asked the Minister of Public Building and Works to what extent there has been a shortage of bricks or other building materials in Scotland in the last six months.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether there is now a shortage of building materials in Scotland.

There has been no shortage of bricks in Scotland during the last six months. Cement supplies have been satisfactory since the beginning of August. Delivery periods for plasterboard, some ironmongery, and large diameter pipes continue to be longer than is customary.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assessment for plasterboard for the coming six months as regards Scotland?

Plasterboard deliveries have improved. New production is coming into being at the beginning of 1966, and the situation will then improve rapidly.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in how many cases he has made recommendations for the preservation of ancient monuments situated under the proposed route of electricity cables, under Section 44 (3) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926.

I regret that the information could not be provided without an expenditure of time and effort which would not be justified by the small number of cases involved.

Is there not a danger that some of our archaeological remains will be irreparably lost or damaged in the course of transmission works, and will the hon. Gentleman consider ways by which a more efficient and flexible system could be adopted by the Departments so that we can protect these remains while it is still possible?

There is very close collaboration between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and my Department. If the hon. Lady knows of a specific case in which a monument is threatened in the way she suggests, perhaps she will let me know, and we will look into it.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is satisfied that serious shortages of all building materials have now been overcome; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, except for plasterboard, but supplies of this should improve in 1966.

Will my hon. Friend consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the main building materials showing how many months' supply there was in October, 1964, and the current position?

Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend will consider that.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why stage three of the roof scheme of improvements to the Palace of Westminster has been postponed, and for how long; and why the factors causing the postponement have not resulted in a change of completion date for the Star Chamber Court scheme.

The start on stage three would have meant my going to the Chancellor for £80,000 when there was a general retrenchment. Postponement is to April, 1966. The contract for the Star Chamber Court scheme had already been let prior to the Chancellor's measures.

Is not this just juggling with figures, and will not hon. Members be inconvenienced by the putting off of this vital stage three of the roof scheme?

No, Sir. The Answer to another Question will show that we have not been tardy in recognising the needs of Members.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will state the total sum expended upon improvements to the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster in the years 1952 to 1964; and how many square feet of accommodation have been made available to hon. Members, Ministers and the House of Commons Library by virtue of this expenditure.

Just over £300,000 to provide 3,750 sq. ft. of additional accommodation for Members, 2,100 sq. ft. for Ministers, and 4,150 sq. ft. for the House of Commons Library. That makes about 6,000 sq. ft. for Members.

Does the Minister agree that on the present rate of progress, if it is kept up, hon. Members will be pretty well off in about five years?

That sounds all right, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at what has been done since he will see that we have done very much better in the last 12 months. Schemes in progress or planning will give 14,000 sq. ft. of usable office space at a cost of £460,000. Details of this are as follows: the south block of the roof space to be completed at the end of this month, which will provide an additional 3,400 sq. ft. of space for Members and possibly 1,700 sq. ft. for the Fees Office; and the new Star Chamber Court building, due to be completed in the early part of 1967, which will provide a further 9,000 sq. ft. of usable office space.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on his official discussion with representatives of the National Federation of Clay Industries on 23rd September, 1965.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued after the discussion. I am sending him a copy.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of today's Daily Mail in which, under the heading "The plan that dropped a brick", it is suggested that the National Federation of Clay Industries will be faced at the end of the year with a very disturbing—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot question the Minister on something for which the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible.

May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the plans of the industry for a very substantial increase in production will go ahead or whether it is true that they will be postponed?

That is up to the industry. I consider that I have given it all the necessary assurances. In any case, I am not prepared to reduce the amount of house-building that is being carried out by industrialised building methods. That was one of the suggestions made. Industrialised building must be allowed to play its part alongside traditional building methods to enable the best possible use to be made of the labour available and to ensure maximum output.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will give the figures for the value of orders of new work by contractors in the construction industry in August 1965 and the seasonally adjusted index figure for August 1965, taking 1958 as 100.

The provisional figure is £218 million. The adjusted index 148.

