asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, what would be the cost to her Department of raising the maximum income before the earnings rule for retirement pensioners comes into force to £10 a week; and if, in order to end the present discouragement to pensioners continuing at work where they would otherwise wish to do so, she will consider raising the present limit.

I am afraid that it is not possible to make a realistic estimate of the cost of raising the earnings limit to £10 a week. As to the second part of his Question, my hon. Friend will be aware that I have referred this matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

Has any estimate been made of what the country would gain from the production which at present is being lost in this way? Does not my right hon. Friend think that this offset would be far bigger than the cost of the proposal?

One just does not know how things would turn out at the present time. We have 240,000 men between the ages of 65 and 70 who are in full-time work and not drawing pension, and one does not know what their decision would be if the earnings limit were raised extensively. But there is the greatest desire under the National Plan and, I think, by the whole of the Government, that we should get as many people working as possible. I think that we have to wait until we get the Report from the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she will receive the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee about the earnings rule.

The Committee has announced that it is open to receive representations on this subject until 16th May. I cannot forecast the length of time the Committee will need to complete its inquiries and prepare its Report.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the Advisory Committee realises the urgency of this? Does she recollect that it is over two years since the earnings limit was changed and that since that time earnings have risen by over £2 10s.? Surely it is, therefore, urgent that there should be further help for those who want to earn part-time?

I am quite certain that the Committee is fully seized of the urgency of this matter and that it will be examining it urgently because of that. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Committee's remit. We want the Committee to examine various aspects, not just the level at which the earnings rule will begin to operate. We want the Committee to examine, for example, what deductions thereafter should be made and whether any changes should be made in that respect. Then there is the question of the way in which earnings are calculated. We have had many questions about that. Then there is the problem of workers who work for part of the year and do not work for the other part of the year. The Committee has a great deal to study, but I am sure that it will do it urgently.

Order. The Minister's answers are getting a bit long.

In connection with the earnings rule and in particular in its application to old age pensioners, will my right hon. Friend indicate whether her Department has had any discussions with the Treasury as to the advisability of raising the earnings rule to start at seven-twentieths instead of at nine-twentieths. I have received a delegation in my constituency on this matter. I think that such a change would be of immediate benefit whilst we wait for the outcome of the major review.

This is a matter for the Treasury and not a matter for this Ministry.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will carry out a survey of the living conditions of the poorest households in this country and publish a report.

I cannot add to what I said in reply to my hon. Friend on 9th March. I shall, however, be answering a later Question about a survey bearing on one aspect of the matter.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that according to a recent authoritative analysis of official information, there was during the 'fifties an increase in the proportion of the population living below the National Assistance level? Is she satisfied that this trend has been arrested and will be reversed?

It would be very difficult to say whether this trend had been arrested. There is a very great deal of concern about those families. The estimate I have is that about 300,000 are living below the National Assistance Board's scale. I hope to say something about this in answer to another Question.

Is the Minister aware that we are deeply concerned about the subject of this Question, though we must, of course, keep our comments until the right hon. Lady has answered Question No. 14, as I suppose it is? But is she aware that we do not accept that the standard of living of those on National Assistance fell during the 'fifties, because while we accept the good will and much of the value of the work, "The Poor and the Poorest," to which the hon. Mem- ber for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) referred, the Question fails to acknowledge the real value of National Assistance benefits, themselves raised between the two base dates under comparison?

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said. What my hon. Friend said was that there are families where the parent is working but who are getting less. That is the only point he made.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what provision she proposes to make for people of pensionable age who were excluded from the national insurance scheme from its inception.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and for Barry (Mr. Gower) on 22nd November, 1965.

Would the right hon. Lady accept it from this side of the House that retrospective Answers running back into the last Parliament are not in the best interests of the House? May I ask her to bear in mind that this question is very urgent? About 25,000 of these people die every year. Their capital is being rapidly expended and, unless she does something about their needs very soon, many of these very old people will be beyond help.

