asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will give an assurance that educational trusts will not be excluded from his proposed legislation dealing with leasehold reform.

I must ask my hon. Friend to await announcement of the Government's proposals.

Can my right hon. Friend saw whether it is the Government's intention to issue a White Paper before the Bill is presented to Parliament and whether we might have an opportunity to debate that White Paper? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be very few exemptions, such as the one which I have indicated in the Question, since otherwise there might be trouble from this side of the House?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, but he must await an announcement by the Government. The question of a debate is not for me, but I can say that it is hoped to issue a White Paper early in the new year.

While dissenting from the desire of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) to discriminate against education, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to the suggestion which the hon. Member has made that there should be a reasonable interval between any White Paper and legislation so that there may be an opportunity for debate?

That is certainly a matter which I will bear in mind. As I have said, the question of a debate is not for me.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he expects to publish the Bill dealing with leasehold enfranchisement.

It will be in this Session, but I cannot yet give a date.

If the Minister cannot give a date, will he consider making a statement shortly about who will be able to purchase the leasehold and at what price, because it is over a year since the original announcement was made?

Yes. As I have already assured the House, the Government will issue a White Paper early in the New Year.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what steps he is taking to expedite a decision regarding a feasibility study on the Wash barrage.

I hope to have the advice of the Water Resources Board on the consultant's report on the water resources of the Great Ouse Basin fairly early in the New Year. We shall then consider the next steps.

Can my right hon. Friend give any further indication of exactly when he will be in a position to make a decision? Will he expedite this matter, bearing in mind the terrific impact which any such scheme would have on the economy of the whole area?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we ought to wait first for the advice of the Water Resources Board.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will discuss with the East Anglian Regional Economic Planning Council the desirability of a feasibility study of the Wash barrage.

I would certainly consult the Council before putting a feasibility study in hand, but it would be premature to do so at this stage.

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind the tremendous impact that any such scheme would have on the economy of the whole of Norfolk, which badly needs extra industry? Will he also bear in mind that this body is the only one that is capable of taking into account all the economic circumstances?

Our primary concern is with water, but, of course, we have to take into account the other factors.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether the preliminary report by consultants of the storage potentialities of the Wash has yet been received; and whether he will make a further statement about this scheme.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what progress has been made in the studies of the possibility of damming the Wash to create a reservoir by holding back water from rivers such as the Witham, Welland, Nene and Ouse, in order to provide fresh water for use in the dry counties of the East Midlands and East Anglia.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has received the report of the consulting engineers, Messrs. Binnie and Partners, on the water resources of the Great Ouse basin. The report recommends further study of a number of possible conservation schemes, including the use of the Wash as a reservoir. My right hon. Friend and I have asked the Water Resources Board to consider the report in the context of their studies of the South-East as a whole and to advise in due course what action should be taken on it.

Is not it clear from the report which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the sooner the Wash is impounded the more farmland will be saved from flooding and the greater the scope for water storage? Therefore, in consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, will the right hon. Gentleman press on with this matter as hard as he possibly can?

I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. This is not altogether clear. We have to consider the Wash in the context of the other proposals made and of proposals which might be made about a reservoir in the Wash, but first of all we should have the advice of the Water Resources Board.

Can my right hon. Friend say when a feasibility study is likely to be started, in view of the enormous importance of this matter not only to Norfolk and East Anglia but to the East Midlands?

We are considering this as expeditiously as we can; but first we have to await the advice of the Water Resources Board, which I am sure will deal with the matter as quickly as it can.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether, when he is preparing legislation affecting access to, or control of, amenities in the countryside, he will ensure that those who farm the land are brought into full consultation and co-operation both in the framing of the legislation itself and in the creation or alteration of administrative machinery.

My right hon. Friend will, of course, discuss his proposals with all those affected by them. He will certainly consult the National Farmers' Union among others, but cannot depart from normal practice in these consultations.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that there is considerable unrest in view of the Minister's statement about proposed legislation on common land and rights of way? May we take it that this will not take place without prior consultation with the interests concerned?

