asked the Minister of Health why Miss Betty Huffer was compulsorily detained at the Littlemore Mental Hospital for 21 years; for how many of those years she was detained solely on account of her mental condition; and, since she has become decertified as the result of escaping from the hospital and remaining free for the statutory period of 14 days, what action is contemplated to check up on her sanity.

Because she required care and treatment on account of her mental condition. No question appears to arise at present of any fresh examination of that condition.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the medical superintendent has said that this lady could have been out a good many years earlier if there were some other place to which she could have gone? Is it not remarkable that she should have been out for fourteen days and that because she was out for that period after nearly a quarter of a century she is now deemed not to need any care? Is that not a coincidence?

The hon. Gentleman, who pays a lot of attention to these matters, I am sure will be aware that the fourteen-day provision is contained in Section 85 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. He will also know that we have substituted a new Mental Health Act for all these provisions. This lady could have had her discharge earlier under the provisions of Section 72 had the appropriate application been made, but it was not.

Is it not a fact that many people have no other place to go to unless the authorities find a place for them? Why should the taxpayer have to bear the cost of £8 or £9 a week to keep such people in when they could be out, as this good lady is out, working in the outside world?

If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make the point that it would be a good thing to expand the provision of homes and hostels by local authorities, I made it clear in my answer to him on 1st February that I am much in favour of this development but, as I have said, it will take some little time.

asked the Minister of Health how many patients compulsorily detained at the Littlemore Mental Hospital, could now be released on licence or discharged if places in suitable homes or hostels were available for them.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that a second patient escaped on the same day and that this second patient is also deemed not now to require care? Is it not remarkable that two people should have escaped and that these two should be fit for the outside world, while all those who remain still need care and attention?

No. The hon. Gentleman's Question relates to those patients who are "compulsorily detained". There are, in fact, only nine such patients at the Littlemore Mental Hospital, and my answer refers to them.

Is it not a fact that many others who are not compulsorily detained are inside the walls of mental hospitals because there are no places for them outside?

Some patients at the Littlemore Mental Hospital who are not compulsorily detained could probably go to other accommodation if it were available. I have recently agreed to the acquisition of a house in Oxford to be used as an annexe to this hospital for this purpose, and it may be that we shall be able to do more in that direction.

asked the Minister of Health if the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has drawn his attention to the shortage of radiographers in the region; and whether he will take steps to secure more radiographers.

Although the board has not made specific representations to my right hon. and learned Friend, both the board and he are well aware of the shortage. The numbers of trained and student radiographers have improved during the last two years, and further improvement is expected to follow the increases in salaries and training grants made in the course of last year.

asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to ensure that existing geriatric single-sex hospitals are provided with accommodation for married couples.

My information is that it is uncommon for a husband and wife to need treatment in a geriatric hospital at the same time; but if my hon. Friend can give me details of any case of hardship due to prolonged separation in different hospitals, I will certainly look into the matter.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that it often happens that when a wife who has been nursing her husband herself comes in need of treatment the two are sent to hospitals many miles apart? Will she not agree that at this day, when by custom women have the right to choose their partners, she should initiate steps to enable married couples to stay together in the evening of their lives?

I entirely agree. In the case of those needing active geriatric treatment, the average stay in hospital is only 40 days. I think my hon. Friend must also be thinking of the chronic sick cases where, if it is possible for them to be in the same hospital, that is arranged by the hospital authorities. However, I did offer to look at any particular case, and I will gladly do so.

asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will summarise the replies he has received from regional hospital boards in answer to his request of February, 1959, that they should give him the factual information on which he could base a decision whether to institute an inquiry into the operation of the domiciliary consultative service; and how this information compares with the evidence from hospital authorities reported by the Select Committee on Estimates of 1956–57.

The replies from boards revealed little information indicating abuse of the service, and in such rare or doubtful cases as transpired action was taken with a view to putting it right. The replies also revealed the difficulty of obtaining factual information of any abuse in present circumstances. As this aspect of the consultant services among others was before the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, I decided to await their Report before proceedings; and now that the Report has been received, I shall consider what action is appropriate in this as in other respects.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Select Committee on Estimates found considerable evidence of abuse of the service? Is he also aware that his Department agreed to an inquiry in March, 1958, but sought the facts from the very people who had criticised the service, and that not until the matter was reopened by the Select Committee did he agree to find out the facts from regional boards? The Select Committee then recommended another inquiry. Does the evidence which my right hon. and learned Friend has received contradict the evidence given to the Select Committee on Estimates? Why is there this continual delay in answering what really was rather a serious charge on the part of the Select Committee?

