asked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she has to protect retirement pensioners from the effects of recent Government measures.

The measures recently announced are intended to stabilise prices and strengthen the economy. Like all other members of the community, pensioners stand to gain from them. Retirement pensioners are still appreciably better off as a result of the measures introduced since we took office, and the least well-off among them will benefit from the provisions of the Ministry of Social Security Act which are due to come into force later this year.

While offering the right hon. Lady good wishes in her newly-designated office, may I ask her whether she is aware that the Selective Employment Tax will raise the cost of food and that the use of the regulator will raise the cost of other necessities? Cannot she hold out some hope that the most vunerable sections of the community will be protected against the consequent price increases?

It is expected that the measures which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned may bring about an increase of 1½ per cent. in the index of retail prices—that is, a little over 1s. on the single pensioner rate. But the fact that the Government have taken measures to stabilise the prices of goods and services will benefit pensioners almost more than anyone else in the country.

The right hon. Lady expects that the percentage increase will be 1½ per cent. If it is much more, will she take action and give assistance?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not paid attention to the second half of my reply, that the other steps which the Government have proposed will protect the pensioners.

asked the Minister of Social Security what would be the rates of National Insurance retirement pensions at the latest available date if these rates had been linked to average male industrial earnings following the last pensions increase.

On the basis of the Ministry of Labour's inquiries into average earnings in April, 1965, and April, 1966, 85s. 8d. for a single person and 139s. 3d. for a couple.

Does not the right hon. Lady realise that, in allowing the pension to drop so much in purchasing power at a time when wages are increasing, she is allowing the Government to be in direct breach of their election pledges, which stated that not only would the pension be raised, but the higher level of the pensioner would be maintained as a priority, despite any economic difficulty?

The hon. Member will be aware that, in spite of our economic difficulties, no step has been taken to interfere with the social priorities for those in greatest need. He may not be aware that, between April, 1965, and April, 1966, the average earnings rose by just over 7 per cent. In a period for which his own Government were responsible, April, 1955, to April, 1956, they rose by a greater amount, by 8 per cent., yet it was not until 1958 that his Government decided to raise the pensions. I can assure him that we shall do better than that.

Is it not a fact that, over the whole period of Conservative rule, the rate of pensions and the real value of pensions rose considerably more, in terms of percentages, than earnings?

It is true during that period, but we had to wait for the return of a Labour Government to give them, compared with average earnings, a little more than they had had in 1946.

Would my right hon. Friend remember that average male industrial earnings fluctuate according to the amount of overtime worked in industry and that it would be a wrong principle to tie ourselves to this absolutely, as there can be a drop?

This is very true, but until this present moment, it has been much better to tie the pensions to average earnings than to increases in the cost of living. Old people do much better.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that the decision not to disregard war disability pensions and allowances for purposes of claiming rate rebate has the effect of penalising those who are most severely disabled; whether she will make such adjustments to allowances as are necessary in order to maintain the principle that compensation given to the war disabled remains inviolable.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether, since the whole of any war disability pension has to be taken into account in assessing income, she will increase pensions so as to compensate for the loss of rate rebate by severely disabled war pensioners.

Because the scheme gives rates relief to those on low incomes it does not follow that it penalises others whose incomes are higher. The answer to the second part of Question No. 2 and to Question No. 5 is, "No, Sir".

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that war disability pensions are not income but compensation for specific injuries sustained in the service of one's country, and that this principle has been overthrown by the Rating Act? Is she telling the House that she does not intend to do anything to maintain a principle which has hitherto been accepted by all Governments?

Neither the Government nor I agree that a principle has been overthrown by the Rating Act. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made it quite clear that the rate rebate scheme is a tax concession and not a form of social security benefit which is capable of adjustment to individual circumstances.

Is the right hon. Lady saying that this tax concession can be applied, but not to those who have been disabled in the service of their country?

No, I am not implying that. The whole of the war disability pension is left out of account as income for Income Tax purposes. That situation still obtains.

Will the right hon. Lady have another look at this matter? It is not something to be taken up just by one side of the House. Members on both sides are concerned about this. Will she consider the question again, bearing in mind that, although this is a concession, our present procedure means that to some extent people in receipt of war disability pensions are excluded to some extent from this concession, and that many of us are concerned about it?

