asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what percentage of the retirement pension is paid for by taxation and by contributions, respectively.

Retirement pensions, like other National Insurance benefits, are paid out of the National Insurance Fund. It is estimated that, of the total income of the Fund in 1965–66, nearly 16 per cent. will come from the Exchequer and just over 81 per cent. from insured persons and employers, with the balance coming from investment income.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House in monetary terms the actual cost to the taxpayer of the pensions for the current year?

No, I am afraid I cannot. There is no straightforward way of expressing the Exchequer's or contributors' share of the scheme because of the incidence of the excess of income over expenditure, or vice versa, each year.

I realise that it is a slightly different question, but can the hon. Gentleman give the proportions of the individual retirement pension paid by the contributor, the employer and the taxpayer?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she is aware of the effort required to stamp cards in respect of weekly contributions; and what consideration she has given to an alternative system to eliminate the present procedures.

Adhesive stamps for paying flat-rate contributions have many advantages for small employers and the self-employed and non-employed. For large employers alternative means of payment are already available and widely used.

Does the hon. Gentleman see any possibility of some radical alteration in the system, since the sticking on of these stamps to the present extent is a considerable waste of time and one is apt to continue procedures which have only time to commend them and not look around for radical alternatives?

The possibility of alternative methods has been closely examined on a number of occasions, but at the moment we cannot see any alternative to the present system.

Is this matter a subject of the review which the right hon. Lady is undertaking? Perhaps we could be told when we are likely to get any results from the review and what form it is taking.

I understand that my right hon. Friend will be answering Questions later concerning the review. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have examined other possibilities, but at the moment we are not making provision for any other method.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what action she has taken to encourage the development of private pension schemes.

The development of occupational and private pension schemes is already greatly encouraged by taxation concessions, and my right hon. Friend is not aware of the need for any further provision.

Can the Minister give an assurance that nothing will be done to discourage private occupational schemes, since there is a feeling that they may be discouraged in the future in comparison with the encouragement that was given by the previous Government?

I cannot give that assurance. The hon. Member will probably be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister has no responsibility for encouraging private schemes. A number of Departments are concerned with different aspects—for example, the Ministry of Labour with transferability and the Board of Trade with financial soundness—but in the last resort the general question concerning the part which private schemes might play in the national life is a matter for the Treasury.

Have the Government invited those who run private occupational schemes to give evidence to the Government review of social security which is taking place, of their promise of half-pay on retirement? Following what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said in his supplementary reply, surely hon. Members opposite have a responsibility for encouraging private occupational pension schemes.

The point is that the Government have never done anything to discourage private occupational schemes. As to the other part of the noble Lord's question, my right hon. Friend will have taken note of what he has said.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what the cost would be of providing all widows under the age of 60 years who are not now in receipt of any pension with a pension of £1 10s. a week.

About £3 million a year immediately, rising to about £9 million a year.

Can the Minister assure the House that one of the priorities for future action on her part will be to have particular regard to those widows between the ages of 50 and 60 who are in receipt of no pension at all? Should not this matter already have been given some priority?

I assure the hon. Member that in the general review the position of widows generally will be looked into carefully. I would also say that the hon. Member is expecting the present Government to have done during these few months what was not done in 13 years by the Government of his own party.

Does not the Minister agree that she has given some pensioners who were in receipt of 10s. in this category an increased pension, whereas some of those who are in receipt of nothing at all have received nothing whatever?

That is true. The widows who had 10s. had never had any increase. The increase which was given to them on their pension, which they had by right, was to bring their pension up to the purchasing power which it had originally.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will introduce a sliding scale pensions scheme for those who are widowed under the age of 50 years.

I have already made it clear that the structure of widows' benefits is one of the matters which will be considered in the course of our review of social security arrangements.

When making the review, will the Minister bear in mind that a lot of resentment is caused by the all or nothing dividing line at the age of 50 and that a lot of resentment would be reduced if somewhat lower pensions could be paid to those who are widowed between the ages of 45 and 50?