During the past year we carried out a survey into the circumstances of retirement pensioners. In addition, the National Assistance Board gave a very great deal of publicity to the help available, and 50,000 more people today are in receipt of a supplementary pension. We hope that the other Measure announced in the Gracious Speech will help and that the Act dealing with rates rebates will be a very great help indeed for these people.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Could you give guidance on this matter? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said, it is unusual for a Minister to refer to a Question answered in a previous Parliament. If we could go back many Parliaments Ministers could get out of it in that way.

I ruled on that point last week. I hope that these points of order, unless they are particularly important, will be raised at the end of Question Time.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when the Government's proposed increase in retirement pensions will be paid to the pensioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will consider taking steps to provide a further interim increase in pensions for the retired disabled and widowed, and in National Assistance Board payments.

Retirement pensions and other benefits and allowances were increased substantially just over a year ago ant, despite some increase in prices since then, they have an appreciably higher purchasing power than any previous rates.

Does the Minister realise that the date asked for in my Question is very important to these senior citizens so that they may keep pace with the rising cost of living? Will she say what the date is?

I am afraid that I cannot say what the date is, but perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be interested to know that to restore the value of the total pension to what it was in March, 1965, would amount to 3s. 3d. for a single pensioner and 5s. 4d. for a married couple. The increases were 12s. 6d. and 21s. respectively.

My Question has not been answered. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it will take some time before the Government's proposals for a major improvement will come to fruition? In the meantime, pensioners are without a further increase and the cost of living is going up. What action will be taken to help them in the interim period, which should probably be about 18 months or two years, I expect?

My hon. Friend says that it may be 18 months or two years before there is a general increase. I cannot give any date at present, but I can say that when the pensions were raised in March last year the increase was 18 per cent. to 19 per cent., and they are still very much above the value they had in 1963 when the last increase was given by the previous Conservative Government.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what progress is being made with the amalgamation of her Department and the National Assistance Board; and whether the consequential result will be an improvement in the benefits payable to retirement pensioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she will introduce legislation to replace National Assistance by a new system of benefits.

The Gracious Speech made clear the Government's intentions in regard to the matters raised by the hon. Gentlemen, and I would ask them to await developments.

Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the time-table she has in mind in this respect? Will she recognise that, however administratively convenient and tidy this may be, there is no substitute for hard cash for these people?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the Measure will be brought before the House at the earliest moment possible, and I hope that is not very far away.

Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance that when the legislation does come it will also pay attention to the disregards in order to give further help to those who have been thrifty in the past but who in some cases are not able to get any help under present arrangements?

On the general question of disregards, I ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Measure, but I can assure him that we have given very serious consideration to the question of disregards and to many other matters.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she will receive from the Royal Commission on Trade Unions its interim Report on payment of National Insurance benefit to employees made unemployed by an industrial dispute.

It is for the Royal Commission to decide when it is in a position to report on this subject. On the general question of the Royal Commission's progress, I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the recent statement issued by the Royal Commission which makes it clear that it is well aware of the urgency of its task.

Is the Royal Commission seized of the importance of making this the subject of a separate and interim Report? Does my hon. Friend realise that there are tens of thousands of men smarting under a sense of grievance, and have been for a long time, that this fund apparently lets them down at the moment when they need it most?

I am, of course, aware of my hon. Friend's concern but, as he knows, the trades dispute disqualification for unemployment benefit goes deeply into the field of industrial relations and involves a number of trade union principles which are bound up with many of the considerations and problems which the Commission is now considering. I assure my hon. Friend that by virtue of this fact alone this is a serious obstacle in the way of making an interim Report, but the Commission is seized of the urgency of this task and its members are diligently applying their minds to it.

Order. We are moving a little slowly. It may be because of the sunny weather.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will classify trichlorethylene as dangerous to health in order to establish another industrial disease so that victims of the fumes created shall be entitled to industrial injury benefit and to compensation if unable to continue their normal work.