We got the replies of the regional hospital boards and collated them in June of last year. The reports, in their effect, are summarised in what I have said in answer to the Question. That is, they revealed little information to show any of the abuses in the service which had been suggested to the Select Committee. The individual cases which appeared have been followed up. I will certainly consider whether it is possible to get any further and fuller information than we have already got from the regional boards, but that is how the matter stands at present.

As the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates cannot be reconciled with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the remuneration of doctors, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House—hon. Members would be very interested to know—to which group he attaches most importance?

The choice of Paris pales in comparison with the difficulty of the choice which the right hon. Lady puts to me. I view with very great respect both the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the observations of the Select Committee on Estimates. I do not think there is any necessarily inherent contradiction. The Royal Commission made no recommendation as to the specific control of the service but said that no change should be made in the circumstances in which payments should be made.

asked the Minister of Health when a lift is to be installed in Meneage Hospital in west Cornwall.

I am informed that the South Western Regional Hospital Board recognises the need for a lift at this hospital but cannot yet say when it will be able to include its provision in their capital programme.

Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that this is a long-stay hospital for the elderly chronic sick which serves most of west Cornwall, that it was formerly a workhouse and that many times nurses and sisters have to help patients up and down stairs? Is it not time the regional board was asked to have the lift installed quickly? Will the hon. Lady look into the matter?

The board has a number of such hospitals in its area. I know that it has this matter very much in mind because my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), in whose constituency the hospital lies, is repeatedly pressing the matter upon the board.

asked the Minister of Health how many posts for architects and for engineers, respectively, remain unfilled by regional hospital boards.

These establishments are not subject to specific control by my Department and, consequently, there is no routine collection of current figures. A special inquiry in 1958 showed that on 1st April, 1958, there were 16 vacancies for architects against a total establishment of 152 and 42 vacancies for engineers against a total establishment of 128. I regret that no more recent figures are available.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there has been a very great deterioration in the circumstances since then and that the increased programme of building requires many more architects and engineers? What does he propose to do to provide recruitment not only for the future but to make up the present existing deficiencies?

It may be that the figures have already deteriorated since 1958, the latest year for which I have them available. I attach importance to this question in the context of the increased hospital building programme. The precise rates of remuneration will be determined by arbitration, but, of course, the management side offered a substantial increase.

asked the Minister of Health how many members of the staff of mental hospitals are living in permanent quarters in the side wards, or such similar unsatisfactory accommodation, of mental hospitals.

I regret that this information is not available.

Does not the hon. Lady think it is about time that this information was available? This is the second Question I have put and had the same answer—that the information is not available. This matter very much concerns a number of humble employees of the hospital service. Will the hon. Lady see that the information becomes available and that steps are taken?

No central records are kept, but as I said in reply to the hon. Member's other Question, if he has a specific case in mind I will be most grateful if he will give me the details, in which case I will look into it.

Is this not the kind of information that the superintendent of a mental hospital would include in his periodic report?

I would expect the information to be available to the superintendent, but it is not co-ordinated centrally throughout the country.

asked the Minister of Health if he will give the latest available figures for the recruitment of hospital nursing and midwifery staff.

I am glad to state that there were significant increases in the total numbers of all categories of hospital nursing and midwifery staff in England and Wales in the twelve months ended 30th September, 1959. The whole-time staff increased by 8,010, or five per cent., and the part-time staff by 611, of 1½ per cent.

Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that that encouraging trend is reflected in the midwifery service, about which there has been some concern of late?

Yes, I am happy to say that there has been some progress in the recruitment of midwives. The number of full-time midwives increased by 200, or 3·7 per cent.; the number of part-time midwives increased by 51, or 3·6 per cent.; perhaps even more encouraging, the number of pupil midwives increased by 529, or 13·6 per cent.

asked the Minister of Health what reply he has sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's comments, on pages vi and vii of his report on the Civil Appropriation Accounts, 1958–59, Classes I-V, on the abortive expenditure of £41,109 upon the reconstruction of the operating department of a teaching hospital, which had to be abandoned; and on what assurances the scheme was approved.

