoker, the risk is absolutely negligible? Is it desirable to use an official Government document to spread this kind of terror propaganda about what is still a very debatable point?

I do not think my hon. Friend is using his normally and characteristically well-chosen phraseology when he refers to "terror propaganda". As I see it, my duty is to promulgate to the public the expert advice which we get from the Medical Research Council. Its statement refers to investigations in this country and the United States and it shows that there was a higher mortality among people who continued to smoke than among those who gave it up.

Is it not clear that, despite all the propaganda of the tobacco companies, there is a definitely established connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the only complaint of most people is that the Government are not exerting themselves adequately to inform the public of the risk they are taking?

The facts are as stated by the Medical Research Council. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government, in association with the local health and education authorities, have taken steps to disseminate this information.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there was publicity on the I.T.V. the other night but that five minutes later there was an attractive advertisement for cigarettes?

I have no responsibility for the I.T.V. programmes, nor did I see that one.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend smoke?

Not normally.

asked the Minister of Health why a letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Thurrock on 11th November, 1957, was not answered until 20th January, 1958.

Inquiries had to be made from the hospital authorities and medical practitioners concerned, and these could not be started until I had received certain additional information from the hon. Member on 5th December.

Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is quite a long interval between 5th December and 20th January? Would it not have been more helpful and more courteous to have given me the explanation in the letter I received so belatedly from the Parliamentary Secretary on 20th January?

Both my hon. Friend and I have written to the hon. Gentleman to give a full explanation of these matters and to convey our regret for any delay. If the hon. Member now talks about the length of time, I must remind him, first, that it was necessary for the regional hospital board acting, through the hospital management committee, to make various inquiries, and also to arrange an interview with the general practitioner, and secondly, that we could have got this time shortened—I am sorry to have to mention this—if it had not been necessary for me to write to the hon. Gentleman on 19th November asking him to send some necessary information, and to send him a reminder on 3rd December.

The interval between 3rd December and 20th January is, I repeat, quite a long time. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has apologised to me in private, as he has in his letter, why does he not have the decency to apologise to me now in public?

If the hon. Gentleman is so touchy about this, I will certainly apologise to him for any delay which may have been caused by the Ministry. In order to make this feast of courtesy complete, perhaps he would be good enough to apologise to me for the delay of a fortnight which he caused?

May I apologise for the delay of one week, since the Minister has apologised for a delay of ten?

asked the Minister of Health how many foreigners not normally resident in this country came to Great Britain for a short time and had substantial medical, surgical, or dental treatment unconnected with a sudden accident or illness, during the last year for which records are available.

I regret that this information is not available.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that my Question does not show ungenerosity towards those who come to these shores and get in trouble? Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider whether some kind of check cannot be made to see whether our generosity is being abused? It would be monstrous if our people had to pay more for their National Health Service simply and solely on account of such an abuse as I have suggested in my Question.

Of course, this matter has been looked at, but there really is no known method by which we can apply a policy of discrimination without requiring residents in Britain also to supply similar particulars. I would ask my hon. Friend not to get this question out of proportion. Though we do not know the exact cost of the use of the National Health Service by non-residents, an outside estimate of the figure is £150,000.

asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that the Health Department of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have agreed to send the Russian vaccine for multiple sclerosis to a constituent of the honourable Member for Wallsend, that the officials at the Newcastle Office of Customs and Excise said the vaccine could not be imported until the drug in the vaccine was declared, and that this has been reported to the Russian Ambassador; and if he will therefore communicate with the Ambassador to see what can be done to allow the special supply of the vaccine for Mr. Francis Armstrong Slater, 13, March Road, Trindley Estate, Dudley, Northumberland, to be imported into the country to meet this special case;

asked the Minister of Health if he will make arrangements for the importation of the Russian vaccine for the treatment of multiple sclerosis; and if he will take immediate action to allow a special supply of this vaccine for Mrs. Elizabeth Kelly, of Cippenham, Slough, in view of the circumstances which the honourable Member for Eton and Slough has communicated to him.

As stated in my reply of 10th February to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) I am advised that the evidence at present available is not sufficient to enable an opinion to be given on the efficacy or safety of this vaccine in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In these circumstances, it would be quite wrong for sufferers to be encouraged to build their hopes on it, and no arrangement for its general importation could be justified. I am, however, prepared to advise the release by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of small quantities obtained for individual treatment on the advice of a patient's medical practitioner. I have written to the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) and Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) about the individual cases mentioned.

I am very thankful to the Minister for his reply and for the facilities he is prepared to give for individual cases. Is he aware that ten countries now have free importations of this vaccine? Would he consider favourably bulk purchase of this vaccine by any firm for the general use of the people here? Would he also consider the advisability of setting up clinics for this special disease under the National Health Service?