Control of the use in factories of substances which are dangerous to health is for my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour. On the question of the cover given by the Industrial Injuries Act my right hon. Friend is satisfied that poisoning by trichlorethylene at work is already adequately covered by the accident provisions of the industrial injuries scheme.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to look into this question again because, as he knows, I have taken up a case with him in regard to a decision where a person was not able to get any compensation after suffering from this type of poisoning?

Certainly I would look at anything which the hon. Lady asked me to look at again. The hon. Lady's constituent has already appealed to the medical appeal tribunal and I should like to wait for its decision before I give any answer in depth.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she is aware that a Cleethorpes charlady, who works 12 hours a week, and for whom a stamp of 11s. 10d. per week has been paid for years by her employer, was recently taken ill and was told she could not claim sickness benefit; if she will look at this type of case and consider what alterations can be made to the regulations to enable either the injured to claim sickness benefit, or the employer to pay less for his weekly stamp; and if she will make a statement.

I am aware of this case. I see no reason why married women who opt out of paying contributions should expect to receive the benefits which flow from them. No proposal to reduce the employer's contribution for part-time workers has in the past been found which would not be either undesirable in the interests of the insured population in general, or unworkable. But the problem is being borne in mind in the current general review of the social security arrangements.

I am much obliged for that consideration, but does not the Parliamentary Secretary think it unfair to the employer to make him pay 11s. 4d. a week to cover a risk which he could get covered outside for l0s a year? Is it not unfortunate to drive these part-time women workers on to Public Assistance when they are able to do a little part-time work?

We are aware of the problem, of course; the contributory system and everything else will be carefully considered in the major review.

Has there been at any time an inquiry in my hon. Friend's Department to establish whether the necessity of paying the National Insurance contribution—which can be up to a quarter of the wage paid—discourages potential employers from offering employment, with particular reference to areas where there is a lack of employment prospects for women both on a full-time and a part-time basis?

I should need to have notice of that specific question, but I can assure my hon. Friend that all such aspects are being investigated in the major review.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she is aware that several Stallingborough scientists who worked temporarily in the United States of America and continued to pay Income Tax and National Insurance contributions, cannot now draw their normal family allowance until they have been resident in this country for a probationary period of several months; if she will have this Regulation altered; and if she will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave him on 22nd February.

That was a most unsatisfactory reply. Why should the Government treat these young scientists like criminals and put them on probation for six months before they can draw the family benefit to which they are entitled? Is not this a bad way to treat young scientists, and does it not cause them to stay in America instead of returning here?

We have nothing to do——

Oh yes, you have.

with the decisions people take, scientists or anybody else, as to how long they reside in America. No part of the National Insurance contribution is allocated to family allowances. In the Government's view, it would not be practicable to attempt to link eligibility for family allowance to liability to pay United Kingdom Income Tax.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she is aware that when a married woman is discharged from her employment because she is unable to work overtime for compelling domestic reasons she is classed as having committed industrial misconduct; and if she will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to have this altered.

Any question of disqualification for unemployment benefit must depend on the view taken by the independent statutory authorities of the way in which the statutory provisions apply in the particular facts of the case. If my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind and cares to let me have details I will look into it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the Ministry's representative at a recent tribunal in Doncaster gave enthusiastic support to this rather pernicious doctrine that a woman was denied unemployment benefit because she refused to deprive her husband of her companionship in order to have the employer's wishes gratified—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right, too."]—Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not likely to encourage women to enter industrial employment?

In view of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think it would be better if he lets me have written details of the case.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will arrange for a survey of the circumstances of families with a view to finding out more about their problems; and how many of them are actually living below the standard set by the National Assistance Board.

Yes, Sir. I am arranging for some of my officers to visit in June a representative sample of about 2,750 families receiving family allowances. They will ask about the families' circumstances and I hope that when the answers have been analysed I shall have much useful information, in particular about how many are living below the standard to which my hon. Friend refers.