I have this very much in mind. Indeed, if the hon. Member cares to read the policy statement in "New Frontiers for Social Security", he will find it stated there clearly.

Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether the policy statement in "New Frontiers for Social Security" still remains the pledge of hon. Members opposite, because in all other respects it seems to have been totally abandoned?

The noble Lord has no evidence whatever that it has been totally abandoned. It is still our policy.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proportion of the 10s. any-other-case industrial injuries widows will receive increased benefit of 30s. a week under the National Insurance Act, 1964.

I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the 20s. industrial injuries "other case" widows. It is estimated that about two-thirds of these widows will have their widow's benefit increased to 30s. a week.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I was referring to the 20s. and not the 10s. one. 'That was a slip of the pen. But does he not remember saying that the majority of these widows would be covered by the new Act? I was trying to find out from him what he meant by having said on 3rd December that the majority would be covered by the new Act. Furthermore, could he tell us, please, what stage this inquiry by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has reached, and when we are likely to get answers to some of these problems?

Yes. The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that the majority are covered. The answer to the second part of the question is that the T.U.C. 1963–64 congress was aware of this reference to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own Government made. We are still awaiting the Council's advice. It is a long-drawn-out problem, but we hope we shall get the reply in the not too distant future.

Does the not too distant future mean a matter of months or weeks?

The not too distant future means exactly what I said.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will introduce a cost-of-living index to be specially applicable to old-age pensioners.

I am considering this complex matter.

Would not the Minister agree, whilst there was no need to have such an index under the last Administration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—since the cost of living has now gone up so much, the value of the pension increase in real terms will be worth almost nothing by the time the pensioners receive it and that publication of a cost-of-living index would be a real indication to trade union leaders to keep their claims in line with productivity and an indication that the burden of wages going ahead of productivity is placed so much on the old-age pensioner and on people with fixed incomes?

If the hon. Member will await a reply to further Questions, he will find that much of what he has said is simply poppycock.

Will my right hon. Friend take this occasion to repudiate the suggestion that there was no increase in the cost of living during the last 12 years?

I thought that my short reply dealt with that. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who put down the Question, must have known that throughout all those years the old people were objecting to their pensions being tied for part of the time to the index of retail prices.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that such a frivolous reply as she has given will be treated in the correct manner by the old-age pensioners?

I prefer the old-age pensioners to judge by deeds. If they do, they will find the increase very much better than any they had previously.

Is the Minister aware that the level of the pension was never tied to any index, and that if it had been it would not have been nearly as high as it was?

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what she estimates is the total number of those pensioners who are not covered by National Insurance Acts and whose incomes are below £500 a year; and what is their average age.

I regret that the information requested in not available. There are rather more than 450,000 old people who have no retirement pensions because they have not paid sufficient—or in some cases any—contributions. Their average age is about 78. About 210,000 are receiving payments from the National Assistance Board but the income distribution of the remainder is not known.

Is it the Minister's intention to support the excellent Bill which is being introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) to help these people?

Perhaps the hon. Member will await the introduction of the Bill, since no one yet knows what it will contain.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons applied for the £4 grant in December; and how many were in receipt of the grant.

The special payments were made, without application, to 1,579,915 people.

Can my hon. Friend say whether there have been any complaints on the part of any of these recipients about this grant, and whether my right hon. Friend has received any letters of appreciation?

We have received—the Department, my right hon. Friend and I myself—many hundreds of expressions of appreciation of the Government's policy on this matter.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what sum of money will have been contributed by full-time students at universities and training colleges when the National Insurance rates are raised.

Full-time students at universities and training colleges are not required to pay National Insurance contributions except when working for an employer, for example during vacations.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that many students, particularly those going into the teaching profession, have been asked to contribute as they will forfeit benefits—for instance, women will forfeit maternity benefits—if they do not complete their contributions at the end of their training?