Are not those figures lamentable and is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that if the Government's present policy in this matter continues—reinforced by building licences—the industry may find itself facing a quite serious situation?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is "No, Sir." The sharp fall in the figures in August must be taken to be the result of the July measures. These were intended to reduce the demands on the economy and to reduce the load on the construction industry, which had too much work in hand.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many insured operatives aged 15 years and over, excluding administrative, technical and clerical workers and self-employed operatives, were employed by contractors in the construction industry in July 1964; and what was the equivalent figure for July 1965.

1,151,000 in July 1964, and 1,121,000 in July 1965.

Does this drop in numbers not indicate that there is something wrong in the industry, which we were assured would expand? How does the Parliamentary Secretary equate the industry's expansion with this drop in figures?

For a start, there are 4,000 fewer unemployed. There are also 10,000 more people in the categories which the hon. Gentleman excluded, which is making for very efficient production in the industry. There must be some men who transfer to factories producing industrialised building components.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT the value of new orders obtained by contractors in the construction industry at current prices for each month of 1965; and what were the equivalent figures for 1964.

Yes, Sir.

Could not the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication of what the figures show?

In the first eight months of this year the total value of new orders held by contractors was about £2,066 million, at current prices, compared with £1,979 million in the corresponding period of 1964.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) if he will give the figure for the number of bricks in stock at the end of September 1965;

Stocks of bricks at the end of September amounted to 233 million. I think they may rise to nearly 350 million by the end of the year.

Would not the Minister agree that this tremendous increase in the stocks of bricks during September, and the further vast increase forecast for the end of the year, exposes a really scandalous situation in which the industry has increased its output at the specific request of the Minister, only now to find that it has done it on a forecast which has been proved to be wholly wrong and incompetent?

To answer the last part of that supplementary first, when I met the brickmakers on assuming office they told me that it took about three years to step up production—that is, to get new plant going and so on—and we have been in office for only about 12 months. The figure of 8,400 million for this year's production includes a figure of about 300 million for normal reserves. This is about one and a half day's supply and there was a severe shortage in the industry when I assumed office.

In view of the Minister's hopeless failure to make a forecast even over a few months, how does he intend to restore the industry's confidence in relation to the five-year planning envisaged in the National Plan?

The hon. Gentleman has as yet not even a nodding acquaintance with the industry. He will find that when I met the industry it was not lacking in confidence.

To give an accurate picture of the position to the House, would my right hon. Friend state the number of days' supply of bricks held at the end of September and the number of days' supply the industry will be holding at the end of the year?

Stocks of.bricks at the end of September represented about 11 days' supply. By the end of the year they should represent about 16 days' supply. When I took office there were about two or three days' supply of bricks in stock.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many public events are planned for 1966 at historic buildings in his charge; and whether he will make a statement.

Twenty-one such events have been agreed, or are being considered.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary really satisfied with this pro- gramme? Would he not agree that this country is very well endowed with historic buildings of great beauty and that many of them are not being put to adequate use? Would he not also agree that if we increased this programme greatly it would very much assist the growing and important tourist industry?

We are indeed proud of our historic monuments and buildings and we consider sympathetically all cases that are put to us. However, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must bear in mind that in some historic monuments activities of this sort interfere with the residents who live in or near them.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many new publications relating to historic buildings in his charge are planned for 1966.

Twenty-six.

In view of the importance of tourism to help in our balance of payments, is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that his Department is doing enough to publicise the historic buildings under his care? Can he further state whether those pamphlets and guides will be published in other languages than English and, if so, which are these languages?

I shall gladly send the hon. Member the list, but, on the whole, productivity under this Government has been much better than under the previous Administration. At the end of 1965 we shall have produced 27 guides of the sort he has mentioned, while in 1964 only 14 were published. As the chairman of the committee dealing with the matter, I have this very much in mind.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will hold consultations with the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the improvement of the protection of the surroundings of historic buildings and ancient monuments.

My right hon. Friend is not aware of a need for any further special consultations with the Minister of Housing and Local Government but if the hon. Member has any particular difficulty in mind perhaps he would let me know.

Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to implement the resolution of the Council of Europe on this?

My right hon. Friend has power, under the Ancient Monuments Act, to protect the scheduled area of any ancient monument, and the protection of ancient buildings is the responsibility of the local authority and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further discussions his department has conducted with local authorities in the London area on the use of industrialised building.

