asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the widespread system under which one leaseholder in a block is responsible for collecting ground rents from his neighbours; and whether he will introduce legislation to end this practice.

I have no evidence that such a practice is widespread. In any event there are already statutory provisions under which the person responsible for collecting the rents can free himself from this obligation. I do not think there is a case for further legislation.

Is the Attorney-General aware that this is certainly widespread in my constituency? While I am delighted to know that there are ways of people freeing themselves from this obligation, I shall be very interested if he will send me particulars.

I should be delighted to oblige the hon. Member. I shall certainly send him particulars and perhaps we can have a discussion on them.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows whose husbands were in receipt of benefit as persons suffering from pneumoconiosis were denied, during the last five years, either death benefit or an industrial widow's pension as the result of decisions of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board.

No widow is denied benefit as a result of decisions of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board. The right to widow's benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme is determined by statutory authorities. Whether a widow receives such benefit or not depends on whether the death of the insured person is found to have been caused or materially accelerated by an accident or disease covered under the Act.

Surely the Minister must know that when a man who has been suffering from pneumoconiosis dies a post mortem examination is carried out by the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board. Surely the Minister is also aware that it is on the result of the decision of that Board given to the statutory authorities that the widow gets or does not get money. Since that is the case, surely the Minister must be aware of the number of widows who are denied this benefit although their husbands suffered from pneumoconiosis.

Yes, but the opinion of the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board can be challenged under the appeal procedure. The difficulty in providing the hon. Lady with the information she wants is that the Question, if I may say so, contains a fallacy. The fallacy is that people who have an industrial disease necessarily die of it. That is not so.

The Question does not contain a fallacy. The Question asks very clearly how many widows have been denied benefit. If the Minister would give some study to these questions he would find that diseases which can be very closely related to pneumoconiosis are indeed found but that the widow is denied benefit. Will he ensure that much greater attention is given to these matters?

The difficulty is that the hon. Lady is assuming that, where benefit is refused, it is on the basis of the decision, as she called it, of the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board, but that is not so. The Board's opinion can be challenged on appeal, and it is the statutory authority which decides, not the Board.

Arising out of the Minister's reply to the original Question, will he give careful consideration to what is felt by many people, including myself, who have had years of experience of this matter? He used the term "materially accelerated". That has been given much more limited scope by the statutory authorities than it was given under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. This is felt to be so by many who have had years of experience in this field.

I shall be glad to look into the point further.

I beg to give notice that, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to these Questions, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware there are 71 school-leavers in Buckhaven looking for work, and that many of them have been unemployed for long periods; and what consideration he has given to making alterations in the National Assistance regulations to enable unemployed persons under 16 to secure National Assistance benefit with a view to removing hardship.

I am aware of the situation which the hon. Member describes, although I understand that the latest figure of unemployed school-leavers in Buckhaven is rather less than 71. The minimum age for making independent applications for National Assistance was fixed at 16 by Section 7(5) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and I have no proposals to amend it.

Is the Minister aware that the Buckhaven Town Council is thoroughly dissatisfied with the Government's refusal to help these young persons in distress at this particular time, and will he not reconsider his answer to meet the urgent need of young persons still seeking work?

Where there is definite evidence of need, assistance can be obtained in respect of the child, although it cannot be given to the child. Successive Governments have taken the view that National Assistance should not be paid to somebody under 16 as of right. I have seen the correspondence which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in how many cases in each of the last three years claims for disablement benefit have been rejected on appeal on the ground that the worker suffered disablement as a result of injury by process and not by accident or disease; and what is his estimate of the annual cost of extending the industrial injuries scheme to cover injury by process.

The independent statutory authorities are required to decide whether claimants have suffered personal injury by industrial accident or, alternatively, whether they are suffering from a prescribed disease. Any statement which may happen to be made during proceedings on an individual case to the effect that claimants have suffered injury by process is therefore not germane, and the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. For this and other reasons it is not practicable to make the estimate asked for in the second part, but, as the hon. Member knows, cost is not the fundamental reason for excluding injuries by process.

Surely this is a very important question, and an issue about which many trade unions are greatly dissatisfied. Will the Minister, therefore, cause inquiries to be made in order that we may know how many workers today are not receiving benefit for disablement because the statutory authorities have decided that the disablement has resulted from an industrial process and not from an accident? Would he establish how many workers are involved so that we may know the extent to which this deficiency in the industrial injuries scheme is causing hardship?