Yes, but the hon. Lady will be aware that it is, of course, voluntary for students to pay contributions while for the rest of the community it is compulsory to pay from the age of 16. I am, of course, aware of certain difficulties with which students have to contend, but I think that if they are looked at very closely it will be found that many special concessions have been given to students over the years.

As this does really involve a quite complicated issue and does seem to bear hardly occasionally on some of the students concerned, would it not perhaps be better in the interests of the students themselves if, when grants are paid to students on attendance at universities and training colleges, arrangements were made for contributions to be deducted and for them to be placed on cards, so that when the students are trained they will not be faced with a backlog of contributions which they might be called upon to pay? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter which concerns university organisations and the National Union of Students very much indeed?

That is another question, and, of course, as the hon. Lady is aware, it involves other Ministries.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is not a period given over which these contributions can be back paid; because is it not fully accepted that those who have to work at the age of 16 have to contribute and university students can generally look to earning higher salaries than those who start work at 15 or 16? Is there not, as I have said, a term of years in which they can make their contributions? Can he tell us what it is?

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Lady, and the period to which she refers is six years.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will consider relieving students pursuing whole-time courses of education from the obligation of paying full National Insurance contributions out of their grant income.

Students pursuing whole-time courses of education are not in fact required to pay National Insurance contributions except when working for an employer, for example during vacations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these regulations were framed on the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee in a report dated June 1948? Is he further aware that since then the number of married students and students producing children has risen considerably, and that obligations do not necessarily arise from Statutes but sometimes from the moral obligation to maintain a family? May we have an assurance that this will be looked at again at an early stage?

Yes, Sir. However, my hon. Friend is not quite right. The present regulations are in accordance with the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee which has considered this question on three occasions—in 1948, in 1953, and in 1956. On each occasion the Committee came to the conclusion that it would be unfair to the general body of contributors, the vast majority of whom—as I said in reply to a previous Question—contribute from the age of 16, if further concessions were made.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is all the more important for married students to obtain insurance cover if they have families to look after?

I agree, and, as the right hon. Lady is aware, they are encouraged to do just that.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what progress she has made in her review of alternative methods of paying National Insurance pensions.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) on 14th December.

Is the right hon. Lady's review really necessary? Will she tell the House whether the delay in paying the pension increase is due to administrative difficulties, as she said on 16th November, or whether it is due to economic difficulties, as the First Secretary of State said at her party conference a few weeks ago?

If the hon. Member had been in this Chamber at about midnight one night when we were in Committee on the Bill, he would have found the answer to the question he is putting now.

Does the right hon. Lady recollect that the major part of her speech was devoted to telling us that the reasons why there was such a long delay in the introduction of the pension increase were administrative reasons, and that subsequently the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said the reasons were economic reasons? Surely she could be a little more forthcoming, and, indeed, open, and tell the House whether the reasons are administrative or economic?

We have nothing at all to hide on this. On Second Reading of the Bill I gave the administrative reason—and those administrative reasons still stand—why the pension increases could not be paid until the end of March. I then tried to work out some other means of paying to the old people the amount of money. It was only then that economic reasons came out—[Laughter.] Yes, there were the contributions, there were all sorts of things, to be taken into account. If hon. Members had studied what was said in Committee on the Bill they would have known that. The noble Lord knows very well that the speech which was made by my right hon. Friend at our conference at Brighton was made after the Committee on the Bill, and the whole country knew the economic reasons which were given.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that she has all our sympathy because the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs made her look rather foolish at the time?

I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not require the sympathy, since I had already myself made it absolutely clear, and before my right hon. Friend made his speech I knew exactly what was in it and agreed with it.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will programme in detail, with dates, the administrative action she has to take with regard to the increased retirement pensions due on 29th March; and if she will give a similar programme with the appropriate dates for the last increases under the previous administration.

