asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what improvements are being made in the procedures of public authorities so that payments for building work are speeded up as recommended by the Banwell Committee.

I am now consulting the public authorities about the Committee's recommendations. When I receive their comments I will consider any action that may be needed to speed up payments.

Is not one of the difficulties the overlapping duplication between the professional officers and the financial officers in certifying payment? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider getting his right hon. Friend to send out a circular drawing attention to these things? Secondly, would it not be a good idea to ask the district auditor to draw attention to the very long delays in payment?

I will certainly consider both suggestions, because I attach a good deal of importance to the prompt honouring of these contractual obligations. I think that local and other public authorities ought to realise that great advantages flow from prompt payment.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made with the establishment of a secretariat to extend the processes of co-ordination and investigation in the building industry as recommended in Chapter 1 of the Banwell Committee's Report.

I am ready to provide secretarial help. I do not think it will be necessary to establish special machinery.

Can the right hon. Gentleman be somewhat more forth-coming? What amount of money will be required for this secretariat, what grades of staff, and how many?

That is not the question. As the consultations proceed and as action seems to be required, we will provide whatever secretarial support may be necessary. What I am concerned with is that we should not in any way undermine the existing consultative machinery. I do not see the need for new machinery, but I will provide all the support which is necessary for the work to go forward.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that rents are paid by the occupants of Grace and Favour residences.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is an appalling answer? Is he aware that in 1963 more than £81,000 of the taxpayers' money was spent on these houses? As it has often been said by the Government that subsidies should go only to those who need them, how can he justify giving a rent-free publicly-owned house to a Midland Bank director, among others, in view of the situation in London where the Rent Act is operating for another section of the community?

These residences form part of the Royal Palaces and allocation and use of all accommodation in the Royal Palaces are matters for the Sovereign. We have no jurisdiction in the matter.

While allocation may be a matter for Her Majesty, getting back the income which the taxpayer is spending on renovation and maintenance rests with the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, and it is up to him to reimburse the taxpayers for the money spent.

No, Sir. The arrangement under which we undertake responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the Royal Palaces results from a transfer to the Votes in 1831 in consideration of a substantial reduction in the Civil List. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the arrangements by which the Civil List is paid the Crown Estate Commissioners were able to hand over to the Treasury surplus revenue of more than £2 million in the year 1962–63.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how much has been spent on improving playing facilities in the Royal Parks in each of the last 10 years; and whether he will take steps to increase the scale of such facilities.

As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that on 5th February he wrote to a Mr. Price, who is very active about seeking increased playing facilities in the Royal Parks, to say that he would be unlikely to be able to find the money to reduce the size of the sandpit in Victoria Tower Gardens and put in playing equipment during 1964? As £1,000 is provided in the Estimates for the same year for renovating the chandeliers in Buckingham Palace, does he not think that he has got his priorities a bit wrong?

I do not think so. When the hon. Gentleman sees the figures for our expenditure on providing playing facilities in the Royal Parks, I think that he will get this into perspective. I also draw attention to the fact that this year we are providing a new sports pavilion in Regent's Park at a cost of £35,000.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has for the preservation of churches of special architectural or historic interest which are no longer being used for ecclesiastical purposes.

Following the reply I gave on 19th November, 1963, to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend, I have worked out proposals to provide substantial assistance towards the preservation of such churches. It is proposed that both Her Majesty's Government and the Church of England should make contributions to a Redundant Churches Fund which would be set up for this purpose. I would be ready to contribute to this Fund up to £200,000 over the first five years if the Church authorities contributed from their own resources at least that amount within the same period. In addition, a very small number of redundant churches of exceptional quality might be taken into the care of my Ministry. I hope to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this information and expressing pleasure at the happy association of Church and State, may I ask if these proposals are entirely acceptable to Church authorities?

Yes, Sir. They follow closely the recommendations of the Archbishops' Commission on Redundant Churches and they were accepted by the Church Assembly.

Do I understand from the reply that this applies only to the Church of England? If so, would the Minister consider churches belonging to other faiths or denominations where there is a special architectural or historic interest, such as churches in which John Wesley preached?

Yes, Sir. I am in touch with the Churches Main Committee about this, and it will be possible to make arrangements for grants to be made to a number of churches of other denominations through the Historic Buildings Councils. It would also be possible under the legislation that I have in mind for redundant churches of the other denominations to be brought into the care of my Ministry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some non-redundant churches of outstanding interest, such as that at Brixworth, about which I wrote to him recently, are not fully provided for at present and cannot always be provided for under existing arrangements.