I am sorry if I appear to be precise in this matter, but one must be precise in the use of words. The statutory authorities do not decide that a worker has suffered injury as a result of process. They are not asked to decide that. They are asked to decide whether injury by accident has been suffered or a prescribed disease has been incurred, and not whether injury by process has resulted.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember the recent case of Mr. James Wilson, which I submitted to him, in which the Commissioner said that although the disablement was the result of his work he was disqualified from benefit because it was caused by industrial process and not industrial accident. How many such cases have there been in recent years, and what is the extent of the hardship which has been suffered by workers because of this judgment?

If the hon. Gentleman will study my reply, I think be will see the reason why it is not possible to give him the information he is asking for. I must emphasise that this was not a decision of the statutory authority; it was a remark made on the basis of what had been said in the course of the tribunal proceedings. In many cases where what is said is not germane on the matter it is not challenged because this is not the point which has to be decided. It is a different point, namely, whether the disability is caused by accident or by prescribed disease.

In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the estimated cost of continuing the widowed mother's allowance in respect of boys and girls awaiting university places.

No precise estimate can be made, but assuming that any concession could be restricted to widows and their children the eventual cost might go beyond £¼ million a year.

May I ask my right hon. Friend how long the Cabinet will take to decide on this matter? Can he also inform me whether the Cabinet is guided by National Productivity Year or whether it is immune from it?

As my hon. Friend knows very well, the Cabinet is very much interested in Productivity Year, but this is a matter which has many implications and which cannot be quite as easily decided as my hon. Friend seems to think.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will seek powers to enable him to make the discretionary payment of a widow's pension to a woman who has lived with an insured contributor without being married to him.

No, Sir. I do not think that such a provision could reasonably be added to the National Insurance Scheme.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that when he is making rules that cover the lives of so many millions of men and women there ought to be some elasticity about them? Does he not think that it is very hard indeed that when a woman has lived with a man perhaps for forty years she should find at the end of this time that she has no claim at all on his funds? While I recognise that hard cases make bad law, does he not think that there is room for a little more humanity in the administration of his Ministry?

My hon. Friend will realise that although a woman has been living with a man for forty years he may still have a legal wife for whom he is providing in his contributions and that when he dies it may be the legal wife who may get the pension and not the woman with whom he has been living. This is a very difficult matter in which to apply discretion, and under the National Insurance Act there is no scope for discretion in this matter.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the estimated cost of abolishing the earnings rule in respect of widowed mothers.

Rather more than £1 million a year assuming that no other changes were involved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that practically the whole of women's public opinion is in favour of the withdrawal of the earnings rule as applied to widows with children? Why is it that in a free country, on a basis of partnership, women's views are always neglected? When will we get this alteration?

I assure my hon. Friend that neither her views nor those of other women are neglected in this matter. It would, however, be very doubtful whether the abolition of the earnings rule for widowed mothers could be restricted to widowed mothers.

Is the Minister aware that on this matter the Labour Party and the women agree?

I am aware that on this matter the Labour Party do not seek to restrict the abolition of the earnings rule to widowed mothers. That is part of the difficulty.

Is there not a certain confusion in the Minister's mind in classing widows' pensions with retirement pensions? One thing that a widow cannot do is to retire. It seems to me that, in respect of earnings, this class of person should come under a totally different heading from the retirement pensioner.

The risk against which insurance is provided is the risk of the absence of earnings, and it has been accepted since the beginning of the scheme that if a widow is able to work, and does work, it is reasonable to take into account her earnings beyond a certain point.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will amend the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations, 1950, to enable persons to draw unemployment benefit during the whole of the off-season if no other work is available to them.

No, Sir. Unemployment benefit is an insurance benefit payable for a limited period only, as compensation for loss of earnings; it could not properly be paid year after year for periods during which the claimant does not normally work and has no prospect of working.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I violently disagree with him? Will he please read what his predecessor said in Committee on the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill on 30th November, 1961, when his predecessor used as one of his arguments the fact that at chat time it would be wrong to increase expenditure? When he has read this, will my right hon. Friend please refer the matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee?