Giving effect to increases in some six million retirement pensions is, as I indicated in my speech on the Second Reading of the National Insurance &c. Bill, a major operation involving a great number of detailed administrative measures throughout my Department and in others. These have to be linked with other extensive administrative action, much of it concurrent, to increase other National Insurance and industrial injury benefits, war pensions and contributions. I am afraid that in these circumstances it would not be possible to comply with the hon. Lady's request. I understand that the programme operated in 1963 by the previous administration when the number of pensioners was much smaller was broadly similar.

While accepting that that last sentence in a measure answers my Question, may I ask whether it is really a fact that the right hon. Lady cannot give in detail when the directions went out to call in the books, to issue the new books—the actual programme, of which the period of time runs into months? Or is this yet another attempt to explain away the ridiculous and untrue speech made by the First Secretary of State? Is it not a fact that all this could be cleared up if the right hon. Lady would give the programme in detail?

If the hon. Lady will read my speech on Second Reading of the Bill she will find much of the information for which she is asking. The hon. Lady ought also to know that in Committee I was then dealing with retrospective payments and double payments, where the question of contributions and all kinds of things had to be taken into account, including the worsening situation. Because of the mess left by her own Government it was found that it was impossible to pay sooner.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will seek to amend the earnings rule so as to remove the disadvantage at present suffered by those retirement pensioners who are only able to obtain seasonal employment.

The present rule does not always work disadvantageously and careful consideration of the question has not revealed any alternative which would be free from difficulties and anomalies. But I appreciate the hon. Member's concern and will keep the point under review.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, but may I ask her to examine what is done in other countries to deal with this problem of seasonal workers, and in particular to examine the example of New Zealand where they allow people of this kind to spread their earnings over a period to avoid hardship? Secondly, will she give the House an assurance that this whole question will be considered sympathetically in the course of the review which she is now conducting?

In answer to the first part of the Question, may I say that I certainly will examine what obtains in other countries. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in 1956 the National Insurance Advisory Council examined this very question, and that the advice given to the then Administration was not to alter the present method, but I am always willing to look at these matters again to avoid any hardship.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether it is her intention to increase the standard rate of National Insurance benefits in line with the rise in average earnings of men in manufacturing industries.

We have already taken action to increase national insurance benefits substantially. The amount and timing of any further increases in benefits must depend, as we made plain in our election manifesto, on the rate of advance of the economy.

But since the Command Paper issued in November in connection with the Bill said that the increase in benefits under the previous Administration had overtaken the increase in average earnings, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that it is her policy to continue that progressive process?

I am afraid that the ton. Lady misunderstands what was said. This new increase, which will obtain after 29th March, will finally bring the pensions for old people ahead of the increase in earnings.

The Command Paper specifically says that during the period under review, which was five years, "improvements in benefit rates had been overtaking the rise in earnings."

Withdraw.

I have nothing to withdraw. When we make these comparisons, we have to go right back to 1948, when the new benefits began. Even with the 1963 increase, the improvement in pensions and benefits had not overtaken the increase in earnings.

The right hon. Lady is not being fair in answer to my hon. Friend. Over the right hon. Lady's own signature in the Report accompanying the Bill she acknowledges that under the previous Administration rises in pensions had overtaken rises in earnings. All that my hon. Friend is asking is whether it is the right hon. Lady's policy to continue that process.

First, I must make it clear that what I have said to the hon. Lady is correct when the comparison is with pensions in 1948. As regards the second part of the question, the increases which the old people will get at the end of March are the highest ever given to them since 1948, whether one compares them with the index of retail prices, or with the rise in earnings, which I prefer.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many Commonwealth immigrants and aliens, respectively, including their dependants, had been receiving National Assistance for more than six weeks on 31st December, or the last date for which figures are available.

I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Is it not very important that the Government should know how many people who come here hoping to find work fail to do so and therefore have to go on to National Assistance? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that figures at any rate similar to those for which I have asked used to be available in the past? Will he make strenuous attempts to find out the facts about this matter?

I shall look into what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in the final part of his supplementary question, but neither the National Assistance Act nor the Board's records distinguish in any way between immigrants and others receiving assistance. The Board noes not collect information about the number of Commonwealth immigrants or aliens in receipt of assistance.