Those whose incomes fall within the concessions laid down in the Rating Act receive the concession, whether or not they are war disability pensioners. The important thing that the ex-Service world wants to know is that the situation that has obtained up to the present, under which income from war disability pensions is completely free of Income Tax, will continue.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the effect of the Rating Act is to dissipate the trust which has existed between limbless ex-Service men and Governments ever since 1918? Is she also aware of the fact that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of hon. Members of all parties asking for an early discussion of this matter with her Department on the Floor of the House?

I am not aware that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct. I stress that what the ex-Service world wants to be assured of—and it has had this assurance from the Government—is that the situation that now obtains in respect of their income from war disability pensions and Income Tax shall continue.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will take action to ensure that war disablement pensions are not related to financial hardship.

No action is necessary. Such pensions are related to the degree of war disablement, not to financial hardship.

Does not what the Minister has just said conflict with what she said in answer to a previous Question? Surely those who have suffered war disability and have received pensions are not being put on the same basis of rate rebate as those with low incomes?

At present there are very great preferences for the war disabled and we, as a Government, are determined to continue with those preferences. The award of a war disablement pension itself—and this is the real answer to the question—is in no way affected by the pensioner's financial resources. Whatever his earnings or income, it makes no difference to the pension paid to him. That will continue to be the position.

Is not the Minister seized of the fact that the preferences to which she has just referred operate in exactly the opposite direction in relation to rate rebates, for the simple reason that the more disabled a man is the higher are his allowances and the greater the likelihood of his being disadvantaged by the scheme? Will not she look into this question again?

By Government action this year the more seriously disabled war pensioners are already receiving, on top of their war pensions and other allowances, an extra £3 a week, which is much more than any rate rebate would give to the seriously disabled.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she is yet ready to bring forward her proposals for improving the benefits payable to the long-term sick.

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Lady give any indication when she will be in a position to tell the House what her proposal is?

First of all, the Ministry of Social Security Act makes additional provision for many of the present long-term sick. I am only too well aware that this is just a small step forward. There is still much to be done, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that many problems still have to be examined. In the review we are examining all of those problems in order to try to find solutions.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will seek to amend the National Insurance (Industrial Injury) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations, 1959, so as to provide that emphysema is included in the list of prescribed diseases.

The term emphysema embraces a number of respiratory conditions, some of which are accepted as part of the pneumoconiosis disease process and taken into account in assessing disablement. On present evidence, the disease in general does not satisfy the requirements for prescription laid down in the Industrial Injuries Act.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are concerned at the fact that this long overdue reform has not been brought in by the Labour Government? Can he tell me whether any investigations have been going on into the question of scheduling an industry associated with the disease rather than the disease itself?

My hon. Friend, together with most people on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter, will be aware that the Ministry has been concerned with this problem for a long time. Some types of emphysema are known to occur in association with pneumoconiosis and are accepted as part of the pneumoconiosis disease process. In these circumstances the statutory authorities include any disablement due to these forms of emphysema in assessing disablement due to the prescribed disease. Naturally, as is known by my hon. Friend and others who are interested in mining, we are continuously trying to solve this very difficult problem.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will introduce a further increase in pensions for retired persons, widows and other pensioners, pending major reforms in the system of social security, together with an equivalent increase in allowances for such people applying to the National Assistance Board.

I have little to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend's Question on these matters on 2nd May, except that higher rates of non-contributory benefits under the Ministry of Social Security Act will come into force later this year.

Will my right hon. Friend give some indication when the benefit of the general reform which is now pending is likely to come into operation? Will she bear in mind the fact that no matter how much we have improved the rate of benefit for retirement pensioners and others in the last year or so there has been a decrease in the value of the pensions that they are receiving, which should be made good at the earliest opportunity?

The action taken by the Government so far has proved clearly to the House and the country that we have not waited until the completion of the review before making improvements. I can assure my hon. Friend that provision is made in the National Plan for increases. As soon as the Government consider that the time is appropriate the increases will be made without waiting until the review is completed. I believe that is what my hon. Friend really wants to know.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility that at one time in the year, around Christmas, people receiving the extra supplement under the new Measure should receive an extra £4 or £5 a week, on the lines of what happened at the end of 1964? Does not she agree that this would be one way of alleviating hardship?

The position at the end of 1964 was very different from what the position will be at the end of 1966—and it will be all to the good of our pensioners, because from 28th November of this year those receiving supplementary pensions will be getting an increase under the Social Security Act. This time there is no need to take the very special measures that, as a Minister, I felt I had to take at the end of 1964.

asked the Minister of Social Security what instructions have been issued to officers of the National Assistance Board regarding increases in rent allowances to retired persons, widows and others in need whose rents may be increased by rent officers or rent assessment committees following referral by landlords when repairs or other basic improvements have been carried out.