It has, I think, been generally accepted that where churches are in use that is the responsibility of the Church authorities.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects the recently appointed consultant for the Whitehall area to make his first report; whether the plans for each redevelopment will be laid before Parliament before they are acted upon; and how, since there are going to be several different architects involved for whom the consultant is not responsible, the new buildings in the area will conform with each other in design.

I expect Sir Leslie Martin's final report to be presented in the early part of next year. I am anxious that the report should be presented as a whole rather than piecemeal, but Sir Leslie will, wherever possible, report periodically on various aspects of his commission which may call for earlier decision. Arrangements will be made for Parliament to be informed before any particular redevelopment is undertaken. Such individual architects as may be appointed will be expected to produce designs that are in harmony with their surroundings.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him is he would not agree that up to now the modernisation of London has been undertaken with an almost complete lack of imagination and sense of fitness on the part of our planning authorities; and will he give an assurance that not only Parliament but the public, before a single brick is moved in the Whitehall area, will have a chance to pronounce, because is it not the case that up to now the public seem to have woken up only six months or so after each fresh outrage has been perpetrated upon our once lovely City?

It is not for me to comment on what other people do, but what I do will, of course, be done with great care and consideration, not least for the views of Parliament.

Although we will give the Minister credit for trying to do what is best in this matter, does he not think that he would be assisted and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, Southwest (Mr. Longden) would be assisted if in the early stages, as a kind of continuing process, a committee of this House—probably a Select Committee—of Members interested were set up, so that Parliament is not suddenly confronted with a fait accompli—a kind of Second Reading stage—and we can make a leisurely and, I hope, intelligent appraisal of this? Does not the Minister think that he would be helped in that way, rather than having the criticism at the end of the day?

It is not for me to decide how Parliament thinks that it can best help me. Certainly I shall arrange for Parliament to be told what is proposed. I think that that one must be a little careful about this. I do not think that the modernisation of London will proceed very much faster or better by having too much architecture by committee.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the architectural designs to which he has referred will be referred? Will it be to the planning authority and /or the Royal Fine Art Commission, or some other body? Who is to be the regulating co-ordinating authority to see that the designs that he has mentioned are in harmony?

The architects will be expected to conform with the general plan, but I think that it would be unwise to dictate to them in any detail the style in which they build. I envisage that when they have brought forward their designs for any particular building, the House and the public will have the opportunity to see what is proposed, and it may well be that at that stage it would be right to submit the designs to the Royal Fine Art Commission for its opinion.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, what is the total number of married quarters under construction and being planned for the three services in Gibraltar.

At the 1st April, 230 married quarters were under construction in Gibraltar. A further 279 are planned and of these 240 should be started during this financial year. When all these quarters are completed the current requirement for married quarters in Gibraltar will have been met.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give very general satisfaction in the Services, particularly among the married families of those serving in Gibraltar? Can he confirm that when this programme is completed there will be little or no need for the use of private accommodation in Gibraltar by married families, which accommodation is hard to find and often rather unsuitable?

Hiring is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Some hirings are official, and I do not think that there will be a need for those. Some are private, and it may well be that some people may still want to make their own arrangements, even if they qualify for married quarters. This should ease the situation. I envisage that all quarters under construction should be completed by October this year, with the exception of about 16 which will be ready next year.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when it is proposed to reinstate the staircase leading off St. Stephen's Hall.

During the coming Summer Recess.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the total expenditure of public money paid in rent for accommodation at Clifton House; and what is the rent per square foot.

My Ministry has a lease of about 40,000 sq. ft. of office accommodation from the Church Commissioners at Clifton House, Euston Road. The accommodation is occupied by the Post Office and the Inland Revenue. It would be contrary to the Ministry's practice and commercial interests for me to disclose the terms of any lease which we may take.

Is the Minister aware that the information he has given is rather at variance with that which I have been given, which is that a firm called Machinery Limited of Clifton House has leased space from the Church Commissioners and sub-let to the Ministry an entire floor of about 1,000 sq. ft. at 27s. 6d., for which every taxpayer, I am told, is paying in rent to Machinery Limited the excess per ft. of 27s. 6d. over about 16s. paid by Machinery Limited to the freeholders? Would that be the information?