Is the hon. Gentleman's Department playing any part in the consideration which I understand the Government are giving to the whole question of Commonwealth immigration, and can he say when the Government are likely to complete that review?

That is another matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants a direct reply to it he should put down a question.

On a point of order. In answering Questions the hon. Gentleman said that during the course of Questions we should be given some information as to the progress of the review which his Department is carrying out. I do not seem to have heard that. May I ask whether we are to have that information?

The difficulty about this is maybe that some hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper are not here. The Minister cannot be responsible for knowing whether they will be here or not.

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the 10 new drugs recently rejected by his Committee on the Safety of Drugs, indicating the names of these drugs, the firms selling them as ingredients in sales to the public and the steps taken by him to protect the public from them and other noxious drugs; and when the next Report of that Committee will be made public.

The Committee has, I understand, no evidence that any of these drugs has been marketed.

May I ask whether, in pursuance of the steps which the Minister proposes to take to protect the public, he proposes to institute any prosecutions and, if so, will be publish the names of the firms convicted?

No, Sir. Unless a drug has been marketed without, or even against, the advice of the Committee, information in these new drugs submissions and the Committee's decision on them are confidential to the Committee, to its staff, and to the manufacturer. But I believe that the possibility of a public statement that a drug has been marketed without, or contrary to, the Committee's advice would be a very powerful sanction.

asked the Minister of Health what further action he intends to take to ensure that intending immigrants are effectively and adequately screened before entry into this country.

I intend to study the effect of the arrangements recently announced for improving the health safeguards on and after entry to this country before I decide whether further measures are needed.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give consideration to two suggestions which I should like to make to him while he is making the review? First, will he consider the possibility of having mass X-ray units at the ports, including airports, so that all intending immigrants can be X-rayed immediately on arrival in this country and can then be followed up if found to be tuberculosis positive? Secondly, may I suggest that if he finds that not to be a practical suggestion, he should consider the advisability of requesting an X-ray certificate before the voucher is given allowing an immigrant to enter this country, these X-ray certificates to be obtained at approved centres in the country of origin?

I must tell my hon. Friend that there are considerable difficulties in the way of any comprehensive or reliable health check in the country of origin. Further, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act makes no provision for any such check. As for the first suggestion, an X-ray unit is being established and will soon be in operation at London Airport, where about 60 per cent. of all immigrants arrive. I would like to see how this functions before considering its extension. There would be difficulties in the way of setting up X-ray units at every possible port of entry.

I feel that there should be a strengthening of health checks on immigrants to this country, but does not the Minister agree that this is not only an administrative problem but a humane problem of returning immigrants long distances to their points of emigration? Will he give serious consideration to the possibility of sending British doctors to the main points of emigration of immigrants to this country, so as to institute checks at those points?

There are so many points of possible departure that this also presents formidable difficulties. I have announced some new measures, and I want to see how they work out. I would also remind the House that there is no provision for the medical examination of certain quite considerable categories of Commonwealth immigrants into this country.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, in connection with the arrangements to abolish prescription charges for medicine, he will also take steps to abolish the charges for welfare foods such as cod liver oil, the imposition of which has led to a considerable diminution in the intake of welfare foods, with consequential ill effects on the health of children;

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) on 7th December 1964.

I have not seen that. In view of the fact that a clean sweep has been made with the abolition of prescription charges, would it not be consistent to do the same with welfare foods? Would it not also be beneficial?

What I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) was that I propose to keep the welfare food scheme, including the question of charges and of publicity about it, under review as part of my continuing watch over the nutrition of children generally. I would prefer to keep the welfare food scheme separate from the question of prescription charges. After all, they are very different.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the health of children has suffered in no way in respect of this question of welfare foods?

A nutritional study of 434 pre-school children has been completed, but the results have not yet been analysed. I shall be in a better position to answer the hon. Member when I have those results.

asked the Minister of Health what communications he has received from local authorities following the circulation to those authorities of the National Pure Water Association's booklet entitled "Fluoride Facts and Fancy".