If, as will usually be the case, the existing rent is already being met in the Board's allowance, any increase of this kind would be allowed for.

I thank my hon. Friend for that sympathetic reply. Will he bear in mind that, over the next one or two years, under the procedure laid down in the 1965 Rent Act, there is bound to be a growing number of cases in which rent will be increased as a result of that procedure and as a result of improvements to property being put before the local rent officers and rent assessment committees? Will he prepare the divisions within his Department for the necessary applications and encourage them to be made by the pensioners concerned?

Yes, Sir, and if my hon. Friend has in mind any case in regard to this, I should be glad to look into it.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she now expects to receive the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the earnings rule for retirement pensioners.

As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, the Committee is treating this question as one of urgency. But it must be for it to decide when it can submit its Report after consideration of all the issues in the light of the representations and evidence it has received.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that that is a very disappointing reply, in view of the fact that she told the House last week that the Committee was sitting on no less than two days last week, presumably to get its Report out with speed? Would she give us two assurances—first, that when she gets the Report, it will be published in the usual way, and, second, that she will act speedily on it in view of the fact that it is well over two years since any change has been made in the earnings rule for retirement pensioners?

I can give a categorical assurance to the first question. When the Report comes, it will be published. But the hon. Member ought to know that the questions which are at present before the Committee present technical and very complicated problems. It is not only the level of earnings which it has been asked to examine. Action on the Report will be for the Government as a whole.

asked the Minister of Social Security what long-term proposals she has for using the repeated annual surplus of the Industrial Injuries Fund.

The surpluses will continue to be used for the purpose for which they are being accumulated, namely to earn interest to help meet the eventual commitments of the scheme.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him to tell the House whether there is any reason to believe that the rate of industrial accidents will rise to such an extent that this will be required in due course?

The Industrial Injuries Fund has to be prepared for any contingency and the fact, of which many hon. Members will be aware, is that expenditure from the Fund is already higher than the income by way of contributions and Exchequer supplement. In the first full year of 1949–50, the income of the Fund from contributions and Exchequer supplements was £36 million, against an expenditure of only £14 million, but in 1964–65, the latest available figures show that the income was £82 million, while the expenditure was £86 million. Consequently, a wise Government, whatever politics they may have, must be aware of these contingencies and prepared for further industrial problems.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she proposes to schedule the disease known as mesothelioma as an industrial disease of asbestos workers, for the purpose of industrial injuries benefits.

It has now been established that this disease satisfies the statutory conditions for prescription and I am making Regulations today to come into operation on 22nd August.

While warmly welcoming that announcement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the peritoneal form of this disease will be covered in her Regulations? Also, is this decision in a sense retrospective, in that people suffering from the disease who were debarred from benefit previously will now be able to claim again?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Answer to both his Questions is, "Yes".

asked the Minister of Health whether he will now consider revising the regulations governing the circumstances whereby the cost of converting vehicles to hand controls for war-disabled pensioners can be borne by his Department.

My right hon. Friend will be considering this matter in the course of his current review of our vehicle services for the disabled.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. While he is considering these matters, would he bear in mind also that the Minister of Transport forbids severely war-disabled pensioners to drive a car unless it has been converted to hand controls? Would he not agree that to base the permission for such conversion on whether the amputation is above the knee or two inches below is both mean and harsh?

I am not prepared to enter into dispute with the hon. Lady as to whether some of the regulations administered by the preceding Government were harsh or otherwise. All I can say is that we are considering the matter. The difficulty is that it involves a new principle but we will look at it while we are doing the whole job.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a reasonable request, bearing in mind that the last major review took place in the summer of 1964? Could he give some information about when the current review is likely to be presented to the House?

It may be a reasonable request and the last review may have taken place in 1964, but it did not include this matter. We will complete the review as quickly as possible; I am not prepared to go further than that today.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will ensure by administrative means that any Selective Employment Tax paid in respect of pharmacists employed for the purpose of dispensing prescriptions under the National Health Service will be refunded in full through the system of chemists' remuneration.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) on 21st June.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance at this stage? Can he envisage administrative means of achieving this without creating anomalies between one chemist and another?

I told the hon. Member for Guildford that there is an inquiry into dispensing costs of retail chemists in progress. In the course of this inquiry we shall consider whether any adjustment in remuneration is called for either because of the Selective Employment Tax or for any other reason.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will give details of the £3 million cuts which are to be made in local authority health and welfare programmes.

