asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give details of how the extra 1 million square feet of office space occupied by Government Departments within the London area compared with October, 1964, is divided up between Departments; and whether they are all in central London.

Four hundred thousand square feet in central London is occupied by Headquarters staff. The remaining 600,000 square feet is on the periphery and is almost equally divided between Headquarters and local staff. To produce a comprehensive statement would cost too much to be justified.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a large increase, bearing in mind the Labour Party's promise that the machinery of Government would be modernised? On the specific question of those in central London, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this must add considerably to the existing congestion on London transport so that these people can get to and from home at peak hours?

The fact is that two-thirds of this was negotiated before the Labour Administration came into office. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that civil servants must be overcrowded and accommodated to a scale below that of commercial offices.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what has happened to the plan to vacate offices as well as to negotiate new ones?

There has been expansion. The Accounts branch of the Ministry of Public Building and Works is moving to Hastings and Customs and Excise to Southend. A considerable amount is to be moved both to the periphery and even further afield.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what works he contemplates completing within the Palace of Westminster during the Summer Adjournment.

As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect the Prime Minister's announcement the other day will have on the long-term developments of extra accommodation for Members?

The Question deals with the coming Recess. In that connection, we have dropped two schemes for panelling work which would have cost about £10,000 altogether. Other schemes directly related to accommodation are going ahead during this Recess. With regard to the longer term, I would need more notice of the question.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how old is the carpet in the corridor outside the Strangers Dining Room of the House of Commons; and whether, having regard to its present condition, he will renew it during the Summer Recess.

Four years old. Its condition does not justify replacement, but it will be cleaned during the Summer Recess.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked a Question about this a couple of year ago, when it was very dirty and tattered, and it has got considerably worse? Cleaning will not repair it, and it is not up to the standard of what we ought to have in this Parliament compared with other Parliaments throughout the world.

It is cleaned three or four times a year. It is not in very good condition, but it is in a very vulnerable spot. Replacement would cost about £450, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want that sort of expenditure now.

To ask the Minister of Public Building and Works, what has been the expenditure on facilities for hon Members' wives in the Palace of Westminster since October, 1964; and what expenditure is planned in the year 1966–67.

Mr. Robert Cooke.

On a point of order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has just got married and is not here to ask his Question, may a Written Answer be sent to him on his honeymoon?

That is not a point of order.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why the "No Trade Vehicles" sign at the Hyde Park Corner entrance to Constitution Hill is sited in the way it is; and if he is aware that drivers cannot see it until after they have turned into Constitution Hill.

The sign has been erected on the most suitable site under the control of my Department. The local authority thought that an earlier warning sign would not be noticed because of the heavy traffic.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to meet me on the spot so that he can see how ridiculous it is to have the sign there, and can he arrange for some other sign to be put up to save lorries going in and being unable to get out again?

Similar difficulties have been experienced in Regent's Park. The signs there have done some good, but I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a further statement on the current stockpiles of bricks.

Brick stocks at the end of June were about 815 million; a fall of about 50 million during the month.

Will the hon. Gentleman realise the extent of public concern about this? This is the season when most building should be done, and bricks piling up in stockpiles cannot build the houses which are so badly needed.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is very conscious of the difficulties which this creates for the brickmakers and for everybody else. We are doing our best to try to find some solution to the problem.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the level of brick stocks at the end of every quarter since the cessation of hostilities in 1945.

Yes, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman draw this table to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and ask him whether one or other Minister could provide the public with an explanation of how to translate the promised planning into houses? It is very difficult for Members, and still more for the public, to appreciate what is happening.

The table does not show anything very different from what happened in the past. For example, under Conservative Administrations in 1957, 1958, 1962 and 1963, there were considerable surpluses, and, worse, in the spring and summer of 1953, 1960 and 1964, there were serious shortages.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the manufacturers of bricks on the need for extra credit to meet the cost of the stockpile of bricks.

The National Federation of Clay Industries raised this question with my right hon. Friend in 1965. He told them that no special credit facilities could be granted, and this is still the case.