None, Sir, because the National Building Agency for which my right. hon. Friend is responsible undertakes the detailed, technical discussions.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he has proposed two new blocks of buildings for Whitehall before Her Majesty's Government have produced definite proposals for the traffic in the area; and what steps he is taking to implement Professor Buchanan's scheme for removing through traffic from this area.

These buildings can be planned without prejudice to the traffic proposals. I am now awaiting the outcome of the Greater London Council's studies on these.

Is it not really putting the cart before the horse not to deal with the terrible traffic problems which we have outside this building as part of the general scheme for these plans? Would that not give confidence to the public, for does not the public want to see done what it can most easily see needs to be done?

What is now apparent to the hon. Gentleman was as clear as daylight to me a long time ago. If he considers the statement which I made in July he will see that I indicated then that these traffic studies were proceeding. They are still proceeding. As I have said, if the consideration of this plan needed a traffic study beforehand then, of course, we would have undertaken one. However, the Martin-Buchanan proposals, including those of Professor Colin Buchanan, showed us that that was not so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said last week that he hoped to make a further statement? When will he make that statement, for does he realise that this is a matter of great importance to all hon. Members?

I told those concerned that the hon. Gentleman, and all other hon. Members, are interested and I told them to hurry it up.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what representations he has received from the Royal Institute of British Architects regarding the findings of their inquiry into restrictions on building, details of which were received on 13th October 1965; and whether he will make a statement;

I met these bodies and a statement was sent to the Press. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and for sending me a copy. Nevertheless, is he aware that these reports reveal a serious state of affairs, with over £500 million worth of orders having been cancelled between July and September, a downtrend in output by the end of 1966, and that 7 per cent. unemployed in architects' offices is anticipated by the end of the year? What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to halt this trend?

I did not accept all the assumptions. Nor did I accept the basis on which they were made. As a matter of fact, we have made a careful analysis of all these figures. For example, it is customary for a great deal of work, in normal times, to get on to the drawing board but to get no further. This figure ran into many millions of pounds. It was included in the statistics when I met those concerned.

Are not the cancellations in this case on a much larger scale than in previous years and is it not a fact that, in the face of this anticipated falling-off of work in this industry, it is madness to impose building licensing on top of it?

It is difficult to answer these complicated matters in reply to a supplementary, but I will try to do so as shortly as possible. Broadly speaking. last year there was overheating in the industry to the tune of about £100 million. It would have been £140 million this year. To take up the slack which will become apparent next year, I have already announced that I am prepared to receive applications for building licences in advance of the Bill and that I will let the most urgent projects through the pipeline. [Interruption.] That is what we call planning.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what are the reasons for the delay in building the new embassy in Rome; and when he hopes to proceed with the project.

The same reasons which caused the postponement of many public projects in this country.

Will the Minister bear in mind the desirability especially in Rome of adequate architecture in which to house the British Mission?

I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in this. I am sensible that in a city of great historic beauty this country's representatives should be housed in a fitting building. We have accepted this in principle, and I hope that the work will start next September.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what considerations he took into account in arriving at his decision that the design of the Government offices on the Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace site should be entrusted to his Department.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to reconcile his proposal for a new building on the site at Parliament Street with the proposal in the Martin Report that the area should be developed in conjunction with the other side of Whitehall; and whether he intends to appoint a third architect to plan the building on the other side of Whitehall to replace the Great George Street Government offices.

My Department will have to analyse the users' needs for all these buildings and to work out with Sir Leslie Martin the planning principles that are to govern the development as a whole. This experience will be carried through into the design of the Bridge Street office building which will be the pilot project for the entire complex.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sticking to the statement he made on 3rd November that the design of the Government offices on the Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace site will be done by his Department? If so, will be bear in mind the very poor effort which the architects in his Department have made of many buildings overseas in the past few years? Would it not be better to open the design to world competition rather than to have it done by architects in his own Department?

The hon. Gentleman is on very dangerous ground sometimes when he attempts adverse comment on the relationship between public and private architects. I may tell him that, in certain cases, I have some very valid objections to both.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this area forms part of one side of Parliament Square and that it is vital for the Government to do a little more in the way of coordination?