In reply to the first part of the question, I am aware that my hon. Friend violently disagrees with me. With regard to the second part, I have read those proceedings and am aware that it was as a result of the steps then taken by my predecessor that credits were given during periods of unemployment. I am sure that we all appreciate that action. As to referring the matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, it was the N.I.A.C. which originally made this recommendation. The Committee has looked at the matter twice subsequently, and I see no object which would be gained by referring it again to the Committee.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the additional number of death grants which would be payable in the year 1964 if the disqualification in the case of the death of women born before 5th July, 1888, were removed.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, if he will estimate how much it would cost in 1964 to pay a death grant of £25 in the case of the death of men born before 5th July, 1883. and of women born before 5th July, 1888.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the additional number of death grants which would be payable in the year 1964 if the disqualification in the case of the death of men born before 5th July, 1883, were removed.

About 50,000 additional grants would be paid for men and 120,000 for women at a cost of some £4¼ million.

Is the Minister aware that even his Government are not now trying to pretend that this is an insurance scheme which is being operated on actuarial principles? Recognising that the scheme is operating on a year-by-year payment basis, will the Minister bring the old people under the same kind of protection as is given to the younger people?

While the National Insurance Scheme is not in all respects being run on an actuarial basis, it is, nevertheless, an insurance scheme and the fact remains that the people whom the hon. Member has in mind paid no contributions for this benefit and that the benefit was not provided for them under the legislation of 1946.

Recognising that the number of people affected is diminishing each year, is not the time opportune to review the situation with a view to paying everybody? In the public mind, there appears to be differential treatment by the Ministry in the cases of death of old people.

Obviously, the people who are not covered will be a diminishing number, but the principles which I have explained still apply.

Surely the amount of money involved would not break the National Insurance Fund. Why does not the Minister anticipate the ending of this anomaly with the passing of the years by being a little generous now?

One reason is that many of these people had insurances of their own, often several insurances of their own, to cover this risk.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me what principle, actuarial or otherwise, decided the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I presume, to include these dates in the original Act?

The dates are included automatically because of the ages of the people concerned when the 1946 Act came into effect.

Is the Minister aware that many of these old people who have paid for private insurance throughout their lives do not have enough money at the time of their death to cover the cost of the funeral because of the reduced value of money? Is he aware that these costs bear heavily on some families who can little afford to pay them? Since in many ways the insurance principle is not operated for many of the old people who are now getting the higher pension, surely it would be a good thing to extend the scheme to provide death benefit in the case of these old people.

I doubt whether that would be the right way to proceed. A case might be made for doing it in other ways. Surely, however, it would not seem right, fifteen years after the passing of the original Act, suddenly to include these old people in the insurance scheme for the purposes of death grant alone.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the number of restricted death grants of £12 10s. which will be payable in the year 1964.

About 135,000.

In view of the small number involved, whatever may have been the reasons for making this restriction in 1948, is it not about time that we got rid of it now? These are all very old people, many of them in extremely indigent circumstances, and great hardship is caused to a surviving wife or husband. Could not the full amount be paid in these cases?

All I can do is to take note of what the hon. Member has said and consider it.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much it would cost in the year 1964 to pay full death grant in the case of the death of men born between 5th July, 1883, and 5th July, 1893, and of women born between 5th July, 1888, and 5th July, 1898.

About Eli million.

Since, in several occasions, the Government have increased the benefits in other branches of National Insurance to cover the increased cost of living, is it now to be said that the cost of dying is to be sacrosanct? Is not the Minister aware that these expenses also have increased and that anxiety is caused Ito surviving relatives? Will he now con- cider the deprivation that the Government by their mistaken policies have caused in this matter and increase at least these restricted benefits?

These benefits have been increased on one occasion, in 1958.

asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in his Department with the preparation of a ten-year plan for the general medical services; when it will be published; and why this sector of the National Health Service has been left until last in his planning programme.

The future development of the general medical services is implicit in both the Hospital and the Health and Welfare Plans. I expect advice soon from my Standing Medical Advisory Committee on the future field of work of general practitioners.

Should it not be explicit and not merely implicit? Has not the Ministry consistently said that the general practitioner/family doctor service is the key of the whole Health Service? Is not 90 per cent. of the work done by general practitioners whereas only 11 per cent. of the budget is spent on general practitioners? If these people are the leaders of the Health Service team, should not they have higher priority in the Minister's consideration?

They have the highest priority. If it will satisfy the hon. Member, the future development of these services is explicit as well as implicit in the two plans. If the hon. Member reads them he will find that integration, both with the hospital service and with the health and welfare services, is repeatedly brought out.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I have not read those documents? Can he say when the Annis Gillie Committee will report and whether he is waiting for that report before going forward with further plans?