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that throughout 1965 brickmakers' profits fell and that their bank overdrafts increased? How does he think they will get through this latest credit squeeze without having to cut back on production?

The situation is serious for them, but I do not accept that all brickmakers have shown poor profits. Many have shown quite reasonable profits.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how much money has now been spent on the Polaris submarine Missile depot near Faslane; and if he will state the estimated amount to be spent on roads, sewers, buildings, etc., before the depot is completed.

About £3 million has been spent on the Royal Naval Armament Depot at Coulport out of a total estimate of £5 million.

Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility of a freeze on the activity connected with Polaris submarines during the financial crisis? Will he convey to his right hon. Friends that people in Scotland wonder why they have the impertinence to ask local authorities to economise when they are going ahead with useless expenditure of this sort?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted, but one of the good things about the situation is that the building industry is doing very well in Scotland and is able to cope.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, in order to release scarce building labour and materials for more essential purposes, he will now order a standstill on all work currently being done on Royal Palaces.

A general standstill would lead to heavy claims from contractors and delay essential maintenance work. However, we propose to defer two major schemes—the office reconstruction in Stable Yard, St. James's Palace, at an estimated cost of between £130,000 and £140,000, and the reconstruction and restoration of the roof of Apartment 9, Kensington Palace, at an estimated cost of £42,000.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that news gives a little measure of satisfaction? Is he also aware that I am concerned just a little at the fact that he talks about deferring the scheme for St. James's Palace? Why not stop it altogether? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it conflicts with the Government's policy on office allocations in London. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Ministry will not stop at cutting this quite extravagant expenditure of £800,000 this year?

The scheme will be reviewed in a further six months' time. I would point out to my hon. Friend that St. James's Palace is of considerable historic significance. The facade was probably built by Sir Nicholas Hawkesmoor. At the moment the site is derelict and its reconstruction would provide much-needed accommodation for the Royal Household staff, which at the moment is in very overcrowded conditions and in hired premises.

I do not agree with what the hon. Member has said. Why should the work be stopped on these buildings when the Government see fit to spend hundreds and thousands of £s on furnishing and renovating houses for Ministers?

Does not the Minister recall that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) the other day was complaining about sniping at bureaucrats? Is it not about time that the Minister assisted us by stopping his hon. Friend from sniping at the Royal Family?

The general policy on many of these historic buildings is that the country wants them to be repaired because they are part of our heritage, and it is sensible to make use of them. It is better to put people into them rather than have them left as museums.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what effect he estimates recent financial measures will have upon the building programme of 1967.

The demand for building work will be affected directly by the restrictions on public spending and the extension of building controls and indirectly by the other economic measures. I cannot at present estimate the net result of the measures as a whole. But I hope that one effect will be to improve progress on important programmes such as housing, industrial building and work in development areas.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to announce plainly whether building societies will be permitted to raise mortgage rates on existing mortgages from their present level on 1st October, as a freeze there could have a catastrophic effect on their reserves and, in consequence, on next year's housing programme?

I am not sure how that point arises from the Question. It is not one for me to answer. The hon. Member's remark will be noted, but he will not expect me to reply.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will state the average percentage rise in the price of new dwelling mortgages by private owners in each of the years 1961–62 to 1964–65; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in which year or years during the period covered by his Department's records the cost of a house rose by an amount exceeding the 10 per cent. recorded in 1966.

The percentage rise between 1961 and 1962 was 6·8 and in the three subsequent years 6·5, 7·6 and 9·9. But between the second quarter of 1960 and the second quarter of 1961 the rise was 10·6 per cent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures for the year 1965 constitute an all-time record?

It depends whether one is taking the figures for the calendar year 1965 and comparing them with other calendar years. If one is, then it certainly is a record compared with other calendar years. The previous year was almost exactly the same. I said that it was 9·9 per cent. for the previous year, which is nearly the same as for the following year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the answer he gave last week when he disputed the proposition put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? Will he also give an assurance that he will not break the record again this year?