I intend to secure the necessary reduction of capital expenditure in 1967–68 by limiting the total value of loan sanctions issued during the course of 1966–67 to the reduced figure.

Can the Minister give a few more details? As he is well aware, many people are disturbed that this one part of the Health Service has been singled out for cuts. Will he give any assurance, in particular, that projects concerning accommodation for old people will not be affected by the cuts?

I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman more details. The reduction is £2·9 million and this is rather less than 10 per cent. of the original planned total. Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Member that estimates for next year are based on the loan sanctions made during the current year. Certainly I am giving priority to old people's homes, the erection of which will lead to the closure of ex-Public Assistance institutions. I am also giving priority to mental health projects and health centres.

Is the Minister aware that nobody can understand why he is happy to give those details? Is it not a fact that a substantial part of these cuts falls upon the provision of welfare homes for the elderly? This is already throwing some local health authorities out of gear with their programmes. Does he consider it wise and socially just, and what representations did he make on the subject to his colleagues?

The hon. Member would rot expect me to answer the last part of the supplementary question. I am only too happy to be able to correct the misunderstanding on the part of hon. Members opposite who seem to regard this as a much more serious cut than in fact it is. Even after the reduction, the figure for next year will be higher than that for the current year, because of the fact that it is based on loan sanctions in the previous year.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the number of complaints concerning the functioning of the Morris 1000 invalid cars supplied to disabled persons; and what steps he is taking to ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicles.

Complaints about these cars are rare and my right hon. Friend is satisfied with their performance as invalid vehicles.

Does the Minister accept that if they are rare, the majority must have occurred in or around my constituency, as I have had repeated complaints, some of which I have drawn to his attention? Will he look carefully to make sure that a satisfactory service is given by these cars?

I am rather surprised. One particular case was raised with me by the hon. Gentleman, but I ought to make it clear that the Morris 1000 has proved a very reliable vehicle as far as we are concerned. I think that most of us who have bought cars could accept that occasionally there is a bad vehicle. No matter what happens we may come across what I call a "rogue elephant" car from the motor car industry. We are doing whatever we possibly can to see that the manufacturers attend to the problems on this particular vehicle.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that special difficulties in obtaining cervical smears are being experienced in certain areas by women at risk; and if he will give special attention to these areas with a view to resolving the difficulties.

We are aware that some areas are less advanced than others in providing this service, and my right hon. Friend will be considering what further steps may be necessary in the light of information now being received.

Is the Minister aware that this appears to be a major weakness in the Health Service? In certain areas such as Lutterworth, Dover, Eastbourne and parts of the West Country, all local efforts, including those by women at risk in the area, have so far failed to get a service established? Could the Minister make some inquiries to discover what are the difficulties and how we can help remove them?

My hon. Friend gave me prior information about Lutterworth and I am rather surprised that she includes it, because the hospital laboratories in Leicester are well able to examine a larger number of smears than the numbers referred to them at present by general practitioners and a voluntary organisation. The Leicestershire County Council has submitted formal proposals for the establishment of a smear-taking service in the county. As for the others, we admit that there are variations. I did not have much prior notice of the question and therefore could not make my investigations in time, but my hon. Friend will be glad to know that there has been a considerable improvement in the service and that we intend to issue a circular of guidance on the expansion of the service to authorities.

Would the Minister encourage the hospitals to continue this tendency to take routine smears from patients attending gynaecological and post-natal clinics? Will the Minister ensure that all patients who have smears taken in this way are, first, informed that the tests have taken place and, secondly, are told, preferably in writing, the result of the tests?

I believe that the taking of smears in gynaecological cases is normally done. We will consider the other point which my hon. Friend has made.

As the Minister said in his original Answer that this is dealt with from the point of view of various areas and is completely general, would he set out clearly in the OFFICIAL REPORT the situation in different areas of the country?

That is perhaps asking for rather too much. We will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I could not promise to do what he asks.

asked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the approximate saving to annual National Health Service costs if doctors prescribed meprobamate, paracetamol, prednisolone, bendrofluazide and phenoxymethyl penicillin instead of their proprietary equivalents.

The theoretical saving in 1965 would have been about £250,000, almost all of which would have been accounted for by paracetamol.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these are mere examples of how we might achieve a considerable saving of public funds? Will he consider entering into consultations with the appropriate authorities to enable us to make these economies without damaging the Health Service?

If a doctor considers that a proprietary form of drug is necessary for the treatment of his patient, he has the right to prescribe it, and I do not think it would be compatible with this right to seek to compel doctors to prescribe by approved names. On a number of occasions doctors have been asked to do this when it was thought desirable.