I referred to that matter in my original Answer. Both the hospital plan and the health and welfare plan represent a great reinforcement of the resources at the disposal of general practice.

asked the Minister of Health how many places are provided in old people's homes by the Kent County Council; and how many applicants are on the waiting list.

asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will make a statement regarding Aged People's Hostel accommodation in the northern region; how many applications for new hostels are still outstanding; and what are the prospects for the immediate future.

(2) how many aged people are still on the waiting list for admittance to Aged People's Homes in Durham County; and what are the prospects for the future.

On present provision and future plans I would refer hon. Members to Command 1973; waiting lists are a matter for the local authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Command 1973 shows that the ratio of places to the population is very much worse in Kent than throughout the nation as a whole? Is he aware that some of my constituents have been waiting for months and months to be taken into old people's homes? What steps is his Ministry taking to encourage local authorities to provide more places in old people's homes?

While it is perfectly proper for the Government to provide leadership and to offer help, there can be no question of my right hon. Friend exercising close surveillance over the detailed administration of local authorities. If the provision is inadequate, the publication of the Command White Paper, with its ten-year plan, shows for the first time in all areas—in juxtaposition—what is happening; and this should be of the greatest help to local authorities in revising their plans for the future.

asked the Minister of Health if, with a view to introducing legislation to make the use of glass containers for liquid compulsory for public vending machines, he will make a study of the comparative hygienic qualities of glass and paper containers as used in such machines, and consult the British glass industry regarding the supply of suitable glass containers.

No. Sir.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that milk, soups, mineral waters and so on are now being sold from vending machines and that some of the paper containers containing these liquids come out of the machines in a sticky mess, which makes them quite unhygienic, to say the least? Will he take this matter up with his right hon. Friend with a view to consulting the glass industry in view of the danger currently facing hundreds of thousands of young people and others who use these machines every day?

I am advised that liquids can be packaged hygienically in different types of containers treated paper, plastic, glass and so on. None of these has an intrinsic hygienic advantage over the others. In any case, no single instance has been reported to my Department by any local authority since the coming into force of the Food Hygiene Regulations regarding unhygienic containers in vending machines. The Ministry's officers are in the closest touch on packaging questions with the glass industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman have a look at the vending machines outside the Strangers' Cafeteria, where soups and so on are sold in unsealed paper containers which are subject to foreign bodies?

When I am detained in the House on late Adjournment debates. which is quite frequently, I have reason to use these machines. I cannot say that I have had any occasion to complain.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the effect that nothing his Department does will interfere with the process of selling these sixpenny drinks of milk and so on in public places by means of these machines?

I must emphasise that there is no evidence to show that these packages are unhygienic. However, we are always willing and ready to consider evidence to the contrary.

asked the Minister of Health if he will ensure that incontinence pads are made freely available on form E.C.10 by their inclusion in the official list.

My right hon. Friend has this proposal under consideration.

For how long is there to continue to be discrimination against patients who, by chance, have to live in England and Wales? We in Scotland have been sensible enough already to have these on the official list. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary look at the official lists of both countries to see if it is time that discrimination of this peculiar kind should be removed?

I am willing to concede that there is great strength in the hon. Member's argument. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is now considering this matter.

asked the Minister of Health why he has refused to supply a two-seater vehicle to Mr. Bernard Hargreaves of Blackburn, who is so severely disabled with multiple sclerosis that he cannot walk, and who cannot accommodate either a passenger or his wheel-chair in his invalid tricycle.

These vehicles are supplied only to war pensioners.

That is what I am complaining about. I am asking the hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider that policy. Is he not aware that these civilian disabled people, who cannot walk a yard, have to transfer immediately from their invalid tricycles to wheel chairs at each end of their journeys? How does he expect such people to maintain normal employment unless they have a vehicle large enough to hold either a wheel chair or a passenger so that assistance is available at either end of their journeys? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that that is the way in which Mr. Hargreaves has been severely inconvenienced, so will he please alter the policy he has described?

I was concerned in answering the hon. Lady's Question, which refers to the specific case of Mr. Hargreaves, who is not a war pensioner. Mr. Hargreaves is an ex-Service man and he has, I understand, made representations quite recently to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. If those are successful—and this is something quite outside the sphere of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities—we will certainly look into the matter again to see what we can do to help.