No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, in my original reply I referred to the period of 12 months, in which the figure was 10·6 per cent., and therefore higher than the 10 per cent. about which we bandied points last time. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made two propositions to me, one of which was nearly correct but not quite, and the other of which was seriously out. I said that I did not agree with either proposition. I therefore have nothing to withdraw. He had something to withdraw, and he did withdraw it, because he was out of order at the time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whenever these figures have been discussed we have referred invariably to a calendar year? Will he now apologise for the answer he gave me, just as I apologised for what I said to him?

I have nothing to apologise for, for the reason I have given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not apologise to me last week; he withdrew what he said in accordance with your instructions, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether he considers he has something for which to apologise, but whether or not he does is a matter for him.

Does the Minister realise that we have had from this Government three or four different Ministers giving the same wrong answer as he gave last week? Will he try to see that this matter is cleared up, and also see that there is some co-ordination between Ministers?

I have given a series of figures. The answer that I gave last week was in reply to a supplementary question. Subsequent research has shown that my answer was not wrong. It did not go into figures, because I do not carry these figures in my head. I think that the House would be better employed looking at the facts of the situation in general terms and not in bandying statistics back and forth. But there was a period in which the rise was 10·6 per cent.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the effect on building costs of the import surcharge at the levels of 15 per cent., and 10 per cent. in 1965 and in the first six months of 1966; and what will be the effect of abolition of the surcharge on an average contract.

It is not possible to say exactly how far the imposition of the surcharge increased the costs of imported materials, or how far the removal will reduce them. In both cases the amount would certainly be less than 1 per cent. on average of total construction costs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the muddle caused by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who said, on 24th May, that the effect of S.E.T. would be offset by the rebate on the surcharge? This is quite different from what the Minister has just said. Who is correct?

In both cases we are dealing with very small percentages. In the case of S.E.T., as I have already said, the estimated increase will be about 2 per cent. I have said on many occasions that this would be partially offset by the removal of the import surcharge. I have not the exact words used by my hon. Friend to which reference has just been made.

Is not the Minister aware that this is another example of Ministers seeming to differ? Will he look at the announcement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing on 24th May and compare it with what his hon. Friend said to me later? They are totally different statements.

This is another example of hon. Members opposite taking remarks out of context in order to try to score points. It has been recognised by a number of Government spokesmen that S.E.T. will put up the costs of construction to a limited extent. I have said that this will be offset by other factors, including investment incentive schemes and the effect of the rebate under S.E.T. on manufactured components used in building, and the removal of the import surcharge. This statement has been made by many Members of the Government in this connection.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by how much the average price of new dwellings mortgaged by private owners in Great Britain rose in the first quarter of 1966.

By just over 1 per cent.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has formed of the number of operatives in the building industry directly employed by public authorities.

363,000 construction workers in April 1965, the latest date for which figures are available.

As these 363,000 are workers employed by public authorities who will get a refund of the Selective Employment Tax compared with private contractors who have to pay it, and as the productivity of direct labour is only about half that of the private builder, would it not be better Government policy to apply S.E.T. to local authorities?

As far as productivity is concerned, hon. Members opposite always pick the worst cases and never say anything about the good cases. I utterly refute what the hon. Member says. 71,000 of the workers employed by public authorities are engaged on new work, and 292,000 are engaged on repair and maintenance. That means that practically half the repair and maintenance work is done for public authorities by direct labour, and the S.E.T. is most unlikely to affect them.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the gross output per person per annum for the year ended 31st March, 1966, for persons employed in construction by private contractors and what were the figures for persons employed by the direct labour departments of local authorities.

Figures are available only in respect of output per site operative per annum. The figures at current prices are:

Private Contractors £2,965.

Local Authorities £1,575 (provisional estimate) Comparison of these figures is meaningless, not least because local authority direct labour employees, unlike contractors' men, are mainly engaged on maintenance. When local authority direct labour departments and private contractors compete there appears normally to be little difference in tender prices.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the exact figure, which is among the figures available in his Department, of the comparative figures for new construction?