My right hon. Friend has already had considerable correspondence and also consultation with the National Farmers' Union. I do not think that the Union is unduly alarmed by any of the proposals, but if the hon. Gentleman has any point in mind I shall be glad to consider it.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether, in calculating the yield of the levy foreshadowed in Command Paper No. 2771 at £80 million a year, he took into account reductions in the yield of other taxation; and whether he will give his estimate of such reductions, with separate figures in respect of each particular tax or duty.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on 29th November.

Surely the Minister knew when he gave that Answer whether the figure he gave was intended to be gross or net. If he knows that, perhaps he can tell us now.

As I have frequently explained, the figure is a gross figure.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what reduction he calculates would result in the yield of the levy forecast in Command Paper No. 2771 if the sale of owner-occupied houses were exempted from the imposition of the levy.

It is impossible to say because of the wide variety of circumstances in which an owner-occupier may realise development value. Paragraph 31 of the White Paper, in fact, makes appropriate provision for exemption. The sale of owner-occupied houses, of course, normally will be exempted from levy, which only arises where there is a prospect of development or redevelopment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that paragraph 31 of the White Paper deals with a different situation, that of someone who seeks to build a house to be owner-occupied on land which he owns? If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will see that my Question relates to the sale of an owner-occupied house. Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an exception in favour of owner-occupiers in respect of Capital Gains Tax? Cannot the Minister be at least as liberal as his right hon. Friend?

The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, appreciate that there is a difference between capital gains and development levy. As to the value of a house, it is immaterial for the purposes of development value how great is the appreciation in the value of the house. We are concerned here with development value on development or redevelopment.

Is not the Minister aware that one of the great incentives to a young couple to undertake heavy obligations to obtain a house is that they are getting a capital value which is of importance to them? Surely he can consider, when redevelopment takes place, making the same exception to encourage owner-occupation as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been sensible enough to make?

I can only point out again that there is a difference between the owner of a house being exempt from taxation on the value of his house. We have to consider, among other things, the possibility of his having to acquire another house. Development value is a matter which we can pursue when we discuss the Bill in Standing Committee. I find it difficult to envisage cases in which one could make an exception concerning development value.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will take steps to ensure that where, at the date of publication of Command Paper No. 2771, land is subject to a compulsory purchase order which has not been confirmed, but to which the owner has agreed not to make objection, no levy will be payable as a result of the ultimate compulsory acquisition of the land.

I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Bill.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that even where a landowner is perfectly willing to negotiate, a compulsory purchase order offers considerable advantages to a local authority and that it is surely wholly unjust that he should be penalised by delay caused by his co-operation with the local authority.

I have considerable sympathy with the case that the hon. Member has in mind. I hope that when he sees the Bill, we may be able to arrive at some conclusion.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, incidentally, that this and many other points are preventing land from being brought forward for development and preventing progress in the building programme? Can he not answer questions of this sort at least in order to secure that the supply of land is maintained?

I am not at all aware of the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will make special provision whereby the erection of agricultural buildings or dwelling-houses for farmers or farm workers shall not make the owner of the land liable to payment of the proposed levy envisaged in the White Paper, Command Paper No. 2771.

Paragraph 27 of the White Paper states that levy will be paid only on value attributable to the prospect of material development and the footnote on page 6 explains that material development will be defined by regulations. It will be possible, therefore, to deal with any special problems that arise in regard to agriculture by regulations.

May we take it from that reply that the hon. Gentleman intends to provide for this special problem bearing in mind the folly of taxing capital investment in farmland, which is obviously in the interest of the nation?

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources why he encourages stag-hunting and fox-hunting on Forestry Commission land in the Quantocks rather than using other methods of control.

I neither encourage nor discourage stag-hunting and fox-hunting, which are traditional in this area. A ban on hunting on Commission land would have no material effect on hunting in the Quantocks.