Is this not also, in a way, the business of the Ministry of Labour? Surely these problems should not be looked at only from the point of view of health or war disability considerations, but also from the labour aspect?

If my hon. Friend puts a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour he will, no doubt, get an Answer, but it is not a matter appropriate for me to answer.

But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that I have already tried to help this man to get a war pension? He has been turned down, and is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the whole point of my Question is that a person, whether he be a war pensioner or any other disabled person should, if he is to maintain his normal employment, have a two-seater vehicle? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the present policy and the way it affects the whole range of disabled people?

All credit is due to the hon. Lady for her efforts in the matter, but the point is that this man has appealed to his local war pensions com- mittee. I understand that that body was dissatisfied with the reply it got. It is an influential organisation with a strong reputation and its views are very much taken into account.

As I say, Mr. Hargreaves has made fresh representations and, until the outcome of those is known, it is impossible for my Department to take a decision. The representations are made to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and not to the Ministry of Health.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not aware that there is widespread support on both sides of the House for an extension of this benefit to cover other than war pensioners? Does he not recall that this matter has been raised on many occasions in the last two or three years? Is it not time that he undertook to do something about it, bearing in mind the additional fact that to do so would not cost very much?

There may be something in that, but that is not the Question on the Order Paper. I am not called upon today to answer that point. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) is the spokesman for his party on these matters and has plenty of opportunities to raise the subject at the appropriate time, which is not here on a specific question referring to a specific case.

asked the Minister of Health if he will state the name of the drug which turns brunettes into blondes; for what reason it is prescribed; and if he is satisfied it has no other side-effects.

These are clinical matters and as such are not within my responsibility.

In the light of the subject matter of the Question, that is not a very colourful reply. Would the Minister say what is the name of this wonder drug and what, in fact, are its side-effects? Is he really going to ignore what is a very important matter—the effect of drugs which people are sometimes compelled to take without their knowledge?

It would be quite improper for me to specify the name or names of drugs which produce particular clinical affects or the reasons why drugs should be prescribed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that to turn a brunette into a blonde is a clinical operation? I would have thought it was a cosmetic one.

I am asked the effect of a particular drug. It is not my business to indicate which drugs have what effects.

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the large-scale production, which has started in Great Britain, of a measles vaccine.

I have just received an application for a licence to manufacture such a vaccine.

As the Minister knows, there is an epidemic of measles, with over 200,000 cases this year. In the week ending 4th May, Leicester had 86 new cases, and there were 78 in the week ending 11th May. If this is an effective drug, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that it is made readily usable and available to people?

This is a matter on which I am guided by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The latest advice from that Committee is that it is not satisfied that measles vaccine should be recommended for general use at present.

Is the Minister sufficiently interested to investigate the results of the use of this vaccine in the United States; and will he see from that that it is important we should use it here, if at all possible?

The latest information on these vaccines is taken into account by the expert committee which advises me.

asked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the respective cost to mothers of hospital confinement and confinement at home.

There need be no medical or nursing costs in either case.

Since mothers are being increasingly compelled to have their babies at home because of shortage of maternity beds, and since this involves additional cost, such as domestic help and inflated household costs for the period, does the Parliamentary Secretary really think that the £6 home confinement grant is adequate in the circumstances? Will he have discussions with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance about an increase in the amount?

There are no medical costs, because the medical attention is free. There are no nursing costs, because those are met by the domiciliary service of the local authority. The non-medical costs will vary not only according to whether the woman is confined at home or in hospital, but according to her family and economic circumstances. The adequacy of the National Insurance maternity benefit is not a matter for my right hon. Friend but for the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

But is it not possible for the Minister to consider this question from a medical angle, because the cost of having a baby at home must affect the mother's medical condition? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that his Ministry should discuss the medical angle with the Ministry of Pensions to see whether some better arrangement can be made?

I will take note of what the hon. Lady says, but I do not think that we can pursue this matter any further today. Medical costs, of course, are already met. The Cranbrook Committee itself found great difficulty in estimating comparable costs, either to public funds or to the mothers, of hospital and home confinements.

asked the Minister of Health if he will in the future publish the contract prices for successful tenders to his Department.

No, Sir.

Does not the Minister think that if he were to publish the contract prices for certain articles in general use throughout all hospitals, it would encourage potential suppliers to submit mare competitive tenders in future years, and thereby bring down his costs?