Not without notice, but, as I said, they show generally very little difference, when the conditions are comparable, in their tendering for the same kind of job.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when the Agrément Board will begin to issue certificates.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when the Agrément Board will begin to issue certificates.

The Board expects to begin to enter into formal contracts with manufacturers in October. When certificates can be issued will depend on the length of time required for testing and assessment.

Why has there been this delay? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a year has gone by since it was decided to appoint this Board?

The Board was appointed at the end of last year, so that rather less than a year has gone by. The Board has been fully occupied in the meantime in arranging staffing, accommodation and organisation and going into the legal and procedural problems of starting a completely new operation. I think that it has made reasonably good progress. I hope that on both sides of the House there will be a general welcome for what it is beginning to do and that hon. Members will wish it well in its efforts.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the work of the Board could become immensely valuable and that it should press ahead. Will he give it every encouragement?

Yes, Sir. In the interim period, applications from manufacturers have been accepted and the Board is arranging for the Building Research Station to undertake testing in suitable cases. Although the formal contracts will not begin until October, some preliminary work is going ahead which will expedite matters after that date.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he has taken to ensure co-operation between the Agrément Board and the National Building Agency, in view of the possibility of the Board examining building systems.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the Agrément Board will approve building systems.

The Agrément Board will make technical assessments of all building innovations, including new products, techniques, or systems. It will issue certificates based on its findings. At the suggestion of my predecessor, the Chairmen of the National Building Agency and of the Agrément Board have already met and agreed on a basis for mutual co-operation.

When did that take place? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that only a fortnight ago a new director said that there had not been time to co-operate with the agencies? How can he reconcile those two statements?

I am advised that they have met to discuss this, although I do not have the dates in front of me. Certainly, the advice given to my predecessor was that they should have these discussions in order to see that there is no overlapping. I do not think that there need be any overlapping. I believe that there is a fairly clear division of function between the two.

Would my right hon. Friend consider using a good English name for the Board, such as the Standards Board?

The name was settled before I took over this office. The advantage of the name is that it is the name used in many other countries. It has a very important international aspect, in that British materials which get an Agrément certificate will thereby be helped in export markets, particularly in the setting up of an Agrément Board between countries—the Union d'Agrément Internationale.

While I welcome the existence of this Board, whatever its name, would the Minister say why it was decided to have a separate Board and not allow this work to be done under the auspices of the National Building Agency?

There is a separate function here, in that the Agrément Board will be looking at materials and components. In so far as both may be looking at building systems, the Board will be looking at the technical aspects of the components used, whereas the agency will be looking at the commercial and architectural aspects and so on. These are different functions.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what will be the effect of the present economic policies on his plans for the Foreign Office building.

As the rebuilding was not scheduled to start for several years, there is no foreseeable effect.

None the less, would it not be useful now to announce the abandonment of this scheme in order to assist the general climate? Is this not a pill which the British public will be only too happy to swallow?

The original scheme was accepted by the last Government for reasons which they thought fit and the decision has been repeated by the present Goverment. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the reasons given. Those reasons are still valid.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what contingency plans he has for the redeployment of personnel in his Department at present serving in the Far East to meet a large withdrawal of British troops from the Far East; and what plans he has for finding posts for such personnel in Great Britain.

Apart from locally-engaged personnel, my Department has only 327 staff in the Far East, not all of whom are employed on work for the Armed Services.

Staff recalled as the result of any military redeployment could be readily employed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere against existing vacancies.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the current delivery period of plasterboard.

Plasterboard is available for immediate delivery.

Although this Answer will be very widely applauded and accepted in the construction industry, what are the contributory factors leading to this situation, bearing in mind the difficulties which we had during 1964 and 1965?

Tardy investment in new capacity.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement of the progress of the committee set up in 1965 to examine the deployment of labour in building maintenance.

The Commttee has met five times. Studies have been started on the effect of design on building maintenance, the efficiency with which maintenance work is being carried out, and the performance of materials and components. Good progress is being made, and the Committee's reports have been well received

How soon will the finalised report of the Committee be available?