That may be the hon. Gentleman's information, but it is not the correct position. Our lease is direct from the freeholders, the Church Commissioners. We have no connection of any kind with Machinery Limited.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he has rejected the request for a 42-hour week by the civilian employees of his Department in Gibraltar; and why the request for arbitration in accordance with the constitution of the Joint Industrial Council has not been accepted.

This claim was first made in 1962 and was rejected by the employers' side of the Joint Industrial Council, which at that time comprised the three Service Departments, the Gibraltar Government and the City Council.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are two issues here: first, that it is alleged that other employees of the Government in Gibraltar, other than local civilian employees, are already working a 42-hour week and, consequently, there are different grades of workers doing the same job of work but on different bases and under different conditions? Secondly, that local faith in agreements freely arrived at with regard to wages, conditions and submission of disputes to arbitration will be shaken unless something is dose to abide by J.I.C. agreements.

The first point made by the hon. Gentleman is a matter which will be taken into consideration. With regard to the J.I.C. agreements, one of the difficulties is that the J.I.C. on the employers' side is made up of a number of bodies. These matters are under consideration at the present time.

asked the Minister of Public 3uilding and Works whether he is aware that housing and civil engineering projects in South Wales are subject to considerable delay due to the shortage of brick supply; and what action he has taken.

I have received reports that a number of housing projects have been delayed because of brick shortages, but I have no evidence of any widespread delay and construction work is running at a record level. I have kept in close touch with the brickmakers, who have taken steps to increase capacity.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that spokesmen for the civil engineering and house building industry in South Wales have expressed grave concern because there is up to a year's delay in the supply of bricks? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is feared as likely to cause unemployment in the industry, as well as delay on council house projects? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some sense of urgency to the matter?

The production of building materials is at a record level, which should suffice to keep building labour fully employed. There are some difficulties in some areas, arising partly from a mild winter as a result of which stocks were run down more than usual, but brick production is now 6 per cent. above the record level of 1961. Manufacturers are taking steps to increase production and I am in close touch with them.

Although we can take the Minister's figures overall, I remember reading in the technical Press only a week or two ago that there was a shortage in Scotland. The Minister says that he is satisfied with the overall position, but is he equally satisfied that it is uniform throughout the country? He will appreciate that areas of unemployment might be made worse if we had this sort of thing.

I do not doubt that there are difficulties in certain areas. It is very important that local authorities, contractors and architects should decide at the earliest possible stage what they want and then register their demands. If they do that, they normally find that the position is satisfactory.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has had from the National Assistance Board regarding a revision of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations to permit the special higher scale of assistance to blind persons to be paid in cases where the degree of partial sight is so low as to preclude any normal employment or activity.

None, Sir. The existing statutory provisions do not confine the higher scale to the totally blind.

But is the hon. Lady aware that there may be cases of real hardship? Does she not think that if a person is in receipt of National Assistance and is at the same time severely handicapped by lack of vision, this ought to be enough to enable him to qualify for the allowance as a blind person? Will she consider asking the National Assistance Board to regard the definition, which is crucial here, as relating to whether or not the handicapped person is able to follow his normal employment?

As I think the hon. Lady knows, the definition to which the National Assistance Board works is contained in Section 64 of the Act, which says:

"blind person means a person so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential."

But is it not the case that there can be instances where somebody might be able to perform some jobs for which sight is essential but still not be able to follow his normal course of employment? Does not the hon. Lady think that he should be treated generously by the State and regarded as a severely handicapped person because of lack of vision?

I think that he probably would. I hope that he would be treated generously by the National Assistance Board through its discretionary allowances. It certainly takes all these factors into account in determining these allowances.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 29 of the National Insurance Act so as to enable unemployed persons who take their holiday abroad during traditional holiday weeks to qualify for unemployment benefit on the same basis as those taking their holidays in Great Britain.

No, Sir. It is difficult to see how the ordinary conditions for unemployment benefit could be satisfied by people who take their holidays abroad. An exception to the statutory bar on the payment of unemployment benefit for periods of absence from Great Britain would not be justified.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem particularly affects unemployed married women insured in their own right, such as cotton weavers, for whom no work can be found during the town's traditional holiday week because all the mills are closed? If these women go out of Great Britain on holiday with their husbands to, say, Ireland, they not only forfeit unemployment benefit but have to stamp their own cards as well, whereas if they go to Scotland they do not do either. Is not there an anomaly which ought to be looked into?