One authority wrote to draw my Department's attention to the booklet and another asked whether my Department had any further comments.

Does the absence of any agreed communication from the local authorities to the Minister mean that local authorities are seized of the undesirability of adding fluoride to water for general consumption?

I hesitate to speculate on the motives of local authorities, but I would prefer to draw precisely the opposite conclusion. It is perhaps of some interest that the two local authorities who did write in both decided to introduce fluoridation as soon as practicable.

Does not the Minister agree that fluoridation would do more than any other single step to reduce the toll of dental disease of our children? Does he recollect that he repeatedly pressed the previous Government to get on with fluoridation? Will he say what steps he has taken to bring this desirable reform into being?

I can only say at the moment that the steps taken by the previous Government are being continued and intensified. I certainly agree with the hon. Member that no other public health measure has had such prolonged and detailed investigation before being advised for general use.

asked the Minister of Health what was the cost of the pay increase awarded to physiotherapists and radiographers on 29th October, 1964; and what was the estimated additional administrative cost of calculating and paying the award which was back-dated to 1st July, 1963.

The estimated annual cost for hospitals in Great Britain was £666,000; the administrative cost of implementing the increase in pay is not readily identifiable.

I welcome these increases and recognise that excessive difficulties were involved in calculating them, but does not the Minister agree that a 16-month back-dating places a very great burden on hospital finance boards? In future, could everything be done to get this period down to a minimum while nevertheless giving people a fair wage?

I am afraid that this operation was inevitable in the circumstances in question. I am aware that a lot of these pay increases in the Health Service are extremely complex and that they place burdens on finance departments. I am investigating ways in which they can be simplified in the future.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will examine the powers of his Department and the Council of Social Work Training to help with the training of tutors for courses for health and welfare social workers, so as to bring them into line with the powers of the Home Office to help with the training of tutors in child care and the probation service.

I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on this question.

Does not the Minister agree that a measure of reform could be achieved in these services if there were co-ordination in training in child care, the probation service and the health and welfare services? Will he consider bringing the powers of his Department into line with those of the Home Office in relation to child care and the probation service?

I am discussing the whole matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He is considering future arrangements for the professional training of these tutors as teachers in colleges of further education.

asked the Minister of Health if he will make the Palmer injection gun available for all diabetics who obtain a suitable prescription from their general medical practitioner.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that prescriptions of this sort may be prescribed in hospital? Is he aware that patients who attend hospital can undergo nervous disability because they are afraid of a hypodermic needle? Is he also aware that people who do not attend hospital are equally nervous about using a hypodermic needle? Does he not agree, therefore, that to make the Palmer injection gun available in the way suggested in the Question would be a great asset to many of these people? Has he given the Answer he gave because of the cost involved or because he fears that a wider use of the gun might prove dangerous?

I am aware that this gun may be provided at hospitals on the recommendation of a consultant. The cost, for my hon. Friend's information, is 33s. each. As to the question of prescriptions, general practitioners are limited to prescribing those appliances which are authorised by the regulations set out in the Drug Tariff. Additions to the list are normally made when there is a wide demand from doctors. We have no evidence so far of any such demand from doctors for the Palmer injection gun to be added to the list.

asked the Minister of Health whether it is his policy to introduce a chiropody service as part of the National Health Service or to leave chiropody services to be undertaken by the local authorities.

I propose to continue the present arrangements by which a service is provided by local authorities as part of the National Health Service.

asked the Minister of Health if he will issue instructions to local executive councils that where any general practitioner applies to discharge from his list a block of patients more than 20 in number, his subsequent remuneration shall be adjusted to take effect from the date on which the notification was received.