There will not be a final report but a series of reports on particular aspects of the subject. We hope that these matters will be considered by those concerned with maintenance and taken into account by the industry.

What co-ordination takes place between this Committee and those designing new buildings with the idea of cutting down maintenance?

One of them is concerned with this particular problem of design and its bearing on maintenance, but co-ordination with the main committee is very close on all aspects of the subject.

Will the hon. Gentleman publish the reports which are available to local authorities showing how the various industrialised systems of building compare with the traditional system as regards the maintenance which is subsequently necessary on each of them?

I will take note of that remark.

While I welcome the Committee and the progress which it has made, would not the hon. Gentleman say that the present policy of refunding direct labour operatives is unfair to private contractors? Would it not be a good thing if the Minister could say at his meeting tomorrow that he has changed his policy, because nothing would be better calculated to restore confidence?

As I said in answer to a previous Question, S.E.T. seems to have very little bearing on the operations of local authorities.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she anticipates being able to introduce constant attendance allowance or other financial provision for severely disabled people living at home; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will introduce legislation to secure a disablement pension for housewives and mothers working full-time in the home suffering from chronic sickness or disability.

I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) on 27th June.

Would the right hon. Lady give an assurance that, when the review is completed, she will give urgent priority to this group of disabled people, in spite of the present economic difficulties?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not so far waited until the review was completed before bringing forward measures which have come from the review. As to priorities, there are many problems in this country at present, and priorities between one and another will have to be decided at the proper time.

Will the right hon. Lady admit that recent financial measures which have been taken, and the economic situation, have overtaken the situation and that the position of these people will be very difficult? Will she make certain that she acts as quickly as possible?

Certainly, as we have acted quickly on other things, we will act as quickly as possible on this. It is not the case at all that these people will be very seriously hit by the economic situation, since the Government are doing everything possible to protect them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that National Assistance Board often allows only £3 to those looking after totally disabled and the mentally ill, whereas the cost in a public institution is at least £10 a week? Will she look into this?

The National Assistance Board has to take into account whatever income the person has. I know that they try to deal with these people as generously as possible, particularly with those single women who give up their work to look after ailing parents.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many disabled persons in need of constant attention because of their disability receive no benefit from her Department apart from help from the National Assistance Board;

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many disabled persons in need of constant attention because of their disability receive no benefit from her Department, apart from help from the National Assistance Board;

I regret that this information is not available.

Will the right hon. Lady please ensure that we get a survey to find out these numbers and accept that when we are talking about the burden of work on her Department we are not making a political point, because we know that the staff in her Department are dedicated and work very hard? Is she aware, however, that this job needs doing and that she should make certain that this survey is carried out so that we know the numbers involved?

The hon. Lady will be aware that we have done the field work of the survey on larger families and that at present that is being analysed. I am very much aware of the problems these people have, and I assure her that much thought will be given to how best we can help them.

Even if the numbers are not known, is it not an established fact that one in three of the permanently disabled and chronic sick in our hospitals could be sent home tomorrow if a realistic attendance allowance were paid? In view of this, and in view of the great savings that would result all round—and bearing in mind the humanitarian considerations as well—would not the right hon. Lady put a special review in hand to ascertain the true facts and the economies involved in this matter?

For some of the reasons I have given, it would at present be impossible to start any such review. However, I and the Government are just as concerned as anybody else to find out these facts. Indeed, we will want to know them before we can decide what we can do for these people.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many severely disabled people requiring constant nursing or domestic care, other than war disabled service pensioners or persons in receipt of industrial injury benefits, are living in their own homes.

I regret that this information is not available.

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the number must be limited? Does she not agree that it must be a farily small number that if these people are enabled to live at home, and if those who are in hospitals are also enabled to live at home, it will result in a net reduction in cost to the nation?

It is possible that there might be a net reduction, but if we take into account what might be termed constant attendance allowance and the other help which local authorities would have to supply in such cases, it is not all that certain that there would be the great saving which many of us once thought. But certainly these are matters which we are taking into consideration.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what further steps she will take to provide social benefits for the elderly dependants of single women.