I think that, as far as this country goes, the arrangements for paying benefit are not relaxed in the traditional holiday weeks. The test has always been whether the claimant is or is not available for employment. It is not whether employment is available for the claimant, but whether the claimant is available for employment. That is the test which is applied, and that is why unemployment benefit is not paid. As regards people going abroad, it is unrealistic to suppose that the test of availability for employment can be fulfilled by people who go abroad for a holiday.

Is not someone as likely to be available to come back from Ireland as from Scotland? Ought not there to be a discretion in the operation of this Section? Is it not too rigid as it stands, and does it not cause serious anomalies?

I think it is fair that the line should be drawn at the British Isles. One might say that someone who was sitting on the quay at Calais could get back as fast as someone in Scotland, but if Calais, why not Naples? I do not think it would be possible to go beyond the shores of this country without getting into an awful mess.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what new steps he will take to enable old-age pensioners to meet the increased fuel bills arising from the introduction of smokeless zones.

None, Sir. The White Paper on Domestic Fuel Supplies and the Clean Air Policy made clear that the introduction of smokeless zones need not lead to increased fuel bills. The National Assistance Board already takes certain steps to help with the cost in individual cases where there are difficulties.

Whatever the White Paper may say, the facts of the situation are that smokeless fuels are dearer than good quality coal, particularly since summer prices were introduced. Is it not also a fact that in view of our typically cold summer weather old-age pensioners must have a fire all the year round? Ought not there to be an increased allowance for these smokeless fuels in the National Assistance scales?

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady when she says that smokeless fuels, weight for weight, are more expensive than ordinary coal, but the White Paper to which I referred made it clear that the heat output of these fuels was greater and that therefore the cost for heat was less. There was a time when I could have given the hon. Lady an even more authoritative answer, but I think that now I had better refer questions of this kind to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, having regard to the increase in the number of persons in receipt of benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts whose income has to be supplemented by the National Assistance Board, he will introduce legislation to increase the benefits under those Acts.

No, Sir. There has been a steady rise in the numbers entitled to such benefits and the very small proportion who receive supplements from the National Assistance Board has not increased over the years.

I am glad to know that they have not increased, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the fact that some people disabled by industrial injury or by industrial disease have to have recourse to assistance is one of the major reasons why he should bring legislation before the House to increase the payment, particularly as the Industrial Injuries Fund now stands at more than £300 million?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will know better than anyone that the National Assistance Board has always existed to provide for special needs. Again, I think he knows better than anyone that it is conceivable—there is nothing wrong about it—that someone with a low rate of disablement benefit because he has had a small loss of faculty may qualify for supplement from the National Assistance Board. Thirdly, one reason why the Board comes into a number of these cases is because of the disregard of a certain amount of Industrial Injuries benefit.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what estimate he has made of the number of retirement pensioners whose total income is such as would entitle them to a supplementary grant from the National Assistance Board but who have not made an application for assistance.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he takes to estimate the number of retirement pensioners whose circumstances would entitle them to a supplementary pension from the National Assistance Board, but who have not applied for assistance; and what is the most recent estimate.

None, Sir. A great difficulty about making a firm estimate is that it could only be done by asking many old people to make a detailed disclosure of their circumstances, with no probability of benefit to themselves. I have considered that the right course is to concentrate on positive ways of overcoming any reluctance people may feel about applying to the Board.

The Minister knows that he is under an obligation under the Act, which provides for a quinquennial review, to look at problems of this kind and to make an investigation. Has he any reason to doubt the estimate which has been given by many people who have made competent researches into this matter, and repeated by a well- informed correspondent in The Times newspaper last week, that the number of people who are living below the standard set by the Assistance Board, and that means dire poverty, is 750,000 and possibly even one million? Has he any reason to doubt that? If that is anywhere near the truth, does it not indicate that there is a need for a radical revision of our existing arrangements?

I have seen those estimates and I have heard them put forward in debates in the House. Most of them stem from work done by Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn under the auspices of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics. Whatever this estimate was, it was not an estimate of people suffering hardship. It was an estimate of the people she claimed to have found, based on a comparatively small survey, who would have qualified for assistance if they had made application. Some of the cases were subsequently investigated and, in fact, those concerned did not qualify because of capital and other resources. But in any event, I believe that the best approach to this problem, particularly in the light of Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn's survey, is to try to take positive steps to spread more widely information about the services which the Board is prepared to offer, through social workers and through local newspapers and so on. As I announced in the House, I have recently taken the positive step of putting a new leaflet in every pensions book which has the object of trying to ease the way for people into National Assistance.