My Department has designed many important buildings throughout the world, which must have escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle). But, again, I would say that I am as sensitive as anybody here to what is required of any Minister of Works planning a site of that description.

Would not the Minister clarify the position? Is it the fact that the other three important parts of this project are to be done, one by a selected architect and one by an architect chosen by competition, but that this key position, of immense importance and with immense problems, is to be dealt with by the architects in his own Department? Is he satisfied that this is the right thing to do, and would he not consider it again before making a final decision?

I have made the decision and the Government have accepted the decision, and it is seemly that my Department should do this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If I had put it out that an unspecified private architect was to do it, hon. Members opposite would probably have agreed without knowing who he was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Competition."] There is to be competition for a part of the total development. I think that there is a great deal of architectural talent concentrated in my Department.

While casting no aspersions whatever on the very able architects in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, surely, as has been pointed out, the crucial importance of this site to the whole of this part of London means that the right hon. Gentleman should have the widest possible field of choice in selecting the architect for the task. Will he not, whether he has made a decision or not, have the good sense to reconsider the matter?

I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman is an authority on good sense. As a matter of fact, I have had this under a great deal of review. I have had a good deal of professional advice of all sorts. A decision had to be taken by someone, and it has been taken.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he proposes to seek the services of two different architects to plan adjoining buildings for parliamentary and Government offices in the area bounded by Bridge Street, Parliament Street and Richmond Terrace.

As I said in my statement of 3rd November, we need to draw on a range of architectural talent both in my own Department and in private practice.

But what efforts is the right hon. Gentleman making to be quite certain that this will form an integrated whole with Parliament Square when it is finished?

We are, of course, retaining Sir Leslie Martin as principal consultant. I answered the Question in part in the Answer I gave to a previous Question, that my Department has designed many important buildings throughout the world and we have unique experience in planning for the uses and needs of others. It seems to me that with the principal consultant we shall get the degree of unification, integration and harmony of design to which both the hon. Gentleman and I aspire.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consultations with the Royal Institute of British Architects he held before arriving at his decision to limit the selection for the architect of the proposed new Parliamentary building to architects from the Commonwealth; and if he will now reconsider this decision.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consultation he had with the authors of the Whitehall Plan before reaching his decision to limit the selection for the architect of the proposed new Parliamentary building to architects from the Commonwealth.

I held no formal consultations with either the Royal Institute of British Architects or Sir Leslie Martin, but both have informed me that they support my proposal for a Commonwealth competition.

Would not the Minister agree that this is probably the most important site ever to be planned in this way, and is it not absolutely vital that it should be planned by the best architect in the world, no matter from what country he comes? Would he not further agree that in his Answer to me last week he implied that he and I were liberal-minded and that others were not? Who are the others who are stopping him from taking the right decision in the matter, and will not he reconsider the decision?

I still hold the view that the hon. Gentleman and I are more liberal-minded than others. ' For instance, I could imagine quite a lot of people behind him who would not agree with his point of view—and a lot of people behind me. But it does seem to us, after all consideration, that it is appropriate that something within the centre of the Commonwealth should be left to a Commonwealth architect. The hon. Gentleman should not have grumbled. I have no doubt that if his hon. Friends had remained in office there would not have been any competition at all but merely selection.

The one thing certain is the Minister's ego, which has remained unchanged. Why is he so chauvinistic in this matter? Why does he not look at the subject again? Surely, the Commonwealth itself, which has a pride in this building and its precincts, would want the very best the world can offer.

That occurred to me, but it still seems to me, for a lot of reasons, that it is appropriate that the work should be left to a Commonwealth architect. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that, at the end of the day, one does not quite know what architect one will get—or of what nationality. That is not the only reason, but it seems to us that if we throw it open to the whole of the Commonwealth we are going wide enough in this context.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what esti- mates his Department has received of the number of private houses likely to be started in 1966.

Amongst builders building on their own initiative, the last Ministry inquiry revealed that in 1966 they would start about the same number as in 1964. Assuming a similar pattern amongst builders building for clients, the number would be between 230,000 and 240,000.

Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that after all the Government's boasting about the housing programme, it is rather sad that in 1966, after two years have gone by, they will be building no more private houses than in 1964? And what does he intend to do about it?