No, Sir. I think that the publication of the successful contract prices would have precisely the opposite effect.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the difficulties of people who for medical or other reasons may wish to remove flouride from their water supply, following its addition by water companies in support of his Department's fluoridation campaign; and if he will make arrangements to make fluoride-removing apparatus available to such people through the National Health Service.

No. Sir.

Has the Minister seen the statement made by Professor Stieyne, of South Africa, that fluoride in the water supply is a possible cause of bone disease and goitre? Does he realise that people who may have a particular susceptibility to these troubles will not be able to avoid drinking fluoride if fluoridation becomes general in this country? If he is not prepared to make defluoridation apparatus available to these people, what steps does he propose to take to protect them?

Fluoride is already present in varying quantities in all water—at any rate, in this country—and in many areas it is present in much larger quantities than it would be as a result of artificial fluoridation. There is no difference whatsoever between artificially fluoridated and naturally fluoridated water.

But does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that though many people are highly susceptible, for example, to large quantities of salt—people with high blood pressure, for instance—they are able to avoid it in their diets? The same may be true of certain people in regard to fluoride in the water supply, but they cannot escape taking it.

This Question is not about salt but about fluoride, but the fact is that no such result has been observed over the generations during which, in this country, hundreds of thousands of people have been drinking water with a relatively high fluoride content.

asked the Minister of Health what recent guidance he has given to hospital authorities regarding the use and procurement of sterile disposable articles and materials in the hospital service; and if he will make a statement.

I am sending the hon. Member copies.

Is the Minister aware that the development of disposables in hospitals, however desirable it may be in principle, is in danger of getting rather out of hand, with hospital authorities being swamped with free samples and advertising material from commercial firms? Does he not think that, in this case, careful guidance from his Ministry is proper?

Yes, Sir. That is one of the reasons why I am circulating to hospital authorities a list of the various studies on disposables and the progress reached in them, but this is a matter that all hospital authorities should take into account in their planning.

Is the Minister's circulated list a large and complicated one? If so, would it be possible to prepare a précis of advice? So much material is coming in that if the Minister's advice is in a complicated form it might be difficult to assimilate.

I do not think that this particular list is complicated, but my Department issues many digests of progress in economy and improvement of technique.

asked the Minister of Health how many hospital management committees have had to limit their recruitment of nurses because of shortage of funds during the last 12 months.

The staff recruitment, like the other expenditure, of all authorities is limited by their allocations.

Why does not the Minister answer my Question? How many hospital management committees cannot recruit staff because of shortage of funds? If we know how many there are, we can form some assessment whether the funds are adequate.

The answer is that all authorities must recruit within, and not beyond, the financial allocations available to them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there appears to be a conflict of evidence whether or not there is a shortage of nurses? The evidence appears to be of a shortage, particularly in the small hospitals? Will he comment on that?

There may be difficulties in small and particularly isolated hospitals that do not apply to larger and town hospitals. If my hon. Friend has a case in his constituency, I would be very glad to discuss it with him.

Does the Minister say that hospital management committees try to recruit to an extent greater than their medical needs?

No, Sir. But the progress of the service in every respect is limited, like that of every service, by the rate at which it can expand within the total economy. I am saying that this limitation applies throughout the whole of this, as of any other service.

asked the Minister of Health in how many general hospitals in England and Wales rehabilitation facilities are inadequate; and in how many cases the inadequacies are due to unsatisfactory buildings or to shortages of physiotherapists, remedial gymnasts and similar trained staff, or to both.

I am aware that there are hospitals where increase of staff or improvement of accommodation or both are desirable. but the hon. Member's Question does not admit of a precise answer.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some indication of the size of the problem and say whether it would be possible to take temporary measures to increase staff and, in other cases, whether he could use more staff by increasing the buildings?

There can be no exact criterion for adequate facilities. The level of services depends not only on building and staff resources but on their efficient direction. The matter is rather unsuitable for statistical presentation. The real answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is for the boards to assess the need for rehabilitation services, and to make their allocations accordingly.

asked the Minister of Labour how many workpeople have left the North-East in each of the three years ending April, 1963, respectively.

These figures are calculated for mid-year only. In the years ending mid-1960, mid-1961 and mid-1962 the outward migration of insured employees from the Northern Region exceeded inward migration by 15,000, 14,000 and 10,000 respectively I regret that separate figures are not available for the North-East.