Proposals which will help those in this group who are most in need having already been made in the Ministry of Social Security Bill. We shall continue to take account of their position in the course of our general review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of women looking after dependent relatives suffer great hardship? Would she bear their situation in mind, particularly in the next 12 months?

Certainly. Mostly these are single women, many of whom have had to give up their jobs. At present there are 9,500 of these women who are receiving an allowance from the National Assistance Board. The new provisions in the Ministry of Social Security Bill will be of great assistance to those women and very often to the old people of whom they are taking care.

Is not this a suitable opportunity for the right hon. Lady to tell us when we are to have the results of this overall review?

The hon. Lady has asked that time and time again. She does not seem to have been aware of what has been happening in the House in the last year—and it is something of which we are very proud in our Department. Again I emphasise—and I hope that it will go home this time—that we have not been waiting until the complete review has been finished. In October of this year we bring in the earnings-related benefits to help the unemployed, the sick and the widowed. On 28th November of this year we bring in the provisions of the Ministry of Social Security Bill, which will help the non-pensioners about whom the hon. Lady is concerned.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals she will make to end the operation of the wage stop.

This provision of the Ministry of Social Security Bill, now awaiting Royal Assent, was fully discussed when it was before this House, and I cannot usefully add to what was then said about it.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will seek to re-negotiate the social security agreement between Belgium and the United Kingdom so that contributors to the social security funds of one country are entitled to draw benefits in the other.

The existing agreement provides that, subject to certain conditions, benefit may be drawn in one country by virtue of contributions paid in the other. I have no proposals at present for negotiations with Belgium for a new agreement.

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the case which I sent to her Parliamentary Secretary in which a constituent of mine, who had lived for many years in Belgium, paying contributions, was denied unemployment pay when she came to this country? Does she not think that this lady has been defrauded? Will she think again about this most important matter?

I know of the case which the hon. Member has in mind. He knows from the correspondence that this case is at present sub judice. He is also aware that the reciprocal agreement is such that before a person either in Belgium or in this country may have unemployment benefit, that person must have worked and had at least one class one contribution.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the amount of overtime necessary in the National Assistance Board to implement the provisions of the Ministry of Social Security Bill; to what extent this overtime is compulsory; and what steps are being taken to mitigate this burden by staff recruitment and more realistic allowances.

As I said in debate on the Bill a great deal of overtime will be needed to bring in the new scheme of supplementary benefits. Exactly how much cannot be estimated with any certainty before the new claims come in; but I have no doubt that the staff will do all that is required even at the cost of some personal inconvenience. Everything practicable is of course being done to ease the burden on the staff by recruiting reinforcements and suspending other work. The usual Civil Service rates for overtime will apply.

Will not the right hon. Lady agree that prolonged spells of compulsory overtime are an extremely unsatisfactory practice in any business? Is this not just one more case of the Government failing to look ahead at all the administrative consequences of their own legislation?

Certainly not. When the Bill was introduced, and in the course of discussion on the Bill, I made it clear to the House, as I have made it clear in other quarters, that if we were to ease the burden on the old, the chronic sick and the others who will be assisted by the Bill it would involve much overtime. But we are recruiting 1,100 additional staff, some of them casual staff. We shall also be easing ordinary work, for example visiting. I know that the staff are devoted people who will do everything possible to see that the work is shared fairly and that hardship does not arise.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that she has not answered the Question? Has she looked ahead to the requirements of staff who will be involved in legislation which is coming forward? Would she not accept that whole situation will be greatly exaggerated by the demands upon her Department of the Selective Employment Payments Bill? Will she not run into great difficulties because of this?

No. We looked at all these matters. Knowing the staff—and I have met many of them—I am quite certain that, although they will have to work overtime, they are not trying to find political arguments against what the Government have been trying to do. My experience is that the staff have been as much concerned in their devoted service for these people as we, as the Government, have been concerned.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what action she will take in the light of the recent report, "Financial and other circumstances of Retirement Pensioners", to ensure that those people who would be entitled to help from the National Assistance Board, but who do not apply for help, are given the necessary financial assistance.