The whole matter is being very carefully discussed. I have no doubt at all that when the final results emerge they will be very satisfactory.

Of the private houses mentioned in the Question, will the Minister say how many are likely to be built in 1966 in Scotland, and in which parts of Scotland? Will he issue a statement on that subject?

I hesitate to rush in on Scotland without adequate notice.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether failure to increase the number of houses privately built is deliberate or inadvertent?

More houses will be built this year than were built under the previous Administration.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will introduce legislation to provide for disabled and sick discharged soldiers and sailors the right to rehearing of an application for a pension, on new medical evidence being available.

As my hon. Friend knows legislation is not needed to enable my Department to re-examine cases which have not been the subject of a decision by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and we are always willing to do so. Even where a P.A.T. has found against a claimant, he has a statutory right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law and if, exceptionally, new medical evidence later becomes available which throws fresh light on a case, there is a well recognised procedure by which it can, by consent, be remitted for rehearing. I am satisfied that this procedure, which is well known to the British Legion, is in the best interests of the claimant; and before considering any changes in the adjudication arrangements for war pensions I should wish to consult them.

Is the Minister aware that there is not one hon. Member on either side of the House who has not had cases of disabled soldiers who have lost their claims because they could not find medical evidence at the time, that this Question does not deal with points of law, that this procedure by way of appeal is exceedingly expensive and costly and that people cannot always take advantage of it, that a Measure to rectify this anomaly was introduced in the last Session and that no hon. Member on either side of the House raised his voice against it, and that it was defeated by her own implacable opposition? Would she explain why?

I am sure that my hon. Friend must realise that, in getting justice for disabled ex-Service men, there is no conflict between him and me. What I want to ensure is that justice is done to every disabled ex-Service man. I understand that the British Legion value the flexibility of the present arrangements, whereby we have the "consent-remit" procedure. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall have discussions with the British Legion and the other ex-Service men's organisations to find out their views, in order that, at the end of the day, there will be justice for every disabled man in this country.

Will the right hon. Lady agree that various improvements have been made in this procedure over the years? Will she accept the assurance that any further improvements which she can make which would increase the justice done to these men would have the full support of the House?

Certainly.

Would the Minister agree that the present arrangements to which she refers seem to give the benefit to the Ministry rather than to the claimant? Would she look at that?

I am certain that the present arrangements do not give the benefit to the Ministry. Where there are questions of doubt, in almost every instance the disabled ex-Service man gets the benefit of the doubt.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in view of the state of the existing law on the subject, what proposals she has for dealing with sufferers from byssinosis.

Industrial injuries cover for byssinosis was extended as recently as a fortnight ago to cover flax spinners in processes up to and including carding. My right hon. Friend has no further proposals at present.

But is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, once again, a Measure supported by the cotton textile unions in Oldham and elsewhere was introduced and defeated by the implacable hostility of the Minister during the last Session, that, out of a fund of £100 million in 1964, figures show that only one male person got 100 per cent. pension for byssinosis and that I constantly submitted evidence of tragic cases of people who had been defeated by this faulty medical definition? What does he intend to do about it?

I do not agree with at least the middle part of my hon. Friend's argument. The position is that the Industrial Advisory Council made a comprehensive review of the position in 1955, as a result of which the present Regulations were introduced. The Council subsequently, in 1960, considered whether occupational cover for cotton workers should be extended, but found no evidence then to support this view. The extension of cover to flax spinners in the agreed processes was again made following the Council's recommendation. There is no evidence at present that any of the Regulations has been defective so far as our present medical knowledge of byssinosis is concerned.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in response to representations from the National Grocers' Federation and others, he will now order the small stocks of suspect corned beef remaining in private hands to be destroyed.

This would not be justified on health grounds since the stocks could be rendered safe for human consumption.

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that this question refers back to an answer by the Parliamentary Secretary on 1st November, which appeared to indicate that there were stocks in private hands in respect of which he had not received assurances that they would not be released to the market?

I know that there is public concern about this matter but I am advised that, provided it is reprocessed by an approved method, this meat would be safe for human consumption. The representations of the hon. Gentleman's Question were made to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and any Question about withholding of these stocks on commercial grounds should be addressed to him.