In regard to the importation of large-scale purchases, these would, of course, be commercial imports to which the provisions of the Therapeutic Substances Act would apply, and they would require a licence. No application for licence for commercial imports has been made. In regard to research, we are actively working on the problems of this very intractable disease.

Does the Minister's reply mean that, although the vaccine will come from a reputable scientific source in the Soviet Union, he is not prepared to accept some which could be examined by one of our publicly-financed research organisations?

Private importation of this vaccine in the circumstances that I have mentioned is not prohibited but, as I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), when I indicated the position in regard to commercial imports, and, as I repeat, no application for licence has been made.

Have experiments been made in my right hon. and learned Friend's Department about the effectiveness of this vaccine? There is a considerable feeling, of which I have no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, that we ought to examine the claims for this vaccine very carefully?

Oh, yes, my medical officers are naturally inquiring into this matter. My hon. Friend refers to the claims; and again, it is right not to get the matter out of proportion. I am advised that one of the originators of the vaccine claims that it helps no more than about one-third of the patients treated.

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the very helpful communication he has sent to me on this matter, may I ask him whether he will seek immediately to get the fullest information from Russia about the effectiveness of this vaccine, that he will have it immediately considered by the research officers of his Ministry, and will get information from New Zealand and other countries which are receiving this vaccine and from which, apparently, favourable reports come?

We will certainly get all the information we can and do all the research we can in this matter. I am already making inquiries of New Zealand of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the Minister of Health on what grounds he has decided that the drug about which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North has written to him does not come within the terms of Part II of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956.

I am advised that, on present information, it is not considered to be a substance which is capable of causing danger to the health of the community if used without proper safeguards.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware—I think he is—that I initiated these inquiries about twelve months ago on the advice of the doctor of one of my constituents who, because of the effects this drug had had on my constituent, considered it to be dangerous if sold on the open market?

I think the hon. Lady appreciates the difficulty that the Therapeutic Substances Act. 1956, controls only those drugs which can be a danger to the community and that drugs which may be dangerous to an individual do not come within the jurisdiction of the Act. Therefore, it would not be possible, I am advised, to deal with this matter under that Act.

asked the Minister of Health what recent advice he has received from the Medical Research Council on the dangerous consequences resulting from the use of X-rays.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware of the warning given by Dr. T. C. Carter, geneticist member of the M.R.C., at Harwell, about the dangers even from medical use of X-rays and the possibility of a further 12,000 cases, through the hereditary factor, resulting from such use? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that France has taken steps by law to prohibit the use of X-rays for shoe-fittings? Will he consider taking urgent advice in order to give guidance on this matter?

Following on the Medical Research Council Committee Report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations, published in June, 1956, a Committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Adrian to carry out the reviews recommended in the Report. I think I had better await the conclusions of Lord Adrian's Committee.

Is not the Minister wrong in saying that he has not been advised, because the Report to which he referred was made by a Committee of the Medical Research Council? Did it not give a warning in that report?

The Report of the Committee of the Medical Research Council suggested that a review of practice in the use of diagnostic X-rays would be timely, and also a review of radiotherapy for non-malignant conditions. It was to carry out those reviews that the Committee was set up under Lord Adrian.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the number of deaths from accidental poisoning by barbituric acid and its derivatives have shown a progressive increase from 40 in 1945 to 127 in 1950 and 223 in 1956, thus having quadrupled in twelve years; and, in view of the common use of these drugs on doctor's prescriptions as sedatives, what precautionary steps he proposes to take to arrest this increase.

Yes. In 1954 and 1956 the attention of doctors in the Health Service was drawn in prescribers' notes to this disquieting increase. I have asked the editorial committee of this publication to consider whether a further reminder of the facts would be helpful to doctors who, by prescribing with special prudence and advising patients on care in the use of these drugs (which are available on prescription only), can do most to help reduce the risks of accidental poisoning.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a large part of this increase in deaths is among children under five years of age? Is he aware that in certain hospitals there is a practice of not dispensing these tablets without giving some special warning as to the risk of children getting hold of them? Will he contemplate issuing a regulation of some kind to the effect that they should not be dispensed by chemists without a label giving such a warning affixed to them?

I am happy to say that the incidence of deaths among children is not so large as my hon. Friend appears to apprehend. Of the accidental deaths from barbiturates in 1956, only one was of a person under fifteen years of age.

asked the Minister of Health what official positions, paid or unpaid, are held by Lord Moran in connection with his Department.

He is Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards.

I hope I. may be allowed to say that I am sure we all wish Lord Moran every success in the treatment of his eminent patient. May I ask the Minister if he is taking any notice at all of the derogatory remarks Lord Moran made about general practitioners when giving evidence to the Royal Commission?