The new scheme of supplementary pensions provided in the Ministry of Social Security Bill is designed to overcome the misunderstandings and reluctance which have prevented some elderly people from approaching the National Assistance Board for help. I am arranging a major publicity campaign for the new scheme this autumn, including Press advertising and individual invitations to all retirement pensioners to claim their entitlement.

While thanking the right hon. Lady for that full reply, may I ask her when she proposes to introduce this big publicity campaign? Does she agree with the suggestion in the Report that about 17 per cent. of retirement pensioners who are entitled to supplementary benefit are not getting it, and, in view of this, will she start her publicity campaign very soon?

Yes, Sir. The Report really proved what many of us had thought beforehand; that there were a great many old people who could have help. August would not be a good month to start the publicity campaign. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have given a great deal of thought to the matter and that we will be beginning the campaign some time in September.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she intends to introduce the Government's scheme for wage-related pensions.

Work is proceeding on the new scheme, but it is too early to say when it will be introduced.

The Minister must remember that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said during the General Election campaign, on 26th March, that the scheme would be introduced and be working this year. Is this just another pledge which is now being forgotten?

I expect that the hon. Gentleman meant to refer to my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. Even so, as far as I am aware no such statement was ever made by him, since we gave no such promise. The promise we gave was that the new scheme would be brought forward in the lifetime of this Parliament.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what action she is proposing to take to integrate tax allowances and cash benefits paid under National Insurance.

I have no such proposals at the present time. Naturally, various problem about National Insurance and other social benefits which are being considered as part of the review of social security must involve consideration of the tax position as well.

Would the right hon. Lady give an assurance that, when this review is completed, the Government intend to continue to make use of the system of tax allowances, which gives an incentive to the individual to help to provide for himself?

We said in our manifesto that we would be examining family allowances, National Insurance and tax allowances generally. No promise can be made at this stage, certainly until we have completed the work we are undertaking, particularly in this part of the review.

Is the Minister aware that Income Tax and Surtax allowances for dependants amount to over £500 million out of a total State benefit of about £750 million, and that it would be far better for her to envisage increasing family allowances so that those who need benefit the most obtain it and not those who have very high incomes?

When we discussed the Ministry of Social Security Bill all these matters were raised. At that time I made it perfectly clear where my own inclination was leading me. However, perhaps the House should know that one could not take away that £500 million altogether because a man's average wage is now about £20 a week and some people might be very badly hit. However, all these matters are being taken into account.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on what evidence she based her decision to fix the rate of supplementary benefit for a single person at approximately 60 per cent. of that of a married couple.

The decision was taken in the light of long experience, in the administration of the present scheme, of the living expenses of people whose incomes need to be supplemented.

Is the Minister saying, therefore, that she simply accepted the figure of 60 per cent. because it has been going on since the time of Beveridge and that the Government are doing no social research whatever to look into the relationship between these two benefits?

No, Sir. A detailed survey into the expenditure of various kinds of households receiving assistance has been carried out, not at the time of Beveridge but in the autumn of 1964. The findings of that survey confirmed that the proposed relationship is just about right.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she will receive the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the Earnings Rule for retirement pensioners.

I cannot add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 2nd May.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that this is becoming an urgent matter, because earnings have increased very substantially since the last increase in the earnings rule? Can she at least give an assurance that when she gets this report any proposals it may make will not be affected by the present freeze on earnings?

The National Insurance Advisory Committee has been regarding this remit as a matter of great urgency. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that that Committee is meeting today and tomorrow—something quite unheard of in August—to try to get its report to me as quickly as possible. The second part of his question will have to be considered by the Government.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she is satisfied with the workings of the subsidiary occupation rule; and if she will make a statement.

The working of this rule in individual cases is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities, but I am re-examining the rule itself in the light of the changes in unemployment benefit introduced by the National Insurance Act, 1966.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that difficulties sometimes arise in cases where people are working part-time on their own account, for example, on crofts or smallholdings, because their income is intermittent or uncertain? Will she bear such difficulties in mind in her review of the rule?