In view of the figures based on Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn's survey, is it not clear that the Minister ought to have a survey of his own because of the probable size of the problem? When he says that he thinks that not all these cases are of severe hardship, would he not agree that the figure probably includes some of the worst cases of poverty in this country, of very elderly people often living alone and living below the National Assistance level? Is not this a grave social problem which demands urgent attention?

I am prepared to consider what the hon. Member said, but so far I have taken the view that this inquiry, which it is being suggested that I ought to undertake, means investigating, as I said in my Answer, in great detail the circumstances of many people who would not benefit at all.

Surely even though it would mean investigating the circumstances of many people who would not benefit, the Minister or his Department would also be investigating cases in which many people would benefit? In spite of all the publicity and the note in the pensions book, there are still many old people in this country where even when they know that they can get help, are very reluctant to go to the National Assistance Board, and sometimes personal contact is the step which finally gets them to make application.

All I can say is that if there existed anything like the number which Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn estimated—it is an estimate on which figures have been based in the House—I would expect that the social workers and others in very close contact with people of this kind would bring more cases to the National Assistance Board for help.

Would it not be a useful step towards getting rid of misunderstandings if legislative steps were taken to bring the National Assistance Board under the Ministry instead of being left under a supposedly independent Board?

I think that goes a little wide of the Question.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the very great importance of the matter, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the very earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reply he has given to the National Association of Old Age Pensioners on their claim for a rise in their basic retirement pension.

If the hon. Lady is referring to the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, I have had no recent letter addressed to me on this matter.

From time to time, the Association in Scotland and the National Federation have made representations to the Minister. From the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) about the great number of old-age pensioners in Scotland receiving National Assistance, is it not clear that the time has come to give all old-age pensioners a rise in their present rate?

I have nothing to say at present in reply to the hon. Lady. She can make her own comparisons of the rate which retirement pensioners are now receiving with the rate which they received in the early 1950s.

Are we to take it that the Minister is completely satisfied that a basic rate of £3 7s. 6d. is an adequate pension for old people, no matter what the comparison may be with 50 years or so ago?

The hon. Lady must patiently await any further news which may come to her. I was saying that I have nothing to say at the moment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many claims for industrial widows' pensions in respect of pneumoconiosis have been made in North Staffordshire in each of the last three years; how many have succeeded; and how many have been rejected.

I am afraid this information is not available, but I have some figures which may help the hon. Member. They relate to all claims for death benefit, whether from widows or other dependants, referred for advice to the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel at Stoke-on-Trent, which covers North Staffordshire and North Shropshire. I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is some good reason for investigating the data regarding widows? Is he aware that there is a deep sense of injustice among many widows now disqualified whose husbands suffered a high degree of pneumoconiosis, sometimes for 10 or 15 years during their lifetime? Is he aware that there is an opinion among many medical men that in such cases pneumoconiosis ought to be regarded automatically as a contributory cause of death and a reason for granting widows' pensions? Would he, therefore, investigate what is the situation about the rejection of widows' claims and this particular aspect of these cases?

Entitlement to industrial death benefit is dependent upon death having resulted from the disease. It does not follow, because a man had a disablement pension for pneumoconiosis in life, that he died from that disease.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware, quoting a case from my constituency, that where a woman has nursed a man for 10 years who is reckoned to be 80 per cent. disabled by pneumoconiosis, it creates a deep sense of injustice when she is not entitled to an industrial widow's benefit?

If the hon. Member will be kind enough to refer the case to me, I will certainly look at it.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would have been the additional cost in 1963 of paying full sickness benefit in place of the reduced amount to married women who pay the full contribution.

The cost in the financial year 1963–64 would have been about £5 million.

Will the Minister have this type of case examined by the Advisory Committee? I understand that it is some time since the Advisory Committee looked at this matter. In these days, when so many women normally work full-time and feel aggrieved when, being off sick, they have no full National Insurance benefit, surely it is time at least to have another look at the matter?

That figure was for sickness benefit only. If we add unemployment benefit to it, it will come to £7 million. I am certain that my right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Lady's representations.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when the conditions on which the confinement grant is made were last reviewed; and to what extent he has taken into account, when considering these conditions, the fact that mothers who have confinements in hospital are spending much shorter periods away from home.

The conditions for home confinement grant were last reviewed in 1955 and we are looking into this matter at the moment. The extent to which mothers are spending shorter periods in hospital after confinement is one of the factors to be taken into account.