This would require amendment of the regulations which prescribe the way in which a practitioner's fees are to be calculated. If there were evidence that the present arrangements were working against the public interest I should, of course, wish to reconsider them with the profession.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an idea being canvassed that general practitioners will go on strike painlessly for a period of 12 weeks because, by the time they have taken people off their lists, the time for payment will come round again? Will he bear in mind, in his negotiations with the general practitioners, that this threat is rather empty and need not be taken into consideration?

I am aware of the proposals referred to by my hon. Friend. Threats to withdraw services, even partially, are not the best ways of making progress and improving the standards of general practice. I am glad to see that those who speak for the majority of the profession appear to agree with this.

asked the Minister of Health if every general practitioner in contract with the National Health Service bound to treat any person who may have been excluded from another doctor's list; and for what period this obligation must be accepted, even if such a person is not accepted permanently.

A doctor who contracts to provide general medical service under the National Health Service undertakes to give any treatment that may be required by a patient who applies for acceptance on his list, until that patient is accepted by or assigned to another doctor. He also undertakes to provide treatment in emergencies, if summoned in the absence of a patient's own doctor or his deputy.

Does not that Answer provide again the answer to any question of the withdrawal by practitioners from the Service being a sanction against the Minister of Health because, in any case, they will still have to give their services to their patients, which makes their strike threat entirely ridiculous?

Will the Minister make sure that he does not single out one profession or occupation for threatening to strike, and will he draw the attention of other parts of the country, including the dockers, to this undesirable practice?

I did not quite hear the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am certainly not singling out any profession. I am answering the Question put by my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Health whether in view of representations made by the British Medical Association and the General Practitioners' Association, he will reconsider his proposal to abolish the prescription charges.

No, Sir. Prescription charges have been abolished with effect from today.

Will not this decision impose a severe added burden upon already very overworked general practitioners? Is it really a good sense of priority, and should it take precedence for relief over more doctors, more nurses and more hospital beds? Do these not have a far greater need? Has the right hon. Gentleman not got his sense of priorities, financial and need, entirely wrong?

No, Sir. I do not consider that this will cause a considerably added burden on doctors. I have said that their fears, in my view, are very much exaggerated. There will be some increase in regard to people who have been deterred by the charges from seeking treatment. They will now be able to get it, and I am sure that the added burden will be willingly accepted by the medical profession. Indeed, until last July the British Medical Association pressed strongly and consistently for the abolition of prescription charges. The B.M.A.'s representatives told the Hinchingbrooke Committee that they regarded the charges as a tax on illness and old age, and I think that they were right.

While the right hon. Gentleman is increasing expenditure in this part of the National Health Service, will he take this opportunity to deny the widespread Press reports that he is cutting down on the hospital building programme or is rephasing it so as to slow down the various hospital projects?

The Minister has no responsibility for denying Press reports unless he is shown to be responsible for them.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this morning I spent over two hours writing prescriptions in a surgery, that there was certainly no increase at all in their number and that there were no frivolous claims? Does not this Question anticipate a situation which will not arise?

indicated assent.

None the less, will the right hon. Gentleman be rather more specific about the estimate he has made of the increase in prescriptions which is likely to flow from the abolition of the charges?

No, Sir. Clearly I cannot be specific on such a matter. I can only say that I do not believe that there will be any substantial increase, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said rather suggests that I may be right.

asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made and contemplated in respect to unrestricted visiting by parents to children in hospitals and in deciding on the definition of unrestricted visiting in an effort to achieve some uniformity.

My latest information is that, on the basis of the definition which I gave in reply to my hon. Friend on 16th November, 560 of the 853 hospitals which admit children have adopted the practice of unrestricted visiting by parents. Not all hospitals have yet completed the review of their arrangements which I have asked for; but I shall continue to watch the position closely in order to secure general adoption of the practice.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but can he state what is the definition of "unrestricted visiting"? Is it two hours, five hours, or seven hours per day?

It goes very much further than that. Under the definition parents are allowed into the ward at any reasonable hour during the day, subject to the discretion of the consultant in charge and the sister. Five hundred and sixty hospitals comply with that definition. In addition, a further 48 hospitals have extremely generous visiting hours—at least from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the definition itself leads to a good deal of confusion? Will he take steps to carry that definition a little further, so as to explain exactly what "reasonable hours" means?