Certainly.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination of home information services; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the Department, what does he do? Does he have any responsibility for security? If so, can he explain why a temporary secretary was employed who was engaged to and subsequently married a card-carrying member of the Communist Party—and employed in No. 10 Downing Street? Was she positively vetted?

I cannot see how this question arises out of the original Question. Questions about my responsibilities are matters not for me but for the Prime Minister.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer, "No", in the first case, can he not say what he has been up to in the last 18 months?

That, again, is a question which should be put to the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is customary, I understand, under all Administrations that Ministers without Portfolio perform such duties as the Prime Minister may direct. That applied in the last Administration as in this. If hon. Members are curious as to my responsibilities, they should therefore ask the Prime Minister. On the point about my negative Answer, I have no responsi- bility for departmental information. I have answered by giving the correct answer—and that is "No, Sir".

On a point of order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Question got on to the Order Paper if he has no responsibility for it, in view of the rules of the House?

The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that, whatever else I am responsible for, I am not responsible for the publication or the mustering of the Order Paper.

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

asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to ensure, by legislation or otherwise, that dispensing facilities for prescriptions, either private or local health authority, should be provided within reasonable distance in all highly populated areas, particularly new housing estates.

The Executive Council for the area would seek to secure the provision of National Health Service dispensing services where none existed in a highly populated area. My right hon. Friend does not think that legislation to direct the establishment of such services would be justified.

asked the Minister of Health what study he has made of the recent report prepared by the pharmaceutical industry, a copy of which has been sent to him, which draws attention to the relative stability of drug prices and to the contribution made by the industry to medical research and to the export trade; and whether he will make a statement regarding these facts.

I have no doubt that these are among the matters being considered by the Committee of Inquiry into the Relationship of the Pharmaceutical Industry with the National Health Service.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that research expenditure by the industry is now running at over £10 million a year, that one in ten of its employees is engaged actively on research, that the industry's exports are running at over £70 million a year and increasing rapidly even now, and that these exports have risen by, I believe, 8½ per cent. in the first four months of this year compared with last year? Is this not a considerable achievement?

I would not like to confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's statistics off-the-cuff. It would be unwise for me to express an opinion as to the significance of these matters pending the report of the Sainsbury Committee.

Surely the Minister is aware of the highly creditable performance of the industry in the export sphere? Does he not agree that the increase quoted by my hon. Friend is well known—that in the first four months of this year the industry increased its exports by about 8½ per cent. compared with last year—and surely, particularly at this time, the right hon. Gentleman should give credit where credit is due to an important industry?

I have never minimised the credit that is due to the pharmaceutical industry as a contributor to the export drive. I am happy to reaffirm that. I was merely unwilling to confirm off the cuff the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a strong case for considering that the pharmaceutical industry, as a health industry, should be under public ownership, in view of the fact that the chief yardstick of success in the pharmaceutical industry appears to be making a profit out of ill-health?

The terms of reference of the Sainsbury Committee are very wide, and I do not think the matter to which my hon. Friend has alluded would be excluded from them.

asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to make brucellosis in humans notifiable; and what is the estimate of the number of people affected by this disease during the years 1964 and 1965.

None, since notification would be of little practical value. Estimates of the number of persons affected by this disease in any particular year vary widely, but the Public Health Laboratory Service reported 124 cases in 1964 and 123 cases in 1965.

The Parliamentary Secretary should bring himself up to date in this matter. Is he aware that in March of this year 28 persons were being treated for brucellosis by one doctor alone in Macclesfield? Is it not absurd that measles should be made notifiable but not this devastating disease, which can last for months and years? What does his Department intend to do about it?

Our advice is that it is very difficult to recognise this disease and that, therefore, national or local notification would not be of very great practical value. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland are introducing a scheme for the eradication of brucellosis in animals, which is the real way of solving the problem.

In view of the scheme of eradication, surely it is only commonsense that the Ministry of Health should co-operate by trying to find out more about the incidence amongst human beings?