While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her to speed up the inquiry? I think it is agreed that the situation has changed completely since 1955. Is she aware that it is the widespread practice now for women to be discharged from hospital 48 or even 24 hours after confinement, Go that the conditions are quite anomalous?

We are consulting the Health Departments, who would be considerably affected by any change. I explained this to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in an Adjournment debate which we had on the subject. But I pointed out to her that, whatever we do, the number of grievances will not be greatly reduced because on the second day after confinement about 20,000 women are discharged from hospital, on the third day about 15,000 are discharged and on the fourth day about 11,000 are discharged. I am afraid that wherever we fixed the limit a number of people would fall on the wrong side of it.

Will the hon. Lady remember that when we discussed this matter in an Adjournment debate she agreed with me that the present situation was unsatisfactory? I am very glad that there is to be a review of the situation. Could she say when she hopes to be able to report on this situation to the House?

It is unlikely that I shall be able to report before the House rises. I will do so in the next Parliament.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will make a statement about the compensation of limbless ex-Service men.

I have been considering the issues raised by Motion No. 53 on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend and many hon. Members. These issues cannot be fairly considered without taking account of other disabilities besides the loss of limbs. I have therefore decided that the best course will be to set up an independent Committee. The terms of reference which I shall give it will allow the Committee to consider two matters. First, whether developments since the introduction of the present schedule of assessments, which is common to the War Pensions Instruments and the Industrial Injuries Acts, would justify any modification to the schedule; and, secondly, whether there is any case for special provision for disablement due to amputation, either generally or in relation to advancing age.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to initiate an independent inquiry will give great satisfaction to both sides of the House, particularly as nearly 500 hon. Members signed a Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and the names of my hon. Friends? May I also on behalf of the members of the British limbless Ex-Service Men's Association thank him for the courtesy and patience which he has shown to them in this matter? Has he anything in mind in regard to the time factor in this matter, as to the pace of the inquiry, when a conclusion may be reached and above all the final steps, when the Government may make an announcement?

No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend, to whom I am extremely grateful for what he said, further information at this stage. I will get ahead with the composition of the Committee. I hope that it will be able to start work as soon as possible, but this is a complicated subject and I am afraid that it is likely to take some time.

Since the Hancock Committee, which reported on this matter as long ago as 1946, was an inter-departmental committee and had wide terms of reference, applying both to industrial injuries and to war service injuries, will the Minister see that the terms of reference of this Committee will be at least as wide as those and will include the minor injuries which were taken into account by the Hancock Committee outwith its terms of reference?

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to make it clear that the purpose of this Committee will be to concern itself with the relativities of the compensation for various kinds of disability. I must make it clear that it will not be concerned with the monetary levels of compensation, because that is clearly a matter which the Government must decide in the light of the Committee's Report.

Will my right hon. Friend at the earliest possible date let the House know the composition of the Committee?

I will do my best.

I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman quite answered my Question, although he may have meant to do so. The Hancock Committee was an inter-departmental committee with wide terms of reference and its findings applied to industrial injuries as they applied to war service injuries. It is the same question in both cases. Will the proposed new Committee have terms of reference at least as wide as those and will its assessments be assessments of percentages even if they are not assessments of amount?

The assessments which finally emerge from the Committee will be on the same lines as the Hancock assessments. The purpose of the Committee is to see whether the assessments which were fixed 18 years ago are or are not still up to date. They will apply not only to war pensioners but also to those who are industrially injured.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that handicapped persons may be unable to take employment, or to satisfy contribution conditions for National Insurance and may remain dependent on relatives throughout their lives; whether he will re-submit to the National Insurance Advisory Committee the question of payment of a death grant in such cases irrespective of the age of the dependant; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the hardships at present caused by its refusal;

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he intends to take with regard to the payment by the National Assistance Board of a death grant in respect of those people who because of physical or mental illness have never paid National Insurance contributions.

In cases of need, the National Assistance Board can provide grants during the lifetime of handicapped persons so that they need not remain completely dependent on relatives. The provision of death grant for all such persons raises difficult and wider issues which my right hon. Friend is at present studying.

Is the hon. Member aware that many people will be disappointed with that Answer? Could she not submit this afresh to the National Insurance Advisory Committee? Is she further aware that the financial cost to the nation of providing the death grant for mentally handicapped children irrespective of age would be small indeed? I ask her again to look at this matter in human terms and to alleviate a real hardship caused to parents on the death of handicapped children over 18 years of age—an alleviation of hardship which would be a blessing indeed.