As the Government have taken care to ensure that by far the greater part of this consignment shall not come on to the market, why are they so reluctant to take drastic action in the case of this small section which is in private hands?

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that no relevant cans from the canning establishment associated by the Committee of Inquiry with the Aberdeen typhoid outbreak will be disposed of in this country for any purpose.

In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement the other day that there could be no guarantee that these stocks would not be released for human consumption, does the Minister's statement today mean that he can guarantee that none of this particular corned beef will be released for human consumption, whether processed or not, in this country and whether reexported or reimported?

It depends what the noble Lady means by "this particular corned beef". The reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) related to the relevant cans from the establishment associated by the Committee of Inquiry with the Aberdeen outbreak. The noble Lady will be aware that many more cans were voluntarily withheld from sale pending that inquiry.

Is the Minister not aware that recent outbreaks of peculiar and unexpected diseases in various parts of Britain make this matter of great national concern? Will he take powers to see that such suspected beef or imported food is destroyed?

I am not sure to what peculiar diseases my hon. and learned Friend is referring, but I know that there has been no suggestion that any of the recent outbreaks of any disease have been associated with corned beef or typhoid.

What consultations are going on between the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is this not the kind of decision which ought to be taken by the Government as a whole?

The decisions which I have announced are those of the Government as a whole. I am concerned only with the health aspects of this and, on health grounds, I am satisfied—as my original Answer made clear—that the stocks can be rendered quite fit for human consumption. But withholding on commercial grounds is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, with whom I have been in constant touch throughout this matter.

asked the Minister of Health what priority he has assigned to the provisions of specially adapted mini-cars instead of three-wheeled one-seater vehicles for all severely disabled National Health Service patients in relation to other desirable improvements in National Health Service facilities.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to his Question on 29th March last.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend if he recollects 18 months ago, when he was in:he position of Opposition spokesman on health matters, writing a letter to a disabled constituent of mine, Mr. Peter McBride, in which he was strongly critical of the present position and attacked the Conservative Government for maintaining it, and asked whether it was at that time the standard reply?

I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Member has said, but may I assure the hon. Member that this matter is to be reviewed early next year? It is continually under review and the review will continue next year and we shall do what we can when the time comes.

Will my hon. Friend look especially at this problem in view of the social implications? Will he look closely at the circumstances where a disabled individual is not allowed to have a partner in the car, or even a friend, in cases of breakdown? Will he especially look at this matter from that angle?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I am very conscious of the social implications of the present position, but in the review we shall make we shall have to take into consideration not only those who are in receipt of these vehicles but also those who so far have not been able to receive a vehicle even though they have been disabled.

Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that a four-wheeled vehicle is not only safer for the passenger and the driver but also for pedestrians and other road users? Will he give this matter urgent attention?

I shall certainly give the matter urgent attention, but I ought to make quite clear to the House that we are satisfied that the present three-wheeled vehicle is safe both for the pedestrian and the user of the vehicle, provided it is reasonably used and maintained at maximum efficiency. I should not like anyone to be under the impression that it is unsafe.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that even with a mini-car getting a wheel-chair on to the car poses a great problem, whereas with a Ford Anglia or Morris 1000 a chair can be put aboard?

We take into account the problem of loading and unloading an invalid chair and so far as humanly possible we do whatever we can to assist pensioners and patients, and this will be taken into account in any review.

asked the Minister of Health how many home helps are available in West Hartlepool and Hartlepool, respectively; what is the number of applicants for home help service, and the number receiving such service; and how many in-patients in the Hartlepools Group of Hospitals could be relieved of hospital care if home help service was available for them.

Sixty-three and 15 (in whole-time equivalents); 504 and 101: 484 and 101, respectively. Information on the last part of the Question is not available.

Can my hon. Friend say that during the present general review of the services this service will be given special attention particularly in relation to the latter part of my Question? Will he agree that this matter is of importance and that it ought to be the policy of the Department he represents that people ought not to stay in hospitals for too long when the home help service could be made available to them?