I am sure that both sides of the House, as well as many social workers, will welcome that announcement. Will the approach be widely drawn regionally, having regard to the imbalance of prosperity over the country? In particular, will the research have regard to very large families? Finally, how long will it take? We ought to be applying the remedy, rather than conducting research, by the time the autumn comes. May I press——

Order. I think that supplementary question has gone on long enough.

I can assure my hon. Friend that this work will be carried out as urgently as possible after the visits are made in June of this year. Families in which there are a large number of children will certainly be visited. The survey will be spread over the country.

Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House think that this is one of the most urgent social needs that the country faces? Is there not in her opinion enough information already available, particularly from social workers and from the Department of her right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to enable some helpful actions to be taken during the summer months, even though perhaps the full Government policy must await the autumn?

No; I am afraid that we have not got all the information that we need on which to base proper fundamental action. This is why we are treating this matter urgently.

asked the Minister of Health what would be the approximate annual cost of supplying batteries for hearing aids to retirement pensioners and others requiring them, on National Health Service prescriptions, or in some other way.

Batteries are available without charge to all users of National Health Service hearing aids.

Will my hon. Friend consider making the same service, which I appreciate, available through chemists' shops, where at present many pensioners are having to pay 1s. 10d. roughly every three weeks for batteries?

We have more than 600 hearing aid centres and hospitals issuing batteries of this kind to National Health Service patients. There would be extreme difficulties in attempting to put batteries on prescriptions at present. My hon. Friend whispers "Why?". Obviously we do not want to impose additional burdens on the medical profession at present, because they are overworked. Many local voluntary organisations operate a system of exchanging batteries with issuing hospitals.

asked the Minister of Health if he will set up a committee to inquire into the profits of firms supplying drugs to the National Health Service.

This subject falls within the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry which the Government appointed last year to examine the relationship of the pharmaceutical industry with the National Health Service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the most recent example of profiteering, inasmuch as Messrs. Pfizer were producing a drug identical to one produced by I.C.I. but selling it at three times the price. Is this being considered by the Committee, or would my right hon. Friend consider asking the First Secretary of State to refer this matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

No, Sir. I think this matter had better be left for the Committee which has been set up to examine this and related problems. I understand that the Committee has sent out a detailed financial questionnaire to pharmaceutical firms.

In order to put this matter into proper perspective, would the Minister confirm that in fact the price index for 1,200 major prescriptions of medicines actually declined by 4 per cent. per annum in 1962 and 1963 and rose by only 2 per cent. in the whole period between 1955 and 1965, although at the same time the prices of manufactured goods as a whole rose by 26 per cent.?

I should want notice before I could confirm or deny the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman. It is a fact that we have been able very recently to negotiate some substantial reductions in drug prices through the voluntary price regulation scheme.

asked the Minister of Health whether the increase in the prescribing of drugs and the consequent increase in costs arises from more of the cheaper drugs being prescribed, or from a greater prescribing by doctors of more expensive drugs.

The increase in the number and cost of prescriptions has not been confined to cheap or expensive drugs, but is reflected in almost all therapeutic groups.

If the Minister can make that statement, cannot he give us a breakdown of the figures? Would he do it either in the form of a letter to me or in a list set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT? We cannot tell whether this extra £50 million is really justified until we see the breakdown.

First of all, may I point out that it is not an extra £50 million. Secondly, it is very difficult for me to say what are cheap and what are expensive drugs without any further definition. Of course, I should be glad to answer, as far as I am able, a further Question or a letter from the hon. Gentleman.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the cost of prescriptions is bound to increase when many diseases which formerly received inpatient treatment in hospitals are now treated in the home, particularly mental illness? Have we not to accept this situation when discussing the question of increases in costs?

Certainly this is one of a number of factors which make up the complex reasons for the increase in the drugs bill. One factor obviously is that the population is increasing the whole time and, at an even faster rate, the proportion of old people, who make more than average demands on the National Health Service.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many old people are suffering from malnutrition; and if he will now take steps to tackle this problem.