I think that perhaps it would be in accordance with the wishes of this House that comment on this Report should await the normal process of investigation by Parliament through the Committee of Public Accounts of matters brought to their notice by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when the reply is expected? This is quite an extraordinary case. It has been reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It was a development originally scheduled to cost £50,000. Then it went up to £200,000. It was then found that the building was not strong enough to support the existing stories, let alone an additional storey, and £40,000 of public money was wasted. Is it unreasonable to ask when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to send in his reply?

This is following the ordinary course of matters reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, The Public Accounts Committee will consider the matter and examine officers of my Ministry about this report. When the Committee has completed its investigation, it reports to the House. That is the normal traditional procedure, and I would be reluctant by any Answer of mine to trespass on that procedure.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend hold the view that a Minister is inhibited from answering strictures or comment by the Comptroller and Auditor-General until the Public Accounts Committee has made its own inquiry? It does not necessarily follow that the Committee will inquire into this particular point—it may not have time. In any case, the report has already been made to this House.

This is a nice point of Parliamentary constitutional procedure which, perhaps, would be more appropriately addressed to you, Mr. Speaker. There is, so far as I am aware, no legal inhibition against a Minister answering a Question while a matter which is the subject of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is awaiting examination in the Committee. Therefore, the hon. Mem- ber for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) was perfectly correct in putting this Question down, but I think the ordinary procedure is that I await the conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee's proceedings before ventilating the matter here.

On a point of order. My right hon. and learned Friend did bring your name into this, Mr. Speaker. Have you any comments?

I do not want to rule on it now without having looked into it. I think that the House would like to get on.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, in view of the increasing number of habit-forming drugs now advertised and on sale to the public without prescription, he will make it obligatory on manufacturers of such products to print a full declaration of their contents, in terms comprehensible to the layman, not only on the container as at present, but also on the wrapper or box and on all advertisements and literature relating to such products;

These suggestions would require new legislation and I will arrange for them to be examined in the review of legislation relating to the control of medicinal substances, which, as I explained in my reply to the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) on 7th December, is now being undertaken.

While thanking the Minister warmly for that reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that there is something quite illogical about the present legislation which obliges manufacturers to put in very small print on the actual container a description of the contents while saying nothing about it on what the consumer normally sees when he buys the product, namely, the outside wrapper? Will he use what influence he can to bring some logic into this legislation, and extend it?

These products are governed by Section 11 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1941, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, deals really with the containers and the labels. On the wider point of advertisements, the Working Party will have these points in mind in the review which it is making.

While this proposal would be very useful to the initiated, will not the Minister agree that it would still be possible for unscrupulous drug houses to play a confidence trick on the public unless all these drugs had a satisfactory clinical trial?

The hon. Member's Question uses the phrase "in terms comprehensible to the layman" and I am not sure that it will not be beyond ingenuity to describe all these things in such language. Laymen in doubt should consult a doctor or a pharmacist. I referred to the question of clinical trials in an answer that I gave last Monday when I said that I was considering this matter and would make a statement in due course.

asked the Minister of Health whether, when giving his approval to schemes submitted to him under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, by local authorities for chiropody services in their areas, he will make it a condition of his approval that existing chiropodists' private surgeries shall not be excluded from such schemes.

While the use of chiropodists' own premises was included in the guidance which has been issued to local health authorities, I do not feel that I would be justified in making it a condition of my approval of their arrangements for a service the cost of which falls on them.

Will any compensation be given to chiropodists who have been forced to close their private consulting rooms as a result of this free exclusive competition? Also, once the services are clinic-based, in what way will the arrangement for a free choice of chiropodist be allowed to patients?

Most schemes by local authorities allow for the use of chiropodists' surgeries, although some authorities propose to provide the service exclusively from their own clinical premises or by domiciliary visits. Provided the service is satisfactory, I think I must leave the matter to the discretion of local authorities. I know of no cases of people going out of practice. There is a great deal of chiropody work to be done, and our difficulty so far has been the shortage of people to do it.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend forgotten the letter which I sent him saying that a constituent of mine had gone out of practice and asking whether he would get compensation? My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to me saying that no compensation could be given but gave no reasons for this.

There is no money out of which compensation can be given in such cases. It is possible for chiropodists in private practice to work on a part-time or sessional basis at a local health authority clinic. In other words, even if they cannot carry out the local authority service from their own premises, it does not necessarily debar them from participation.

asked the Minister of Health if he will establish a convalescent information bureau to advise on the placing of patients needing convalescent treatment.

The proposal to establish a bureau of this kind for the London hospital regions is shortly to be discussed with the regional boards concerned.

In thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, I should like to express the hope that the discussion will be fruitful. Is she aware that, while giant strides have been made in diagnosis, prognosis, prevention and treatment, the convalescent service has been more or less at a standstill for the last fifty years? Will the Minister at least make a start on this problem by co-ordinating the demand with the resources of supply?

The establishment of a convalescent information bureau for the Metropolitan region was recommended by the working party on convalescent treatment with the idea of giving hospital almoners information on the beds available. The hon. Member will be glad to learn that the meeting which I mentioned is to take place on 17th March.

asked the Minister of Health how many cases have been notified to the Medical Council in Newcastle-on-Tyne during the last three years, in which patients or their relatives have complained to the council about the negligence of their local doctor; and how many of these complaints have been upheld as justifiable.

The Executive Councils for Northumberland and for Newcastle-upon-Tyne have in the last three years considered under Service Committee procedure a total of 12 cases arising from complaints by or on behalf of patients against doctors. Of the nine where the procedure has been completed, the doctor was found to have failed to comply with his terms of service in one case.

Does not that show what a wonderful set of people we have working in the medical profession? At the same time, the impression one gets from people who make complaints is that they do not get a fair hearing on the spot. Could the hon. Lady say how many doctors and how many laymen are on the council? Can a patient's representative cross-question any of the doctors hearing a case?

I am not able to give the details of the procedure, but I am able to tell the hon. Gentleman that a person who makes complaint has the right of appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend. Two such cases are now pending in the area in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the present system of payment to doctors in connection with poliomyelitis vaccination; if he is aware of the position which has arisen where inoculations actually given by local health authority doctors attract payment to a factory doctor who is already paid for his services by the firm employing him; if he has examined the case submitted to him by the hon. Member for Willesden, West; and if he will make a statement.

Such payments are, in general, governed by agreements between the representatives of the local health authorities and the medical profession. Arrangements for the participation of factory doctors, who have made a valuable contribution to the poliomyelitis vaccination programme, vary according to individual circumstances, and we have not yet completed inquiries into the case submitted by the hon. Member. I will write to him about it as soon as possible.

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his promise in this case, may I ask him whether he would agree that it is about time we got rid of this absurd fiction that a doctor is not paid for medical work but for filling in a card? If a clerk fills in the card in the cases which I have submitted to the Minister, should not the clerk be paid for filling it in, since the doctor only signs it? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take advantage of the negotiations which will inevitably arise from the Royal Commission's Report to do away with all these anomalies in relation to poliomyelitis vaccination, both by factory doctors and general practitioners?

The hon. Member has raised some wide points, but I will certainly look at them. It is the medical practitioner who gets the 5s. If I were a medical practitioner, I would think it more important that I should get the money than under what precise head it was alleged to be due.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that it is fair to practitioners to give 5s. for the first two innoculations and another 5s. for the third?

I think that the rate for the job is fair. We can look at that matter, but the main part of the vaccination programme has been carried out with great good will on every side.

asked the Minister of Health, in view of the statement contained in his Department's official circular entitled the New National Health Service, published in February, 1948, that everyone could use any part of the National Health Service, why drugs are not available to all patients, whether treated privately or under the National Health Service.

The provision of drugs cannot properly be regarded as a separate part of the National Health Service. It is an ancillary part of the general medical service and this is recognised in Section 38 of the National Health Service Act, 1946.

While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that his Department is bound by the pamphlet which it issued stating that patients could use all or any part of the Service? Secondly, since the Service is already mixed with amenity beds where a hospital provides the right of direct access and private patients can have X-rays, is there any justification for withholding this service from the public?

If the White Paper and the circular are read as a whole, they will be seen to make the same point as is provided in Section 38 of the National Health Service Act, which is the legislative authority on this matter at presented. Briefly, subsection (1) of that Section imposes a duty on executive councils to make arrangements for the supply of drugs and medicines to people who are receiving general medical services—that is to say, those within the National Health Service—as I think my hon. Friend will see clearly if he will refresh his memory with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 38. Therefore, any change would require fresh legislation.

Does the Minister appreciate that his Answer was precisely the same as an Answer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to a similar Question many years ago? In view of that, will he do what he can to stop these wild charges of breach of faith on the part of my right hon. Friend in the interests of this campaign for free drugs for private patients?

It is always possible, as I know very well from professional experience, for people to take different views about the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, but I should have thought that Section 38 in this context was as clear as these things can reasonably be expected to be.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this pamphlet, which was issued in between the Act being made law and its coming into effect, directly contradicts the Act?