Do not these figures indicate how wrong the Government were in ending the operation of the Distribution of Industry Act and imposing the Local Employment Act? Will the hon. Gentleman bring all the pressure at his command to bear upon the Board of Trade and the Lord President of the Council to do something more urgent to stop this migration away from the North-East?

I would not accept what the hon. Member has just said about the Local Employment Act and the Distribution of Industry Act. The hon. Member knows very well both the national and local measures taken in the North-East which are designed to put this position right.

asked the Minister of Labour how many workpeople were employed in the North-East at the end of April, giving male and female figures, separately, for each of the last three years.

These figures are calculated for mid-year only. I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a table showing figures for the last three years.

But will not these figures once more reveal how the North-East is not receiving its fair percentage of employment? Will the hon. Gentleman again see what more the Government can do to get new industries into the North-East or, which is probably more important, to provide work for existing industries?

I certainly note what the hon. Member says. Considerable measures have been taken. The activities of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council are certainly yielding their results. As for opportunities of work for existing industries, I would mention the placing of Admiralty shipbuilding orders worth £10 million, which I believe is of advantage. The hon. Member knows many of the other measures as well as I do. In all, they add up to a pretty powerful contribution.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even though the North-East has been promised Admiralty and other contracts, the contracts now let there are in no way matching up to the promises given? Will he have another look at this?

I am not aware that we are not matching up to promises given. If the hon. Member says that we are not, I will, of course, look at the matter.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will now publish the result of the survey his Department has made into the incidence of unemployment amongst persons of 50 years of age and over in the area covered by the Lianelly Employment Exchange.

The survey is not yet completed and my right hon. Friend thinks we should wait to see the results before deciding whether publication would be justified. He will, however, let the right hon. Gentleman have statistical information relating to older people in Llanelly as soon as it is available.

While awaiting the publication of the survey, may I ask whether the Ministry, through its regional and local officers, will do its best to persuade old employers and new employers in these areas that men of 50 have still much to contribute to them and to the nation?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have discussed this matter before, and I appreciate and share his concern. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows of one instance in his constituency where this has been done and older workers have been taken on. The more widespread this practice becomes, the better.

asked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons for the serious decline in the number of insured workers in employment over the past five years in the areas covered by the employment exchanges at Amman-ford and Garnant.

The main reason has been the decrease in coalmining employment in the Garnant area, but there have also been smaller decreases in employment in the metal goods, brick and hosiery industries in the Ammanford area.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this decrease in the number of people in employment, apart from the fact that there is also a high rate of unemployment, casts a great burden on local authorities which have built up local services for a larger population? Will the hon. Gentleman also remember that if the young people have to go away it may come about one of these days that we shall not have the boys and men to enter the coalmining industry, with serious subsequent effect on that industry?

I certainly accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman, with his unrivalled knowledge of the area, has made, and I will bear it in mind.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent he lays down principles of discrimination in the export of armaments to foreign countries.

All applications for the supply of arms abroad are examined by the Government Departments concerned in the light of the political, strategic and economic implications of each individual case. Subject to these factors, the general principles followed are that sales are authorised to recognised and stable Governments which are in normal diplomatic relations with Her Majesty's Government.

Is it not clear, therefore, from that Answer that the export of arms, unlike other exports, is not determined by the needs of employment but is a political act, and that to millions of people at home, in the Commonwealth, and abroad, it implies some approval of the international standing of the country involved? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the reason why millions of people deplore Her Majesty's Government policy of exporting arms to a country which is practising apartheid?

No, Sir. It is wrong to say that these matters are assessed solely from the political angle. As I said, they are examined in the light of the political, strategic and economic implications of each individual case.

But does the hon. Gentleman think it sensible and consonant with British interests that Her Majesty's Government, for example, should have sent military aircraft to Indonesia and have refused Malaysia, a Commonwealth country coming into being, the means to defend itself against possible use of those weapons? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is consonant with the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole that we should be the arsenal of apartheid in South Africa at the risk of breaking our relations with the African countries in the Commonwealth?

As I said in a speech in a debate on the Address, the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the export of arms to South Africa is well known, and all these matters are taken into consideration when we are considering whether or not certain arms should go.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that the sale of arms to South Africa improves or injures our relations with all other African States?

It depends on which arms are sold.

Oh.