Reports from the most recent surveys do not support this, but my right hon. Friend is having the evidence further examined.

Does my hon. Friend not admit the authenticity of the evidence produced by the Food Education Society? Is it not the case that medical officers throughout the country are producing alarmingly extensive evidence of the existence of this problem among large numbers of our own people? What sense of urgency have the Government got in tackiing this problem?

I am advised that certain of the assertions on which the allegations are based are not accepted by the majority of geriatricians. We are not complacent about the situation. This is why I say that my right hon. Friend is examining the evidence and that the whole of the information from the Food Education Society will be examined.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in at least two places£in London, I think, and in Motherwell£investigation has shown that many people who are regarded as bed-ridden and incapable of moving have been able to return to normal life when they have got rid of malnutrition? Would the Department investigate this question still further?

I can only repeat what I said. We have had two recent surveys—one in 1963 and one in 1965—which do not bear out what my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) says.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will now introduce legislation to ban dogs from all food shops.

Regulations already require that food in shops should be kept out of reach of any risk of contamination, and my right hon. Friend does not at present think that it would be appropriate to legislate against one particular risk.

Is it not rather unreasonable to put the onus on shopkeepers in this way when, as the hon. Gentleman will know, many of them are reluctant to take tough action for fear of antagonising their dog-owning customers? Therefore, is it not time that traders were backed up by the full force of the law? Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when legislation is envisaged?

We do not want to take legislation on one particular risk. That is the reason that the words "at present" were used and emphasised in my answer. But there is a responsibility on shopkeepers to ensure that foodstuffs are kept free from contamination of any kind. Dogs are a risk of contamination and they ought to be kept out of shops.

asked the Minister of Health if he has concluded his inquiries into the provision of two-seater cars to victims of industrial accidents and persons suffering from paraplegia; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend hopes to have completed his review of the provisions of vehicles for the disabled before the end of the year.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that he promised us this last year? Is he not further aware that miners are having their conferences in the next few months and they will be anxious to hear what report he is going to make about this situation, as it is causing a great deal of apprehension in the valleys and is deterring recruitment to the mines?

I do not think there is any question of making promises last year about this year. We have always made it clear that it would be about two years before this review could be undertaken in the light of the effects of the improvements that were initiated in 1964. I want to make it clear that we have not made any promise that there will be an extension in the provisions in relation to victims of industrial accidents.

On a point of order. My hon. Friend should at least look at the correspondence in the Department. We were promised——

Order. That is not a point of order.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that 20 years after the war it is increasingly difficult to defend a situation where preference is given to those whose locomotor disability arose from war service rather than from industrial accidents? Would he not agree that it is difficult to defend a situation in which a distinction is made between a locomotor disability and some other form of disability affecting mobilty. [Interruption.] I am entirely on the side of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards.) Will the hon. Gentleman look into this again?

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that we should depart from the traditional policy to which both sides of the House have subscribed, that there should be preferential treatment for war service pensioners. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining this matter in its entirety. We want to get it through as soon as we possibly can, and we shall.

asked the Minister of Health if he will give support to the establishment of clinics where health checks can be undertaken by the general public.

Only for conditions which are reliably detectable at an early stage and for which there is an effective treatment.

Is not my hon. Friend aware of the experiment that was carried out in Rotherham where one out of every six of the population failed to pass the nine-part examination? Does he not consider that there is an urgent necessity here for an early-warning system of this kind to check the health of the community?

We have to bear in mind that all the proposals that are advanced have to be fitted into the total amount of resources that we can apply to any particular service. As a general rule we are in favour of the early detection of most problems by the medical practitioner working in concert with the hospitals and local health authorities.

In view of the established demand and value of the screenings set up at Salford and Rotherham, would my hon. Friend consider the possibility of the Ministry putting out a pamphlet to local authorities pointing out the value of this type of service?