Is it not deplorable, and, indeed, scandalous, that the Government should exploit the revolting pastime of stag-hunting for the purpose of animal control on this part of the Forestry Commision's estates? Will he not reconsider this decision in view of the fact that on other estates of the Forestry Commission, he introduces his own staff who follow much more civilised and humane methods of animal control?

Of course. I will certainly reconsider it, but we have to leave the Forestry Commission to follow rules of good estate management. The question of blood sports as a whole is, of course, a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether, in view of the demand throughout the area of the Norfolk Broads due to the present unsatisfactory position, he will take steps to set up a consortium of local bodies as suggested in the Report of the Nature Conservancy on Broadland.

I understand that the main local bodies concerned are already working on these general lines. I welcome this initiative. My right hon. Friend and I have instructed our regional staff to give assistance wherever it is required.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to contact the Norfolk County Council to see whether it will bring these bodies together at an early date to prevent further spoliation of the area of the Broads pending legislation which, I hope, he will introduce in due course to make the area an area of recreation?

I will have a word with my right hon. Friend. The county council has not yet expressed an opinion about this matter.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will cause a review to be made of the need for additional access agreements under Part V of the National Parks Act, 1949.

I propose to ask local authorities to review the need for more access agreements and to encourage them to make more use of their powers where it is shown to be necessary.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether he agrees that big changes have taken place since the last review and that it is desirable that some kind of mandatory action should be taken so that the whole matter may be reconsidered?

There are, I think, two things in particular that we should do. One is to encourage the use of existing powers and the second, as I have already said, is to reconsider the provisions in the Act.

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will revoke the directions for the appointment of advisory committees in Snowdonia, Exmoor, Yorkshire Dales and Brecon Beacon National Parks and appoint joint boards for their administration.

No, Sir. I am sure that the planning authorities concerned will seriously consider the advantages of joint boards, but my right hon. Friend and I would hesitate to override their considered opinion.

Does not my right hon. Friend understand that there has been great controversy on this matter, that if he were to take the advice of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) he would act in the way suggested in the Question and that there is a wide measure of agreement that the present arrangement of advisory committees merely holds up action?

As my hon. Friend is aware, I have expressed my opinion strongly in favour of joint boards. We should, however, wait and see how far we get with persuasion. Certainly, we should not antagonise the authorities but should wait and see how they respond.

I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for a new building to house the Foreign Office.

The proposals are as outlined in my statement of 3rd November.

Is the Minister giving high priority to this matter, as it is generally agreed that the present building is inconvenient and unsuitable for offices?

Nothing that the hon. Member has said so far is as strong as I opined from the benches opposite and have confirmed during my time in office. We have given this matter the highest possible priority. As I have said, we hope as soon as possible to appoint a first-class architect in private practice, with Sir Leslie Martin as the overall planning consultant.

Does not the Minister agree that the present Foreign Office is a slum largely due to overcrowding? Will he consider providing another building on the other side of the road to provide for the vast amount of office accommodation that is required and then reorganise the interior of the existing building?

As to the question about the other side of the road, we are looking into that one. But I do not agree with the hon. Member about the Foreign Office itself. I do not think that it is capable of that sort of treatment. This is a view which was taken by my predecessor and the former Government. When I came into office, I went through the whole question de novo, took a great deal of advice and came to the same conclusion. When the two Front Benches are in such agreement, who is the hon. Member to quarrel?

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will list the water distillation plants, with their individual capacity, for which his Department is responsible, together with the starting and completion dates.

I will, with per-

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will list the married quarters for service personnel overseas which are at present under construction, together with the completion of married quarters for the years ended September, 1964 and September, 1965, respectively.

As the list is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he can state whether since the Ministry took over the building of these married quarters from the Service Departments, there has been a speed-up in building?

Only 34 were built in the year ending September, 1964, whereas in the year ending September, 1965, 1,023 were built.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many firms of quantity surveyors are included in the South-West Regional Panel of Public Building and Works private quantity surveyors; how many of these firms have offices in Cornwall; and on what basis these firms were selected.