On the first part of the supplementary question, we are all grateful to the hon. Lady for her graceful reference to Lord Moran's present preoccupations. In regard to his remarks about the relative calibre of general practitioners and consultants, those were made in the course of his oral evidence to the Royal Commission as an impromptu expression of opinion. I do not think it would be for me to enter into those matters.

In view of the fact that he was called to the help of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in the capacity of a general practitioner, may we come to the conclusion that he has relented?

asked the Minister of Health the number of patients since 1st January, 1956, who have been required to undergo in the D.1, refractory block daily duties of scrubbing stone floors for four hours, five to seven hours, and seven to eight-and-a-half hours, respectively, at the Rampton Mental Hospital.

Between 1st January, 1956, and 31st December. 1957, 310 patients have been in Ward D.1 for various periods and, so far as they were capable, were engaged in the normal daily cleaning operations of the ward, including scrubbing. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 9th December, the maximum time a patient may be employed is the normal working period of about six hours, of which about four hours might be in actual scrubbing.

Does not the Minister know that for the first fourteen days of a period they are required to scrub for eight hours? Will he not hold an investigation into this matter to prove whether I am right or whether he is right? Does not he appreciate that these people—many of whom have never offended against the law—are deprived of their liberty because they are mentally retarded? Is it not inhuman that they should scrub stone floors for eight hours a day, or even four hours? Is not it harmful to them to have to do this day after day and often for weeks and months on end?

Ward D.1 is the male refractory ward for those who come within the Rampton definition of having the propensities of which the hon. Member is aware. My information as to the hours of work is that which is furnished to me by the responsible and conscientious public officers who are doing their duty in this regard, and I must ask the hon. Member to accept it.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, quite apart from the activities of my hon. Friend, there is what I might describe as an accumulation of concern and very great anxiety about Rampton? Is it not time that a rather careful investigation was made?

I am in very close touch with what happens in Rampton, as is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and we are certainly prepared to look into any substantiated or apprehended complaints; but I would ask the hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members to bear in mind the difficult task being pursued there and the disturbing effect that it has, both upon patients and staff, to raise points constantly in a way which may turn out to be exaggerated.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the concern arising from the fact that on 1st December, 1957, there were 4,455 mental defectives detained in mental deficiency hospitals who were certified as mental defectives on the ground of being found neglected, when they were at the time and had been for some time previously in the care of homes of local authorities or an approved charitable organisation; and how many have been certified in this way during the years 1956 and 1957, respectively.

All these cases have been reviewed. The answer to the second part of the Question is: None, since 9th March, 1956, the date of the High Court judgment in Regina v. Board of Control ex parte Rutty.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember—it is in HANSARD—that he himself gave the information that 4,555 mental defectives were certified as being found neglected when they were already in an approved home or a local authority home? Is it not a fact that when these people get too old to remain in those homes we have been using the expedient of certifying them and sending them to mental institutions, because we have not provided more suitable places? The Minister gave the information.

I am not in any way resiling from the figure I gave to the House. Owing to discharges, it has now gone down to 4,403. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Board of Control was following what had been the accepted practice until the judgment in the Rutty case. Its difficulty now is that people cannot be discharged until there is somewhere appropriate for them to be discharged to. The hon. Gentleman, who is well familiar with the Rutty judgment, may gain some further guidance if he will study the words of Lord Justice Jenkins in the Farrow case.

Does not this information reinforce our demand that the Government should make up their mind about further financial assistance to enable local authorities to provide more accommodation in cases such as these?

It is a relevant factor in the determination of what should be done in the way of local authority accommodation, though there are other factors which also have to be taken into account, as the hon. Gentleman will know.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that the greatest problem of our mental hospitals today is the improper admission of patients and that, though the forms of admission are in all cases legally correct, the medical reasons for compulsory hospital admission are either insufficient or unsuitable; and if he will take action forthwith to amend admission procedures;

I do not accept that patients are being admitted to mental hospitals without proper medical reasons, but I am considering the Royal Commission's recommendations for new procedures, which would require legislation.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that these complaints which I have received come from quite authoritative sources, medical superintendents as well as patients, and will he consider the question of admission procedure as something which is the essence of the solution of many of his problems in regard to mental hospitals? Particularly will he consider the admission form? Does he not appreciate that an unsatisfactory and sketchy form automatically leads to unsatisfactory and sketchy particulars being put upon it? Will he pay attention to that and, if there is any delay regarding legislation, will he alter the form by regulation?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his helpful interest in this matter. It would not be possible to introduce changes recommended by the Royal Commission without altering the Acts, which, of course, would require legislation. The Government have already stated that they accept the need for legislation to replace the present Acts broadly on the basis suggested by the Royal Commission.

While waiting to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission, would not the Minister consider the possibility of proceeding in the first instance under the provisions of Section 20 of the appropriate Act instead of Section 16? Is he aware that that could be done without any new legislation and that the use of Section 20, which puts a patient during the first three days into the hands of fully qualified psychiatrists in the observation unit, would in many cases meet criticisms about admissions at present made under Section 16?