No. I would not have thought so. If the pamphlet to which my hon. Friend referred is the circular, the circular was a popular document containing a paraphrase of the statutory provisions and, therefore, would not be set out with the same nicety of language as we expect in an Act of Parliament. However, I do not think that there is any contradiction beween the two.

asked the Minister of Health whether the Inter-Departmental Working Party on legislation about medicines will receive evidence from the Medical Panel of the Advertising Inquiry Committee.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 22nd February to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker).

Unfortunately, I do not know what that reply was. In view of the fact that the Medical Panel has already received very disquieting information from quite a number of reputable bodies associated with this inquiry, will the Minister reconsider his decision if it was unfavourable from the point of view I am putting?

The hon. Member is putting a pessimistic hypothesis. I did say that the Committee concerned had received an invitation to submit a memorandum.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will revise regulations governing the declaration of contents of proprietary medicines to bring within them products on direct sale to the public containing dangerous substances.

Section 11 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1941, already prohibits the sale by retail of any article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine unless the composition is disclosed.

Is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that there are still a number of remedies, many of which are available in connection with slimming, and some forms of tranquilisers, whose names I do not want to mention and so advertise now, which are considered by many people to be rather dangerous? Will he have another look at this?

My understanding is that at any rate the general run of tranquilisers and stimulants, in so far as they are recommended as medicines, do come within the ambit of Section 11 of this Act.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider his decision that, as from 1st April, 1960, those who voluntarily leave the staff of the National Health Service will receive no interest on the superannuation payments they have made.

asked the Minister of Health to what extent he now proposes that interest will no longer be paid on returned superannuation contributions of officers leaving the National Health Service.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the discontent of large numbers of the National Health Service staff, who were compelled to join the Superannuation Scheme at 18 years of age or over on a contributory basis and were informed that if they left voluntarily they would have their contributions returned plus interest, on being informed that a regulation is to be made, with effect from 1st April, 1960, to abolish the payment of interest; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Health if he will now reconsider his proposal to amend the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations in such a way that officers who leave the service voluntarily will no longer receive accrued interest on their returned contributions.

asked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to amend the draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960, in order to make provision for the payment of interest on all contributions made before 31st March, 1960, by persons who voluntarily withdraw from the service at any future date.

I am at present considering further representations I have received from the interests concerned.

I am glad to hear what the Minister has said, but is he aware that while this change may be justifiable from the point of view of new entrants coming into the staff of the National Health Service, if he insists on making a change for the older ones he will he breaking faith with the members of his staff?

I will certainly hear what the hon. Member has said in mind, but we have on the other hand to consider the general context of this, which is that nearly £80 million of the actuarial deficit is being found by the taxpayer, and this proposal is the only contribution which the employee is being asked to make and amounts to a little under £1 million.

Why is the Minister selecting this particular group of staff of the National Health Service for worsened conditions? Is he altering the conditions of any other section of the staff of the Service? One would have expected better conditions, particularly as that is being considered for the highest paid section within the National Health Service, that is, the doctors. Why is the Minister in these circumstances reducing or trying to reduce the conditions of this section?

This arises out of the actuarial deficit which the Government Actuary found to exist at 31st March, 1955, in the National Health Service superannuation scheme for England and Wales. Over £70 million has been found for this purpose, which is a generous thing on the part of the taxpayer towards the employees. If this proposal is proceeded with at the end of the consideration, it will, of course, only bring this scheme into line with the normal local government scheme arrangements.

At the same time, will it not bring it out of line with the pension provisions in the nationalised industries, and since this is going to produce only about £1 million, spread, I gather, over about 20 years, is it worth the Minister's losing the good will of the Health Service employees for such a small sum?

What the hon. Member has suggested is a point I should like to check before committing myself to an answer, though it may well be the case that the nationalised industries operate in the way that he suggests. On the second part of his supplementary question, I appreciate the force of his argument about the smallness of the sum, but he in turn will, I am sure, recognise that if it had been a large sum then the argument could have been put the other way, that owing to the largeness of the sum it was of an oppressive nature and for that reason ought to be reconsidered.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that, in view of the fact that all these staff on engagement are issued with an abstract of the National Health Service Regulations which tells them quite clearly that if they retire before the 10 years are up they will receive interest on their returned contributions, this would be, if not legally, at least morally a breach of contract?