The value of this type of service is pretty well known throughout the country, but we will examine what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Minister of Health on what grounds retired general practitioners were recently awarded a 2 per cent. increase in their pensions.

The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1965, provides for increases in pensions payable under the National Health Service Superannuation Scheme to those who retired on or before 1st April, 1964. The increases ranged from 2 per cent. to 16 per cent. according to the date of retirement.

Could the Minister add a little to that Answer and help me to explain the position to my constituents, all of whom seem to have come in the 2 per cent. class?

I can only suggest that that is an odd coincidence. The 2 per cent. figure is applicable only to those whose pensions began between 1st April, 1963, and 1st April, 1964. I have no power to grant increases other than in accordance with these Acts.

asked the Minister of Health how many midwives were employed in the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board's area at the latest available date; and how many vacancies now exist.

842 whole-time and 266 part-time at 30th September, 1965; 12 additional midwives would be needed in order to re-open all beds now closed, but for full manning the hospital authorities would like to recruit far more.

Would my hon. Friend consider making it easier for State registered nurses to take the midwifery course, bearing in mind the need to maintain their salaries while taking that course? Secondly, may I ask whether there is any attempt to restrict the number of women going into hospitals to have their children there at present?

I am sorry, but I did not quite hear the second part of that supplementary.

The answer is "Yes".

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman——

On a point of order.

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave it to the Chair. I know what he is anxious about.

Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it is not possible, seven months later, to tell the House how many midwives are employed in this area? Are not they paid?

I never said anything of the sort.

Will my hon. Friend answer the first part of my supplementary Question? In the second part I asked whether there were any restrictions which prevented women from having their children in hospitals.

I do not know that there are any restrictions. Obviously, the problem of beds and staff is a restriction, but, apart from that, admission to a hospital is determined by clinical need or social need. Whilst hon. Members opposite may laugh at the idea that we have a restriction by virtue of beds and staff, it is not wholly our responsibility.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an assurance that in future money to pay nursing staff will not be reduced or frozen at short notice.

My Department has not reduced the sum it has allocated to any hospital authority. If at any time an authority is in danger of overspending it may need to act quickly to avert this, but I have encouraged hospital authorities to keep a continuous watch on the trend of expenditure, particularly expenditure on nurses' salaries, so that sudden changes may be avoided.

But will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter which is concerning the nursing profession very much indeed, and is not he aware that the subject is under discussion by the professional associations for nursing, so that there must be something in it? His Answer is not very satisfactory.

I recognised that the phrase in the hon. Lady's Question was taken from a pamphlet published last Thursday by the King's Fund and the the Royal College of Nursing. I know that there is a good deal of concern in the nursing profession about this. There is also a measure of misunderstanding, which, I am sorry to say, the hon. Lady seems to share. The fact is that nursing expenditure increased very considerably in recent months, and difficulties arose in some areas because hospital authorities spent considerably more than they had budgeted for on nursing staff.

asked the Minister of Health when his Department vacated the Pinewood Hospital buildings at Wokingham; and when he expects to hand the buildings to Berkshire County Council for use in connection with East-hampstead Park College of Education.

The last patient left on 21st January but some buildings are still in use as a store. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering whether the property could meet a requirement he has in mind. I am unable, therefore, to indicate yet whether the property can be made available to the Berkshire County Council.

I quite understand that the Minister is not the sole person responsible for the delay, but will he accept that he has a special responsibility to see that the delay in using these buildings does not extend beyond the three months it is at the moment? Will he take it that I am visiting the area on Saturday and I should like a decision by then?

At present the matter rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am quite sure that he will take no unreasonable time in coming to a decision, but, obviously, until I am satisfied that the property is not needed for Crown purposes, I cannot authorise its disposal to someone else.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on his efforts to avert a strike by the, National Union of Seamen.