They are the hours at which children are not put to bed. This is well understood by the children's departments of hospitals. We have had a good deal of difficulty in formalising a definition in the past. The present one has been accepted by hospitals, and I would very much like to leave it where it is at the moment.

I am entirely in sympathy with the question put by my hon. Friend, but is the Minister aware that we can take this process a bit too far? The interest of the efficiency of nursing must be borne in mind.

It is borne in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend that where unrestricted visiting has been adopted the fears previously expressed on the part of the staff have normally not been found to be justified.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the administrative steps he is taking to improve the co-ordination of the review of the local authority health and welfare service and the review of the hospital building programme.

I have nothing to add as yet to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord on 21st December.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that his Answer gave no information at all? Does not he agree that the greatest weakness of the Health Service lies in the lack of co-ordination between its three main elements? With regard to the review of local authority services and hospital services, can he say whether there would be co-ordination at local authority level or, after all the plans have been prepared, within the Ministry?

I must ask the hon. Member to be patient for a little longer. He has a Question down a week today on the review of the Hospital Plan. Perhaps he will defer his supplementaries until then.

asked the Minister of Health what is the percentage and number of private pay beds in the hospitals under his control; and whether, in view of the shortage of hospital beds, he will take steps to reduce this figure.

1·2 per cent. and 5,658. I am at present reviewing policy on pay beds and will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

While being grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he is going to review this policy, might I ask him to bear in mind that many people who are in urgent need of treatment are being compelled to wait while other people, who have the money, are able to buy their way into hospital? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House consider it quite wrong that one should be able to buy good health if one can afford it?

To the extent that that allegation is justified, it is just one of the considerations I shall take into account in the course of my review.

Does the Minister's statement mean that he is going back on the policy which was adopted by his party when they introduced the National Health Service; that is, to provide for private beds, pay beds and amenity beds? If so, what difference will that make, because surely the position is that when pay beds are not in use for paying patients they are made available for National Health Service patients?

I think the hon. Lady has read more into my Answer than she might have done. I said that the whole policy about pay beds was under review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presence of pay beds in our hospitals is one of the factors leading to the policy of queue jumping? Is he aware that this, alongside the part-time consultancy service, is a matter which should be a subject for review, bearing in mind the policy of the party to which he and I belong?

These and other factors will be taken into account, I can assure my hon. Friend.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the need of the occupant of the private pay bed is as great as the occupant of any other bed? Will he reject absolutely and emphatically any attempt by his hon. Friend to remove this limited opportunity to contribute to some of the cost?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my hon. Friend, who was suggesting that in some cases the need of patients, medically, who get into pay beds is not as great as the need of some of those who are still waiting in the queue for non-pay beds.

asked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider the method of representation on the various hospital boards.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on 16th November.

In his future consideration of the matter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, particularly in the trade union movement, over hospital board representation; and that the trades councils, particularly, have applied pressure?

I should, perhaps, explain that before appointing members of boards I am required by the Act to consult universities, local health authorities, representatives of the medical profession, and a number of other interested organisations. There is a wide choice open to me. I will, of course, bear in mind all considerations brought to my attention by my hon. Friend or by any Member of the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since he gave that Answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on 16th January, the hon. Member has been informed that over the last 13 years—when, of course, my right hon. Friend was not responsible—the Labour membership of the local hospital committee has been reduced from six to two; that there has been jiggery-pokery—to which I called the attention of the House 12 months ago publicly, and this is on its records; that we are gravely dissatisfied with the constitution of the local hospital committee and think that it is too slow and that something must be done about it and that my efforts to do something about it will be frustrated by the local hospital committee unless we get a stronger membership on it?

My hon. Friend will realise that hospital management committees are not appointed by me. They are appointed by the regional hospital boards, which are appointed by me.