That is the point I am studying now, which is the strongest point which can be made for the hon. Member's side of the case.

asked the Minister of Health what further action he will take to publicise the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Publicity on this matter is a continuing responsibility for local health authorities as part of their arrangements for health education.

Is the Minister aware that, following the rather feeble and ineffectual lead of the Government in this matter, the campaign of the local health authorities is in many cases either feeble or non-existent? Will he not try to get a little bit of conscience money out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Tobacco Duty to help to counteract the very expensive propaganda of the tobacco companies, which has resulted in an increase in cigarette smoking, despite all the medical evidence showing its disadvantages?

No, I cannot accept the strictures of the hon. Gentleman. The object of this publicity is to make people aware that smokers of cigarettes are more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers. I am satisfied that most people in this country—indeed, nearly all the people in this country—understand that point.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to ban the use of hypnotism except by qualified medical practitioners.

I do not consider that such legislation is necessary.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the growing exploitation by all kinds of quacks of hypnotic methods, which cannot possibly be in the public interest? Have not things come to a pretty pass if school children are being hypnotised for market research purposes to find out what kind of toys they want for Christmas? Has not the time come for the Minister to take this matter rather more seriously than he has done hitherto?

I do not know that I can share the hon. Gentleman's expert knowledge on quack methods, but I will certainly seek to emulate the appropriate seriousness which he brings to this important subject.

asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange with the authorities of the House to display in the House of Commons the present complete range of 41 National Health Service spectacle frames, with their alternative trade colours, and prices, in three display cases, for children and normal and abnormal adults.

My right hon. and learned Friend is arranging for display of the range of spectacles in the Upper Waiting Hall for a week from Monday, 7th March.

Might I say "thank you" for that and then ask whether the Minister will also arrange to show the proposed new range in colours of National Health Service frames in this House before he makes his decision, so that hon. Members will see what their constituents will have to pay for under the National Health Service scheme?

I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman in last Monday's debate that we were reviewing the frames, but that review can take place only as a result of the examination of prescriptions in November and we should not be in a position by next Monday to put Vie new frames on show. I have, however, also asked that the prices should be attached to the frames. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be pleasantly surprised at the variety and colour shown.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider taking steps to encourage welfare services committees, women's voluntary services, and citizen's advice bureaux to inform 250,000 people with Woolworth spectacles that they can obtain National Health Service spectacles for £1 10s. 3d.

My right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind this suggestion in considering the supply of information to members of the public.

Is there not something wrong with the Ministry of Health publicity when after 12 years of the National Health Service scheme hundreds of thousands of people still do not know that they can get a free sight test, lenses at 10s. each and a perfectly good frame for 30s.—the best spectacle proposition in the world? Will the Minister arrange for further information to be promulgated so that these people may take advantage of the National Health Service scheme?

I do not accept the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question. I am sure that the average person knows that he can have a sight test and glasses under the National Health Service. What he may not know is the full details of the range available, and I would not expect him to until he was in need of glasses. However, I promised in last Monday's debate that my right hon. and learned Friend would consider the information available, and I repeat that promise.

Will the hon. Lady consider making it obligatory for all opticians to have on show the full range of National Health Service spectacles?

My right hon. and learned Friend is considering whether we should request opticians to display the range of frames, but whether that would go so far as to be obligatory is another question.

Why?

asked the Minister of Health to what extent he has studied recent methods of improving eyesight without the use of spectacles.

If the hon. Member has in mind systems of exercises to strengthen the eye muscles. I am advised that, while these have proved of benefit in cases where the muscles are weak, as in squint, there is no reliable evidence that defects of vision such as myopia or astigmatism can be beneficially treated by these means.

Has the hon. Lady noticed the conduct of her right hon. and learned Friend during Questions? He has a pair of spectacles which he takes off and puts on, and the answers he gives are far better when he does not wear his spectacles. That also applies to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

The hon. Member does not credit those of us who are long-sighted with the facility to read without recourse to glasses. Seriously, however, there is no new evidence available, so far as I am aware. If the hon. Member is aware of any, I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would be ready to consider it.

asked the Minister of Health what arrangements are made for people living in rural areas and who use hearing aids to change worn-out batteries.

Batteries for valve aids may be exchanged by or on behalf of patients at selected hospitals and other centres of which there are over 650 in England and Wales.