There are sixty-two firms of quantity surveyors included in the South-Western Region Panel and six of these firms have offices in Cornwall.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, provided quality is maintained, there is a national advantage in diversifying the location of the firms on the panel because quantity surveyors add the cost of travel from their headquarters to the site in order to inspect, and for distant parts of the country the item may be substantial?

My right hon. Friend has abolished the ballot system of putting names on the panel. Any firm which is competent and adequate can now be put on the panel.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the progress which he has made with the projects concerning his Department in the White Paper, A Policy for the Arts, the First Steps, Command Paper No. 2601; and what plans he has for the second steps.

With permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing reply, and an evasive one? Obviously, his Department has no intention of cooperating with the Minister for the Arts in this matter.

In view of the pressure to get through Questions quickly, I think that the House would have thoroughly disapproved if I had given the longer Answer, which will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many historic buildings in his charge have been adapted as arts centres and what research has been done into building techniques for temporary structures for the arts? Surely the hon. Gentleman can tell us some of these things.

It is these specific points which have been dealt with shortly. In any case, this Ministry will be first on the list next time for Questions, and the specific points can be tackled then.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he proposes to accept the winning entry of the architectural competition for the parliamentary building on the Bridge Street site, or whether he reserves the right to seek further designs in the event of the competition entries proving unsatisfactory.

I must, like any other Minister, always reserve the ultimate decision for Parliament.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing reply? Can he tell us who has decided what shall go into the buildings, whether plans will eventually be presented to a Committee of this House, and what negotiations are now going on to decide how the matter should be tackled?

In saying that I should always reserve the ultimate decision for Parliament, I envisage that Parliament will set up proper machinery to receive the necessary information. The hon. Gentleman knows from professional experience that this is a very complicated matter, and these professional and technical considerations are not capable of snap answers.

But will not the right hon. Gentleman reflect that, although the method of competition for individual building has the appearance of fairness, it is now slipping out of use as a means of selecting the best building designs throughout almost the whole of public and private industry?

I have been seized of that very considerably. The difficulty here is that if we are to discover any new architects it will have to be by means of a competiton. I do not want to refer to the trends in the architectural profession at the present time but we would hope to have the sort of competition which would satisfy everybody and guard against the trends about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is thinking. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman wagging his head about the matter. I have to apply my mind to it; he does not.

asked the Minister of Public Buildings and Works what representations he has received for a public inquiry into the proposals for the redevelopment of Whitehall.

A deputation from the Civic Trust led by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys); the Ancient Monuments Society; and the Westminster Society, who have suggested the alternative of a Royal Commission.

Since the Whitehall area is the special responsibility of Parliament, and, therefore, not subject to the normal processes of inquiry, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that every aspect has been adequately studied, such as accessibility to the proposed precinct for Members of Parliament and the proposed waterside tunnel under the Terrace?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has made a paraphrase of the statement which the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) made to me when he came on the deputation. I can only say that all these things are taken care of. I have always made it clear that I have never ruled out inquiries into later phases of the scheme, and I hope to announce one of these before very long. For the present, bearing in mind the failure of previous inquiries, the fact that they have not fructified but have just been laid to rest, it seems to me that what is called for now, to get the scheme off the ground, is one or two firm decisions to stick by, and this we are doing.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will reconsider his decision not to hold a public inquiry into the implementation of the Whitehall Plan.

No, Sir, but I am prepared to contemplate inquiries at the appropriate time into certain longer-term aspects of the plan. For the present, as I said before, we need certain firm decisions as set out in my statement of 3rd November.

While I recognise that the Minister is being a little more flexible today than he was with the Civic Trust—which we welcome—may I ask him why he is being so coy? Why does he not tell us more about the long-term approaches?