I am obliged to the hon. Lady, who I know speaks from a background of great knowledge of these matters from her membership of the Royal Commission. I will examine carefully the suggestion she has been good enough to make.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider establishing an intermediate stage. Such as hostels, for Broadmoor patients between Broadmoor and release on licence.

This has been considered from time to time, but so far the provision of a special hostel has not been found practicable.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not appreciate the difficulty patients have of establishing themselves and re-accommodating themselves to normal life when released? Is it not the case that where a satisfactory guarantor is not available the tendency is to keep these people on as patients in Broadmoor?

I have no information that the last point raised by my hon. Friend is so. The patients come to Broadmoor from all over the country, and the normal practice is for them to return to their local areas, where, of course, the mental after-care service provided by the local authorities is available to them.

asked the Minister of Health what precautions are in operation in tuberculosis hospitals or wards to prevent cracked or crazed pottery from being used.

All hospital authorities have been advised that badly chipped crockery should not be used, and that all crockery used by tuberculous patients should be washed and heat treated. It is for each authority to ensure that proper precautions are observed.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether the Department could send out a further warning? I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman know the name of a hospital where there is a tremendous amount of cracked and crazed pottery in use.

The last circular in regard to this matter went out in June, 1953. It may be, as the hon. Lady says, that the time has come for a reminder.

asked the Minister of Health whether, with the object of reducing fuel costs, he will encourage the provision of double glazing in all windows or parts of windows that do not open in all newly-constructed hospitals or extensions of existing hospitals.

I am always ready to consider proposals of this kind in suitable cases.

Does the Minister know that Great Britain is the only country in the world which, apparently, does not realise the great loss of heat resulting from single-glazed windows? While double glazing may be somewhat complicated, it is a very easy matter to put double glass in those parts of windows which remain closed? Can the Minister not recommend regional hospital boards to use double glazing when building and extending hospitals?

As the hon. Member will know, this matter is largely governed by the design of the building. Where it can be shown that the savings in fuel costs are commensurate with the capital cost, I certainly encourage the use of double glazing.

asked the Minister of Health what conclusion was reached at the recent meeting of the Joint Consultants Committee as to the future of senior registrars who have completed four years in the grade.

The meeting was postponed at the Committee's request. It is now to take place on 27th February.

Can the Minister give any hope that finality is to be reached in this matter, which has been dragging on now for several years? Does he not realise that he has an obligation to these men and that uncertainty as to their future is causing them really acute distress and anxiety?

I fully appreciate the importance of this problem to the senior registrars involved. The 27th February is only Thursday next. I think we had better wait and see what comes from the Committee.

Could the Minister give consideration again to whether this Committee is, in fact, fully representative, because there is a strong feeling in the profession that it is not?

I took note, of course, of what the hon. Member said on a previous occasion in regard to that. My understanding is that this Committee is an appropriate body to deal with this difficult and somewhat intractable problem.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has now instructed his representatives on the Whitley Council which is considering the radiographers' salary claim; and when he expects to announce a decision.

Yes, Sir. I have informed both sides of the Whitley Council that, in present economic circumstances, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I could not agree to a pay award being made in response to this claim.

Is this not a further outrageous interference with the working of Whitley Council machinery? How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect the staff of the National Health Service to have any further faith in that machinery? Will he take the opportunity of apologising for having misled the House on a previous occasion, when he put the whole responsibility for delay on to the management side, whereas it was entirely his own fault?

The hon. Member is quite wrong in the second part of his supplementary question. The management side includes the representatives of the Secretary of State and myself; they are an integral part of the management side. Certainly there was no question of misleading the House, and no apology is called for. Regarding the main part of the supplementary question, on a previous occasion criticism was made that the Secretary of State and I did not give sufficient indication of the way in which our minds were working in regard to the exercise of our statutory duty. In this case, we have given notice so that both sides of the Whitley Council are aware of the position.

In view of the fact that there is a grave shortage of radiographers throughout the country and that radiography is a hazardous occupation, does not the Minister think it grossly unjust not to accept this award?

I am aware that there is a shortage of radiographers, but the right hon. Lady will also be aware that their present pay and emoluments are governed by an award of the Industrial Court made as recently as November, 1956. There are, in fact, more radiographers than there were at the time of the award, although the number of posts has expanded to a slightly greater extent. This is a very recent award of the Industrial Court, which has to be borne in mind in the context of the present economic situation.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in fact saying that now every Whitley Council has got to reach disagreement before there can be even the possibility of a pay increase? Is that what this decision means?

No, Sir. I am saying now what I have already said in this House—that these questions have got to be looked at on their merits in the context of the general economic position of the country.