Does the hon. Lady not agree that people living in rural areas—I have in mind, in particular, old-age pensioners who live sometimes as far as twenty miles from hospitals or centres where these batteries can be exchanged—are at a disadvantage, since they are expected to pay the postage when sending in their batteries for exchange? It is a hardship. Would the hon. Lady look into the possibility of refunding at least the postage involved when sending these batteries for exchange? It would not cost the country a lot of money.

There are seven centres available in the hon. Member's constituency. I will not take the time of the House by reading the list, but I will send it to him. Other means are available; for instance, patients themselves do not necessarily have to collect their batteries, for this can be done on their behalf by an individual, providing they take in the old battery. I am advised that this is also done by voluntary societies, who collect a number of batteries. There is, in fact, help for a number of people who live at a distance.

asked the Minister of Health if he will state the approximate number of patients who have had their eyes examined or re-examined in England and Wales under the Supplementary Ophthalmic Service of the National Health Service since its inception, and the number of complaints about the service received by his Department and the Ophthalmic Services Committee.

Up to 31st December, 1959, some 56 million sight tests had been given under the Supplementary Ophthalmic Sevices in England and Wales. Up to the same date, 439 cases had been investigated under the Service Committee procedure and the results reported to the Minister.

Does not my hon. Friend's answer show that on the whole the opticians and ophthalmologists who operate this service have done a very good job for the public and satisfied most of the patients?

I agree that complaints about this branch of the Service are fewer than about any other. At the same time, I must make the point that doctors, for example, have a 24-hour obligation to the Service.

In view of the allegations made in the House last week against certain members of this profession, will my hon. Friend conduct an inquiry into them and publish the results?

I will pass that question to my right hon. and learned Friend, but in the course of last Monday's debate, I was able to reply to some of the allegations and to show that there was not nearly so much substance in them as the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) suggested in the course of his speech.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied that a service can be judged by the number of poor and ignorant people, who do not know the authority to whom they can complain, who complain? If that was the criterion in any service, we would not move forward at all.

The test of a service is the number of people who use it, and the figures I have given show that it is very widely used, and used over and over again by people who go back for further tests. It would be wrong to be entirely satisfied with that in any service. One can always look for improvements and we are willing to do so.

asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, what information has been made public in this country with regard to radioactive particles of measurable size found in fall-out in Great Britain by scientists advising the Government; what official studies have been made of possible special biological effects in man of such concentrated radioactivity; and what are the radioactive elements present in these particles.

Information on radioactive particles in fall-out at that date was given in Appendix M of the Medical Research Council's "Report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations", 1956, which will be revised and brought up to date later this year. This Report states that the concentration of these particles in air in the United Kingdom is such that they are unlikely to constitute a problem in ordinary civilian life. As I informed the hon. Lady in my reply of 17th December, 1959, it is the total radioactivity from fall-out which is considered to be of main significance for human health, and research into the effect of such radioactivity on man is constantly in progress. Research on the possible biological effects in man of isolated large particles is not practicable.

But is the Minister aware that living tissue is better able to survive widespread damage from low-dose radiation than concentrated damage at a high rate and that Austrian figures less than a year ago showed Zirconium 95 and Niobium 95 activity in lungs more than 100 times the natural radium activity? Is it not important that Government scientists should study the biological effects of these particles and publish their results at a very early date, because the first the public in this country knew about the existence of these particles, apart from the appendix which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned, was from a manufacturer of photographic materials last year?

The hon. Lady will appreciate that these large particles of measurable size to which her Question refers are not, in fact, different in kind from other fall-out particles. The general subject, as she so well knows, is under constant research. The problem of the effect of these particles on the human lung is, in fact, being considered by a special panel of the Medical Research Council's committee on protection against ionising radiation.

asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, what increase in radioactivity in Great Britain has been recorded since the recent French atomic test explosion in the Sahara.

No fall-out attributable to the French test has been detected in the United Kingdom.

Can the Minister confirm that because of the wind direction the fall-out was mainly over East Africa, the Middle East and India? Can he give any information about this?

I have answered the hon. Gentleman's Question on the basis of our monitoring services in the United Kingdom. I will certainly ask my noble Friend to extend our inquiries further if the hon. Gentleman would like me to do so.

asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, what reports he has had made to him recently on progress in the understanding of chromosome behaviour in relation to human abnormalities; and if he will make a statement.

I am glad to be able to report that substantial progress has been, and is being, made in the understanding of chromosome behaviour in relation to human abnormalities. A number of reports on new knowledge in this field have been published in the scientific literature.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House will be very glad to hear of the success of this tremendously important research, particularly with its bearing on the great human tragedy which we call Mongolism? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that this is the first step on a road which will, we hope, some day lead to the prevention of Mongol births? Is he satisfied that this research can go on unhindered? If not, will he make further facilities available?