I have not been coy. I looked this up. As far back as last July I indicated that I did not rule out certain inquiries. I have made that perfectly clear all the time, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with that. On the question of the phases of the plan, we have mentioned second steps. I cannot go through them all now because the Speaker would be after me. However, we are almost ready to announce the third phase.

Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little clearer as to which phases of the plan are the ones into which he contemplates the possibility of further inquiry? Can he be precise? Does it mean, for instance, the Foreign Office site? Does it mean the redevelopment of Whitehall itself, or the Treasury building?

The right hon. Gentleman is working round the wrong way. Firm decisions have been taken on the Foreign Office, the Bridge Street site, the Parliament building and the necessity for a precinct, and we have an inquiry into what one can call the tunnel road. What we have in mind there is an inquiry based on the whole of the Broad Sanctuary site.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he considered that firm decisions have been taken in regard to the Foreign Office and the two buildings which it is proposed to put on the Bridge Street site. On the principle of creating a Parliamentary precinct and a tunnel road, I do not think that, except for the Foreign Office, this is a very controversial issue. I should have thought there was a good deal of agreement about that. However, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the other aspects of the plan will be subject to inquiry? That is what we want to know.

Broadly, yes. However, I would say—this is the difficulty—that it is no use having long-term inquiries into what will happen 10 or 15 years ahead when the treatment of traffic in London may be subject to all sorts of control. All I am saying is that as far as I can see all these things will be phased off, given a certain time scale, and that there will be the fullest possible inquiry.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement about winter building.

Winter building pays.

While I am most grateful for that very informative Answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what progress he has made in persuading others of the truth of his statement?

Very considerable, but still more progress can be made. We shall welcome the hon. Gentleman's assistance in persuading people that a great many elementary things can be done which will increase their profits, to the advantage of everybody.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the rise in the supply of building materials during the winter months.

Plasterboard is the only major material with a long delivery date. Supplies of this material are being increased, and should meet demand by the spring of 1966.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered my Question? I asked what he estimated would be the rise in the supply of building materials during the winter months. Would he not agree that stocking of these materials above a certain amount is very uneconomical? Is it not worrying that stocks have reached their present level already?

Plasterboard is the only main material which is in serious shortage difficulties, and that is what hon. Members opposite are usually asking about.

As the hon. Gentleman has already said that winter building nays, does he appreciate that stocking of bricks does not?

Neither does the stocking of bricklayers.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will review the death grants available to the more elderly retirement pensioners.

I assume that the hon. Lady has in mind the provisions for death grant which were made in 1948 in relation to people who were then within ten years of pensionable age. These form part of the transitional arrangements made on the introduction of the new scheme, and I do not think it would be appropriate to review them now.

Is the right hon. Lady not aware that, in the intervening period, there have been considerable changes in costs and that certain anomalies have become apparent? Since this worries some of the pensioners, will she reconsider it?

The whole question of death grants for the more elderly was examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1956. The Report of the Committee clearly said that these transitional arrangements were generous and concluded that there was no sufficient reason to recommend any further concession. In response to the letter the hon. Lady sent to me, I examined this matter again very carefully but came to the conclusion that the advice given by the N.I.A.C. still holds good today.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) what plans she has to reduce the 50-year entitlement age for widows' pensions; and if she will make a statement;

As announced in the Gracious Speech, proposals in respect of widows' allowances will be brought forward in this Session. As regards other forms of widow's benefit I can only say consideration of them is proceeding as part of the review of social security provisions on which the Government are engaged.

While I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask whethe7 she is not aware that the cost of reducing or even abolishing altogether the entitlement age would be appreciably less than the surplus in the Insurance Fund as at the last quinquennial date? Will she view this suggestion sympathetically, as the present position causes a great deal of hardship to widows?

The position of widows under our National Insurance Scheme is, in general, full of anomalies and in our general review the Government will certainly regard them as sympathetically as possible. However, I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that the Insurance Fund is there only for widows. What is to be done in the next five years has been made quite clear.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the legislation enacted a year ago with regard to widows—which we all welcome—has made the position more unfair as it affects widows generally and that there is now a greater need for a speedy review of their position?