While entirely agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, may I ask him to confirm that the prices for branded drugs supplied to the National Health Service have been agreed with his Ministry—prices satisfactory to the Ministry—taking into account the research expenditure undertaken here and overseas by the manufacturers in question? Should we not get this matter into perspective?

We are negotiating the prices for these proprietary drugs under the voluntary price regulation scheme. Perhaps it is relevant to say at this point that the price of the most common preparatory equivalent of paracetamol was reduced by 15 per cent. as a result of these negotiations last October.

Would my right hon. Friend consider consulting with the medical profession to see if it would be possible to devise a system by which the cheapest equivalent preparation would be supplied by the chemist, unless the doctor specifically requested a particular manufacturer's product, as from the point of view of treatment this would produce considerable savings at no cost to the patient?

This has been considered. I am not sure that it would produce as considerable a saving as my hon. Friend thinks. However, this is another matter that comes within the ambit of the consideration of the Sainsbury Committee.

asked the Minister of Health what representations have been made by the medical profession to the effect that many doctors have already entered into expenditure commitments as a result of the recent agreement on remuneration; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that doctors can honour these commitments.

asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he is making to mitigate the effect of the wages standstill upon doctors.

asked the Minister of Health whether the Government's financial measures and restrictions will affect increases in doctors' and dentists' remuneration.

In common with others to whom increases have not yet been paid, hospital doctors, hospital dentists, and general medical practitioners are affected by the incomes standstill. The expenses of practitioners are, however, due to be reimbursed and the arrangements for payment during the standstill period are being designed to take fully into account any increase in those expenses overall. These arrangements will include special provision for certain expenses incurred on additional ancillary help employed in anticipation of the new methods of remuneration. I am discussing with the profession other cases of specific commitment which will result in a reduction of net income if no special arrangements are made.

Is the Minister aware that this really is not good enough? Does he not realise that doctors have been working for four months on the basis of a new contract, relying on the word of the Prime Minister in this House, and that it was only a technical difficulty which prevented them from being paid at the end of June? Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House and say frankly whether he made any representations on this subject to the Prime Minister concerning what I can only describe as a shocking breach of faith?

I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the proceedings in the Council of the British Medical Association. Of course I am conscious of the difficulties in which some doctors find themselves as a result of the incomes standstill. I should like to pay a tribute to the responsible attitude shown by the representatives of the profession in accepting, as they have done, with qualifications, the deferment of the Review Body's award in the national interest. I should also like to pay tribute to the leadership which they have shown on this occasion.

Can the Minister explain how the effective date of this award, which was first 1st April—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading—can be affected by a freeze announced on 20th July? Would the right hon. Gentleman also explain what will happen if a doctor has entered into a contract whereby a part-time worker will now work full-time for him? Will that be affected by the freeze or will the doctor get the extra money in view of the extra commitment into which he has entered?

If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's example aright, the answer is "Yes". As long as the hours have been increased, then I think that that would be covered by the sentence in the middle of my original Answer. To answer the first part of his supplementary question is perfectly simple. The Prime Minister made it clear that the incomes standstill relates to increases negotiated but not yet implemented.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the position of doctors who were on the point of, but have not yet started, operating group practice schemes, remembering the heavy capital expenditure involved? Since doctors may have been on the point of doing this, with the help of the Ministry's loans scheme, taking into account the higher remuneration, will such doctors be covered by the right hon. Gentleman's last reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and are negotiations on these matters taking place with the profession? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the payment will not be deferred unduly long, so that doctors may be enabled to go ahead with their plans while waiting for the higher income?

The case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will certainly be among those which I will be discussing with the leaders of the profession later this week. The answer to his question about implementation is quite clear. The operative date is now 1st October, and payment will now be made at the beginning of January next.

Will my right hon. Friend take particular account of the difficulties of junior hospital staff, who receive very small salaries, and who also undertook additional commitments in the belief that the pay award which was to be effective from 1st April would, in fact, be awarded?

I have very great sympathy with the position of junior doctors in hospitals. The position is that no exception to the standstill can be made, although I am looking to see whether anything can be done, consistently with the White Paper, to mitigate cases of hardship as a result of commitments having been entered into in the belief that the higher rates of pay would be forthcoming shortly, with effect from 1st April last.

Will my right hon. Friend realise that in the case of underpaid junior hospital staff there must in every case be a measure of hardship? Can he hold out any hope of mitigating the present policy of the standstill arrangements, as applied to doctors as a whole, in the case of junior staff?