Yes. This relatively new technique is advancing the understanding of the causation of Mongolism and the next step is, we hope, its prevention. Research is going forward as actively as may be.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider keeping a comprehensive list of congenital abnormalities?

Anything which will facilitate research in this important subject will be considered by the Medical Research Council and by my right hon. and noble Friend who has direct responsibility for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy in connection with the Icelandic fishing dispute and the International Conference on the Law of the Seas.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government at the Conference is to secure a just and lasting settlement of the question of the breadth of the territorial sea and fishery limits. I hope that such a settlement will bring to an end the fisheries dispute with Iceland and that the generous gesture of good will made by the British fishing industry to suspend fishing in the eaters around Iceland during the period of the Conference will contribute to its success.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that rigid adherence to tradition will never help the British fishing industry, or resolve this dispute? Is he aware that Iceland is a friendly Power, is an ally in N.A.T.O. and has an economy almost wholly dependent on fishing, and that by this dispute Iceland is being driven economically and politically into the hands of the Eastern bloc? Will he keep that in mind and use some imagination and statesmanship at the conference discussions in March?

I accept some but not all of the hon. Member's implications. We have tried very hard to come to some kind of compromise agreement with the Iceland Government. We are still trying to do that, and we tried to have an interim agreement during the conference. We failed to do that and now the fishing industry has made a very generous unilateral gesture, and I repeat my hope that that may do something to create a proper atmosphere for a solution.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise even today that he has not put forward the British Government's policy in this matter and that that is the reason why this unfortunate dispute has dragged on from conference to conference, at which Britain has been inadequately represented? Will he consider even now putting forward a concrete policy which the Icelanders can understand and discuss?

I wish that the only thing needed to reach an agreement was for the British Government to put forward a policy. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This is a very difficult matter. The proper time for a policy to be put forward is during the Conference itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what applications he has received from the West German Government for permission to study the captured biographical studies of the Nazi period in the joint possession of the allied Powers; and what reply has been given to these applications.

None, Sir. I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to her on 10th February. The captured biographical records of the Nazi period are in the Berlin Documents Centre which is under the sole control of the United States authorities.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that last week in West Berlin there was an exhibition of documents which seemed to show that 43 leading judges and lawyers from West Germany had been serving with great brutality in Nazi courts, and that that exhibition was closed under pressure from the West German Government? Would not that Government be much better employed in trying to get at the truth so as to establish greater confidence in this country in its belief in democracy?

That supplementary question does not arise out of the Question which I was asked. I was asked about the obligations of Her Majesty's Government and I pointed out that these documents, in the Berlin Documents Centre, were under the sole control of the United States Government. I think that there is another Question about investigations about former Nazis. Investigations are taking place when there is any evidence. One thing which I find a little odd about this matter is that there are never any allegations about former Nazis in office in East Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the most recent representations he has made to the West German Government regarding the appointment to their former, or similar, positions, contrary to the Potsdam Agreement, of judges, prosecutors and other legal persons personally concerned in the infliction of inhumane sentences under the Nazi laws.

I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 27th January.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we had better begin by taking steps in areas for which we are responsible and in which we have an interest under the Potsdam Agreement? Is he not aware that the American Jewish Congress has written to me to complain, having been denied access to documents at the Berlin Centre to which I have referred? Is it not clear that, far from making representations to the West German Government to clear up this matter to let us have some confidence in its procedure, the allies are in fact conniving with the West German Government in a conspiracy of suppression of the facts? Is it not time that that was stopped?

The hon. Lady is talking complete nonsense. If we have a case where we get any evidence, we are only too willing to pass it on, but we are not responsible either for the Documents Centre or for investigating the matter.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that I have been periodically asking him Questions on this subject for nearly two years and that on every occasion he promises that he is making investigations and will make a statement to the House and that so far he has not made a statement of any kind to the House? Is he asking the House to believe that either he or our allies are seriously attempting to investigate what is a very serious problem? Have they no results to report? Have they not found a single case yet? Is he aware that the exhibition to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred was of 41 samples only out of an investigated total of more than 1,000? Is not anything to be done about that?

The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the Land Ministers of Justice of the Federal Republic made it clear that they were concerned to investigate these kinds of allegations, and, in certain cases, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there have been results.