It is true that we helped the 10s. widow considerably last year and I think that that was generally welcomed in the country. The position of the other widows and the anomalies involved are included in the Government's general review.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) if she will give a Christmas bonus to those who are retired and over 65 years of age and who are not in receipt of a National Insurance pension;

A repetition of the special payments made to people over retirement age last year pending the introduction of higher rates of National Assistance would cost £5¾ million. It was never intended that these payments should be a regular feature of the National Assistance scheme, either for pensioners or for non-pensioners.

As both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have refused to answer this Question, will the right hon. Lady say how it was that the Government were able to afford the payment last year but that, after a year of Labour rule, we are not able to put forward this small increase to a deserving section of the community?

The answer is simple. This time last year, because of administrative difficulties, the old people had to wait until March for their increase payments. In view of that delay, and to ensure that they would not be without fuel and other things that they needed, the £4 payment was made. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to know that the present pension in real value is 6s. 7d. above the level it was when the last increase was made by his own Government.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the special payment was made necessary last year because of years of neglect and that the action she took was on her own initiative without prompting from hon. Members on the other side of the House?

Does not the right hon. Lady remember that when in Opposition she constantly pressed for Christmas bonuses? Now that she is in a position to grant them, why does not she do more about it?

When it comes to this time of the year and old people are still waiting for an increase it is right to press for such a payment. But I again stress that the actual value of the pension today, even although it has lost some since the increased was made, is 6s. 7d. more than it was when the last increase was made by the former Government.

Is it not better that the Government should pursue their present policy of increasing the weekly rates as quickly as possible rather than to give the occasional dollops or hand-outs made necessary by the neglect of the previous Administration?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. As I have pointed out, if we consider the present value of the £ we find that the pensioners are now receiving an extra payment of £17 2s. 4d. and not the £4 that we paid before last Christmas.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she is aware that some landlords and their agents, in sending notices of rent increases to tenants, advise them to apply to the National Assistance Board for a grant to cover the increase or the whole rent, and that because of this advice, some tenants are being persuaded to pay increases which might not be payable if referred to a rent officer or rent assessment committee under the Rent Act 1965; and whether she will seek discussions with the National Assistance Board to deal with this practice by landlords and their agents.

The Board is naturally concerned that National Assistance recipients should not be persuaded to pay rent increases which are not properly payable under the Rent Act, 1965. They are instructing their officers to advise recipients on the action they should take in such circumstances.

Will my hon. Friend accept that his Answer is warmly welcomed? One suspects that the aim of the notices, being sent round mainly to elderly people, is more to try to obtain rent increases which may be unjustified than to try to help persons obtaining National Assistance grants.

The position concerning the Rent Act, 1965, is that the National Assistance Board's local officers will advise a National Assistance recipient of the action he should take if his rent is increased and the larger rent demanded by the landlord has not been determined by the local rent officer. The Board's officers are being given guidance about circumstances in which recipients should be advised to apply to the rent officer for a fair rent to be determined.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of his agreement in principle to pay overtime rates of pay to doctors in the National Health. Service, he will apply the same principle to the payment of all nurses and student nurses.

Pay and conditions of service for nurses are matters in the first instance for the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council; but my hon. Friend has misunderstood the nature of the proposed new system of payment for general practitioners.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me precisely what it is I have misunderstood? Is it not the case that the doctors have asked, and that the Minister has agreed in principle, that they shall be paid overtime rates? If that is the case—and even if it is not—will my right hon. Friend agree that there is some justification for the claim of the nurses, particularly the nurses, that all hours over the 42 per week should be paid by overtime rates?