I should not like to try to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's Question in reply to a supplementary Question because in-patients may need more than home helps and it would be necessary to have a very searching inquiry before answering that point. My hon. Friend may like to know that the ratio of home helps per thousand of the population in both West Hartlepool and the Hartlepools is higher than the national average and it is predicted that in 1973 it will still be higher than the national average.

asked the Minister of Health what hours of overtime at plain-time rates are being worked per week by the staff at Broadmoor Hospital; and whether he will make a statement on the staff shortage there in the light of the security considerations involved.

An average of 692. There are vacancies for 49 male and nine female nurses in a total complement of 370. Thanks to the skill and devotion of the staff, very high standards of security are maintained.

While quite understanding the Minister's difficulty in recruitment, does his Answer not show that the imposition of the 42-hour week last July has been largely nullified by the shortage of staff to implement it?

No. The implementation of the 42-hour week has meant that the staff have been working one and a half hours a week less, in other words, the overtime has gone up by only half an hour following the reduction of hours by two hours.

asked the Minister of Health how many hospital beds there are in the area served by the former London and Middlesex County Councils; how many are governed by teaching hospitals and how many are under the administra- tion of regional hospital boards; and what estimate he has made of the number which are likely to be transferred to teaching hospitals in the next year.

In National Health Service hospitals, 51,639; of these 15,654 are administered by boards of governors of teaching hospitals and 35,985 by regional hospital boards.

Whilst recognising the tremendous efforts my right hon. Friend is making to get more doctors in teaching hospitals, may I ask him to bear in mind the long-term cogent reasons for the integration of teaching hospitals with the regional hospital boards?

When the time comes to consider the long-term aspects of the administration in the London area I shall bear the views of my hon. Friend in mind.

asked the Minister of Labour why Her Majesty's Government has not stated its policy towards the International Labour Office Recommendation on Discrimination in Employment 1958; and if it will now do so.

The present Government fully accept the general principle of both the Convention and Recommendation on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation that there should be no unfair discrimination in the field of employment. We are, however, not able to ratify the Convention as industrial practice in the United Kingdom is not entirely in accordance with its provisions.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he agree that there is abundant evidence of racial discrimination in industry which is increasing and that only by extending the provisions of the Race Relations Act to apply to employment practices is this trend likely to be arrested?

My Department's employment exchange managers have full instructions not to condone discrimination on race or colour under any circumstances.

Perhaps, therefore, my hon. Friend will explain why certain managers of employment exchanges are initiating inquiries with employers as to whether they will take coloured people or not, and not waiting for employers to submit their own discriminatory recommendations to them?

I am not aware of that, but if my hon. Friend will give me details I shall certainly have them looked into.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what steps have been taken to ensure the necessary staffs and accommodation in anticipation of the implementation of the Government's proposals set out in the White Paper on the Land Commission.

Arrangements are well in hand for designating staff and earmarking accommodation.

Why have not these duties been added to those of the district valuer's office?

The Valuation Department will be carrying out such part of the Commission's work as deals with valuation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what evidence he has of danger to health from the tipping of untreated sewage from cesspools on to lands adjoining residential property.

There is no specific evidence that the spreading of cesspool contents over land is a significant danger to health; but it is certainly undesirable, especially where there are houses nearby.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that in certain rural areas, notably in my own, it is the custom to spread untreated sewage on to fields which very often are in close proximity to residential areas and that in certain parts of my constituency there have been outbreaks of dysentery in places of this kind which the local population attribute to this custom? Can he convince the people that there is no danger to health from spreading untreated sewage in this way?

I do not think there is any danger to health, but my right hon. Friend would not hide the fact that he regards it as an undesirable practice.

If the official view is that the tipping of untreated sewage is not a danger and is not to be deprecated, does not that amount to saying that cesspools are in fact unnecessary?

I did not say that the practice was not to be deprecated. In fact I said that my right hon. Friend did deprecate it. I said that there was no convincing evidence that it was a danger to health.

Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary look at this matter again? Does he realise that a few years ago the discharge of untreated sewage into the sea caused a major scandal and gave rise to grave doubts as to whether this really was a safe practice? Might not the same considerations apply when it is spread over land?

The discharge of untreated sewage into the sea has not been found to be a danger to health. It has been found to be a very unpleasant practice which as far as possible should be avoided.