I agree that the cost of giving the death grant to this small group of people would not be very great. Our difficulty in the National Insurance Scheme would be to confine the grant, in the absence of contributions, to this small group of people. If we gave it to this group of people there would be a number of others who would have similar claims. Despite the absence of contributions, or a low record of contributions, they would also want death grants. But we are considering this point.

On a point of order. I thought that you were going to call me, Mr. Speaker, on Question No. 25. I want to support the hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) in that matter. I have had more connection with this question than any other hon. Member who has spoken about it. I should like to support the hon. Member for Withington in thanking the Minister for his reply to Question No. 25.

Order. I do not understand what the hon. Member is trying to do. If he reflected about points of order in general he would see that we should clearly be in a difficulty if hon. Members were to talk about something of that kind, and in particular to talk about another Question, on a point of order.

The hon. Lady will recognise that people are covered up to the age of 16 and then enjoy National Assistance as a right. Could not she introduce some measure of equity here, without closely applying economic principles throughout? Since National Assistance is afforded up to the age of 16, an additional ex gratia payment on death would not break the back of the nation, would it?

If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, he is asking whether the National Assistance Board could make a death grant in such cases. This was mentioned the last time we had Questions on this topic. Studies on the point have so far been a little disappointing. As the law now stands, the Board tells me that it has no power to make payments in respect of deceased persons and no responsibility for burials under the 1948 Act. The Board does, however, use its discretionary powers to help with funeral expenses in exceptional circumstances where a person who has incurred a debt in arranging a funeral is himself in receipt of assistance or living at about the assistance level and when, because help cannot be obtained from other sources, real hardship would arise if nothing were done.

Is not this a matter which ought to go to the Advisory Committee again? When it was considered, together with a number of other matters, as long ago as 1955, it was turned down only on the ground that there were very few cases. Is not that an insufficient ground, and ought not the question to be referred to the Advisory Committee again to see whether it can limit the task properly?

If I recall aright, the National Insurance Advisory Committee turned the proposal down on account of the difficulty which I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, namely, that of providing a grant given in return for contributions in a case where there is an absence of contributions. This is the fundamental insurance difficulty. Of course, the Advisory Committee would have no status in relation to National Assistance.

Who is responsible for the disposal of the body if there is no income and no cash of any kind in the family? Will she tell us about that, because it seems to be a ridiculous situation?

I am not responsible for that particular matter. The Board tells me that it has no responsibility for burial under the National Assistance Act. I think that responsibility is laid on the local authority in the absence of other arrangements.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many increases have been made in National Insurance contributions since October 1951; and what is the overall percentage increase.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) on 7th February.

That reply is most unsatisfactory. Does the Minister realise that this increased contribution constitutes a poll tax which falls very heavily on the lower income groups? Have the Government considered the economic implications of this? What remedy do they suggest?

Several of the Government's recent measures have, in fact, been moves exactly away from the position which the hon. Gentleman describes. If he will look again at the table, which he has, apparently, already studied, there will become evident to him the very considerable increase in contribution!; which will be necessary to pay for the benefits which, apparently, his party is now suggesting should be instituted. Perhaps another reading of the table will enable him to be rather more explicit about what contributions would be necessary.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in Scotland are receiving a reduced National Assistance allowance because of the operation of the wage pause.

I regret that the information is not available.

Is not this information which should be available? Is the hon. Lady aware that all the people coming within this category are living below the National Assistance scale level, which is supposed to be the lowest level at which anyone in this country lives? Will she, at least, see that this particular measure is operated in as humane a manner as possible, not in as harsh a way as possible, as seems to have been the case in many instances?

The hon. Gentleman has directed his Question to the "wage pause". I take it that his supplementary question is directed to the operation of the wage stop.

I take it that the hon. Lady knew what was meant by the use of the word "pause" instead of "stop" in this connection. Is she aware that we have regular examples of what seem to us to be a harsh application of the rule, where there seems to have been an effort to find the very lowest possible wage rate at which the calculation could begin? Will she ensure that this kind of practice is not continued?

The hon. Gentleman says that he has a large number of cases—

Frequent cases.

—frequent individual cases. I can only remember one coming to me since I have been answering, and that was the one which the hon. Gentleman himself forwarded, which, as he knows, resulted in considerable relief to his constituent. If he or other hon. Members know of more cases, I should be grateful if they would forward them.