There is no question of paying general medical practitioners overtime. Under the new contract which has gone to the Review Body for pricing, the doctor who continues as at present to be responsible for providing care of his patients throughout the 24 hours of the day will have his remuneration for nights and weekends separately identified. Overtime payments are already made to some nurses in psychiatric hospitals, but, by agreement of both sides of the Whitley Council, the tendency in recent years has beef to reduce the number of grades receiving overtime pay.

asked the Minister of Health what information he has regarding the closing of the operating theatres and the surgery at the Heather-wood Hospital, Ascot, following the outbreak of gangrene; and whether he will make a statement.

There were five cases of infection, and the general and orthopaedic theatres were closed on 13th December. A full investigation is now in progress to establish the cause of the outbreak and the means of preventing any recurrence. In the meantime arrangements have been made for surgical cases to be dealt with elsewhere.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say how long the investigation is likely to take before he reaches any conclusions, and, secondly, whether the arrangements for using the theatres in the neighbouring hospitals are proceeding smoothly?

Yes, the arrangements are proceeding quite smoothly, and I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that all five cases are progressing well. How long the theatres will remain out of use will depend on the results of the investigation, but I understand that it is hoped to reopen them in about a fortnight's time.

asked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made to ensure that a supply of non-fluoridated water is available for use in haemodialysis.

None, Sir. I am advised that they are unnecessary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an expert body of medical opinion, supported by experimental data, has declared that fluoridated water can have a fatal effect in certain types of kidney disease? If my right hon. Friend has evidence which contradicts that, will he publish it?

Yes, Sir. I have evidence that experimental work has totally failed to show any hazard due to fluoride levels in the blood of an order which would result from haemodialysis in fluoridated water and no request for the supply of fluoride-free water has been received from doctors in charge of haemodialysis units.

Was not a consultant appointed by the Ministry of Health, at the time of the fluoridation studies to investigate any complaints, coming from the areas concerned, of alleged harm due to fluoridation? After five years, was not that consultant still waiting for his first case?

That is quite correct.

rose——

Point of order?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will establish machinery whereby the building programmes of local authorities may be related to the hospital, nursing and maternity home, and other health services, to ensure that adequate facilities are available as and when the programmes proceed.

My right hon. Friend has already asked local health and welfare authorities and hospital authorities to work closely together and with executive councils in formulating plans for the development of their services. It is for these authorities to take account of any building programmes which may alter the need for facilities for which they are responsible.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his Answer? Is he not aware that regional hospital boards are becoming increasingly concerned about this matter, especially because of the desire of many local authorities to have overspill populations brought into their areas which, when the hospital service is already overstrained, means even greater strain?

When I first saw the Question I investigated whether there was any avenue with which my right hon. Friend had not dealt for ensuring co-operation. The specific point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, population changes, is taken into account.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to prevent local authorities from withholding the weekly issue of sweets and tobacco from residents in their old people's homes.

No, Sir. This is a matter for local authorities to decide.

Like all hon. Members, I am jealous of the rights and responsibilities of local authorities. However, could not my hon. Friend issue a circular to give advice? Does he know that Lancashire County Council is withdrawing the small allowance of tobacco and sweets which is made to these old people? Is not that a rather mean thing to do?

I am not sure that I would want to ask my right hon. Friend to issue such a circular. A minimum pocket money allowance is made to old people in the homes which my hon. Friend mentions, but I am not sure that it is dignified, once the basic needs of the old people are met, to dole out sweets and tobacco.

asked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made by the Kent County Council for visits by the husbands of families in the King Hill Hostel, West Malling, over the Christmas period.

The arrangements are as indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) on 17th December.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these arrangements are utterly inadequate and that the exception which is made for the Christmas period shows that there is no point at all in this rule? Will he seek to amend the National Assistance Act so as to require local authorities to provide accommodation for a whole family and not just a part of it?