I have seen representatives of the union and of the shipowners and I am keeping in close touch with developments. It is, of course, my earnest wish, as I am sure it is that of the Whole House, that a satisfactory solution will be found to this dispute by which strike action will be avoided.

asked the Minister of Labour what provisions for public ownership on an estuarial basis he proposes to make in his legislation to improve efficiency and industrial relations in the docks.

None, Sir.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will improve the drainage of the footpath which crosses the Abingdon Street garden.

The drainage gullies were recently examined and were found to be partially blocked. They have now been cleared and this should remedy the trouble.

The Minister should bear in mind that he will ignore the drains at his peril. Will he bear in mind that this has not worked since it was constructed by his predecessor, and will he make sure that the public are not inconvenienced in future?

I do not wish to get into trouble with the drains, but I can assure the hon. Member that every avenue will be explored.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your advice? I accept that this Question is a Question which it is at least competent technically to ask, but is it not wasting the time of the House?

Perhaps the hon. Member will raise that point at the end of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take action to remedy the overcrowding and other conditions at Boreham Church of England Primary School, Chelmsford.

A new county primary school at Boreham providing 280 places has been included in the Essex authority's 1967-68 major building programme. This new school will absorb the pupils from Boreham Church of England Primary School, which is due for closure under the authority's development plan.

In view of the present primitive conditions at this school, which are seriously handicapping the education of a whole generation of children, will not the Minister take some temporary measures to alleviate the position? Will he not treat it as urgent and so alleviate the anxieties of many parents at Boreham?

My right hon. Friend is conscious of the poor physical conditions at the Church of England school concerned, and he has told the authority that he is ready to consider favourably any requests which it makes for an early start to the county school in the 1967-68 programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that he has found it impossible to draft regulations under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, without legalising the present illegal employment of children in television advertising films, if he will introduce suitable amendments to the Act designed to retain the illegality of the present unlawful employment of children.

A draft of the regulations was circulated to interested bodies in August 1965. Some of the replies have not yet been received and we are at present holding discussions with those whose comments we already have. I can make no statement about our final decisions until these discussions have been completed.

Is it not the case that the Act permits the employment of children in this sphere? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no good reason why the employment of children, which is generally forbidden, should be allowed here?

Yes. One of the difficulties is differentiating between films in which children appear for television advertisements and films for other purposes, which might be for similar commercial purposes. As my hon. Friend knows, while Equity, the organisation with which he is associated, has criticised the regulations, it has said that it is not opposed to the employment of children under 13 in television and films under proper protection. But there is this difficulty, as he knows, of differentiating between films for ordinary purposes and films for television advertisements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of German off-set payments against the foreign exchange cost of British forces in Germany in and in respect of the two-year period ending 31st March, 1966.

£116 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the Federal German Government regarding the shortfall in fulfilment of the Anglo-German Agreement on German purchases to offset the foreign exchange costs of British forces in Germany during the two-year period to 31st March, 1966; and, in view of the anticipated rise in the foreign exchange cost of these forces during the current financial year, what representations he is making to the Federal German Government to avoid an additional deterioration on balance of payments account.

I do not expect any shortfall under the current Offset Agreement.

How does the Chief Secretary reconcile that second reply with his Answer to me last week that only £24 million of the £42 million promised by the German Government last summer and supposed to be used up by the end of March has so far been used up? Surely this indicates a serious shortfall? Would he not agree that the forecast which he gave for expenditure next year suggests a balance of payments burden in 1966-67 which will be considerably heavier than it was in the previous period?

The forecast of expenditure, although somewhat heavier than in the previous period, is no heavier than that which it was estimated to be at the time the negotiations were undertaken and it was the basis on which the figures were arrived at.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that we have not received satisfactory compensation from the West German Government for the services rendered by our Forces and that we have had this answer from respective Governments for the past 13 or 14 years?

I realise that this is a matter with which Members on all sides of the House are closely concerned and, indeed, the Government are closely concerned with it too.

Would not the simplest solution to the problem be the recall of British troops in Germany entirely?

It would be anything but simple.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.