The hon. Lady may think that she has given a smart reply to my hon. Friend, but is not she aware that there are many hundreds of people—married men with their wives and children—who are suffering under the wage pause in Scotland particularly because of the lower rates of wages there? Is there nothing at all that she can do to help these hundreds of families in Scotland who are living below what even this Government regard as the minimum subsistence level at which families can live?

The hon. Lady is very unjust in her strictures. Before I came here this morning, I went through every single file we had on this topic so that I could give the House an accurate answer. The hon. Lady knows the general principle—I do not think that the Labour Party would go against it, or, at least, I should be interested if they were to suggest it—that we cannot pay more to a person when he is out of work than he could expect to get on his return to work. We try to operate this principle very humanely, and we shall continue to do so, in spite of what the hon. Lady says.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many retired persons in Scotland are in receipt of an allowance from the National Assistance Board.

On 31st March, 1964, 109,339. Some of the allowances provided for the requirements of more than one person.

In the light of a figure as large as that, does not the hon. Lady agree that the basic pension is totally inadequate and that it is time that it was reviewed upwards?

In fact, the figure is slightly lower than it was a year ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost of financing an increase in the rates of pension is borne by contributors and the taxpayer, and this is one of the matters which has to be taken into account. It was raised, at a cost of £227 million all round, last year.

But have not we recently been told that the Government have budgeted for an increase? When shall we hear more about it?

If the hon. Gentleman will read the Government's White Paper on future expenditure he will find the relevant paragraph.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows are in receipt of either a pension of 10s. or no pension as a result of the raising of the operative age from 40 years to 50 years.

I estimate that the number is of the order of 10,000. I remind the hon. Member that the age test for a National Insurance widow's pension was always 50 for widows with no dependent children. Widows who fail to qualify under the age test and who cannot get work or are sick can now get unemployment or sickness benefit.

Does not the hon. Lady realise that women in this age group have the utmost difficulty in finding employment? In view of this fact, does not she consider that a change should be made?

One of the changes made after the National Insurance Advisory Committee reported in 1956 was to give widows with no title to a widow's pension a right to get unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. This was an improvement on previous legislation.

While there may be argument in the House about the age at which a widow ought to qualify for widow's benefit, does not the hon. Lady agree that it is a terrible hardship that a widow who just by days or even by hours comes below the age of 50 is debarred from a benefit which her fellow widow receives by virtue of being over 50? Will the Government, at least, consider introducing some flexibility at the end of the scale when considering the eligibility of widows for the widow's pension?

I agree that anyone who misses a particular benefit very narrowly is bound to feel a grievance. I am sure that I should myself. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and pass on his representations to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what progress is being made with the inquiry into occupational deafness; and when this is likely to be completed.

I understand that this inquiry is making satisfactory progress, but I am unable to say when it is likely to be completed.

The inquiry began in January, 1962. Is it not taking rather a long time? Is there any prospect of an interim report as a result of these inquiries which could be referred to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council so that it could consider the possibility of prescribing occupational deafness as an industrial disease, as is done already in many other countries?

The inquiry is taking a long time, and inquiries of this kind are bound to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is prospective research, measuring the deterioration, if any, in people with unaffected hearing at intervals of about nine months. If these prospective investigations are to teach us anything, the inquiry must take some time. The question of an interim report is for the scientists carrying out the research. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is in touch with progress and it is, naturally, keenly waiting the outcome, as the hon. Gentleman is.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has now completed his study of the question of wage-related unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he intends to introduce wage-related unemployment benefit.

I am still examining the problems involved.

The Minister will recognise that, while this would be a major change, it would be a very desirable one. Will he make a statement on the principle before the end of this Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman can be fully assured that we should not have entered into detailed discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation if we were not contemplating at all the possibility of this principle. When I have a statement to make, I shall make it.

Is the Minister aware that in this respect this country has already dropped behind most other advanced industrial countries? Does he not agree that he should now give us this information and that it is about time he gave us a definite statement that he intends quickly to introduce wage-related unemployment benefit.

The mere fact that I am taking a long time with this investigation is proof that I am going very thoroughly into the very difficult issues involved.

Is the Minister aware that Lord Blakenham, when he was Minister of Labour, promised us on this side of the House that the Government would legislate on severance pay last autumn? That subject was delayed while these talks on wage-related unemployment benefits were held. Now we seem to be no nearer a conclusion from the Government on either subject. Does not this show that the Government are very tardy?

I certainly cannot answer for my right hon. Friend, but I have given the answer which is right and, I think, justified on the issue of earnings-related benefit. I shall make a statement, if I have one to make, when I am ready to do so.