I do not see any prospect of time for legislation to amend the National Assistance Act at the moment, but, as I indicated in the Answer to which I referred, I am not wholly satisfied with the present situation. It is clear that the short-term measures which the council has taken can provide the basis for further progress, given co-operation by all concerned.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in his consideration of the desirability of supplying specially adapted mini-cars to disabled National Health Service patients, in place of the single-seater tricycles now issued to them, he will give priority to those patients who also suffer from haemophilia.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend cannot determine priorities until he has completed his review.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of vehicle drivers who are also haemophiliacs is very small, but that they are peculiarly vulnerable to the defects and inadequacies of the three-wheeler vehicle which is issued to them? Will the hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration—I know that he will—to any evidence which I send to him about this matter?

I will always give sympathetic consideration to evidence sent by the hon. Gentleman, but his campaign itself spotlights our difficulties. He has mentioned one or two categories who ought to have special consideration, but other hon. Members offer other categories. This is a very difficult matter.

Will my hon. Friend also give sympathetic consideration to the Bill which I am to introduce to provide him with the powers to do just this?

I am not sure that I can give a complete assurance on that to my hon. and learned Friend at this stage.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a very poor answer to say that he cannot help anybody because he cannot help everybody? Will he look at this whole problem?

I do not say that I cannot help anybody because I cannot help everybody. My right hon. Friend is attempting to help with this vexed problem as far as he can, and immediately the review is completed we shall present proposals to the House.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that those Birmingham doctors who were recently appointed to fill general practice vacancies occasioned by resignations from the National Health Service are being victimised by a minority of their professional colleagues; and if he will seek powers to protect doctors from such victimisation.

I would strongly deplore any victimisation but I do not think that legislation would be either appropriate or effective.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has had any request for assistance from the local health executive council corporately or from its members individually and what he has been able to answer to those requests?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to reports about the difficulty of establishing a health centre in Newtown, Birmingham. There is a separate Question about that and I would like to wait until it is reached.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that on this matter it is the Minister himself who is victimising certain general practitioners who have had the strength of mind and purpose to try to improve the National Health Service by resigning from the present unsatisfactory arrangements?

I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's self-appointed rôle as spokesman for the Birmingham Action Group, but I hope that in considering these matters even he will put the interests of the patients of Birmingham first.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the difficulties which have arisen regarding the establishment of a new health centre in Birmingham; and, in view of the need as expressed in a petition to the Birmingham City Council in November, signed by nearly 2,000 people many of whom reside in the Newtown area of the Ladywood constituency, if he will take action to enable the development of this health centre to proceed without further delay.

Yes, Sir. I regret that some doctors have declared themselves unwilling to work with their colleagues in the area, but this is for them to decide. Health Centre provision is a matter for the local health authority and I hope that they will still find it possible to meet the wishes of local residents.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while there is an urgent need for a health centre in the part of my constituency which has been developed, there is apprehension that such a centre will be delayed in that part of the area which is in course of development? Can my right hon. Friend approach the health department and the doctors, or take some steps to bring the two together to discuss the matter further?

I am in touch with all the parties in this matter and at this stage I will only say that in my view it would be most regrettable if this opportunity were lost to provide the well-equipped, well-housed and properly co-ordinated general medical service which a health centre can make possible.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be in the best interests of the ordinary patient in Birmingham and elsewhere if the facilities required by doctors to practise good National Health Service medicine were made available?

Yes, Sir, and the five doctors who have refused to work with the three who were appointed to vacancies have not made a very helpful contribution towards that end.

asked the Minister of Health what is the reason for the delay in approval for a scheme to build an old people's hostel and 30 houses at Foulger's Opening, Ber Street, Norwich.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I have now been able to approve loan sanction for this scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give very great satisfaction in the city?

asked the Minister of Health (1) what basic price his Department is paying for Econocil-Vk brand of penicillin V. potassium BP, for which some pharmacists receive a bonus of 500 tablets free for every 1,000 ordered from a firm whose name has been supplied to him;

The price varies according to the size of the pack. I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I presume the Minister is aware that this scheme could be used to by-pass his own scheme to reduce proprietary preparations given by pharmacists if they are unscrupulous pharmacists. I hope he will do all he can to discourage this type of thing.

Order. That is not a question.