I do not think that one can make any exceptions to the standstill. That was made abundantly clear. However, it is the case that the special position of junior hospital doc- tors was recognised by a very substantial increase recommended by the Review Body and accepted by the Government.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of magistrates' court proceedings taken against Mrs. Freda Blyth of Bracknell, on 2nd August, he will authorise the immediate issue to her of an adapted minicar.

No, Sir.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary observed that a great wave of sympathy has been expressed for this lady, that she has been provided with a car which has been subscribed for, including subscriptions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and does he not feel rather ashamed that public opinion should be so far ahead of the Government?

No, Sir. I want to make it absolutely clear that I have the greatest possible sympathy with this lady, and with a lot of other persons in similar circumstances who are disabled. I am not ashamed that public opinion is in advance of me, because we are tackling this problem, when it could have been tackled in 1964.

But does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the very sort of case that would be discovered by the type of co-ordinated arrangements we proposed, whereby someone would have been going round looking for cases of need under a more flexible service? Is not this the very sort of problem we all want to solve as quickly as we possibly can?

If the hon. Lady recognised that this problem existed over all those years, I cannot understand why she and her right hon. Friends could not have solved it.

Will the Minister listen to the question I am putting to him? Does he not agree that under the type of arrangement we have proposed people would have the responsibility to go out and find this kind of need? I believe that the hon. Gentleman would have tried to do something about this case had he known about it. If we could go out and find this kind of need, we could have more flexible arrangements.

But these cases arose during the period prior to 1964, and all the arrangements to which the hon. Lady now refers were not necessary to find this case.

In view of the unsympathetic nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to provide specially adapted cars rather than invalid tricycles to paraplegic mothers of young children.

This is one of the matters to be considered in the current review of vehicles for the disabled.

In the light of the conditions revealed in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), and in view of the fact that the difference in cost between the almost antediluvian invalid tricycle and the current minicar specially adapted for paraplegics is now very small, will the Minister consider the total abolition of tricycles and the issue of minicars in all cases?

We may consider the abolition of the tricycles, but I should not like the impression to circulate that these vehicles are antediluvian. Very many thousands of patients are very grateful that we have this type of vehicle, and even were we to issue cars, tricycles would be required in some cases.

asked the Minister of Health how wage or salary increases of those working in the National Health Service, which have either been negotiated or are being negotiated, will be affected by the Government's recent financial measures.

Where agreements had been reached in the Whitley Councils but not implemented on or before 20th July, their implementation will be deferred in accordance with the White Paper on the Prices and Incomes Standstill. Where negotiations were still in progress, I will expect them to be conducted by the Whitley Councils in the light of the more stringent criteria foreshadowed in the White Paper.

Does the Minister recognise that these people would find it much easier to accept the necessity for this sacrifice if the Government would give up their obstinate adherence to the principle of universality, which is undermining so much financial confidence, lack of which is causing the problem at the present time?

The hon. Lady may be interested to know that when I met the chairmen of the staff sides of the Whitley Councils in order to tell them of the Government's policy, this point was not raised by any of those present, all of whom accepted the regrettable necessity for this policy.

asked the Minister of Health why the salary of Miss S. A. Rogers, a State Registered Nurse employed at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, dropped from £725 per annum on 1st December, 1965, to £545 per annum on 1st January, 1966.

Miss Rogers decided to undertake midwifery training and received the appropriate training allowance—£545 per annum—for a pupil midwife who is already a State registered nurse.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a severe shortage of midwives? Would he not agree that it hardly encourages recruitment if a nurse who has already achieved her S.R.N. and who then goes on to midwifery training must accept a drop in salary of £180 during the 12 months of that training?

It may appear so, but if a State registered nurse were seconded for midwifery training by the hospital concerned, she would, of course, receive her full wages during that period. There is, I suggest, an essential difference where a person is securing an additional qualification. One has to be very careful then, because it does not necessarily follow that this securing of an additional qualification, or two, will mean that that person will go into that speciality.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

asked the Minister of Health what is the average length of waiting time for a non-urgent minor operation in the London area and the United Kingdom, respectively.

The time varies so much according to the operation that average figures would have little meaning, but such information as is available suggests that the waiting time for such operations is usually somewhat less in the Metropolitan Hospital Board regions than in the country as a whole.

Is it not true that in respect of this type of operation on children the waiting period is such that considerable anxiety is caused to parents? What is the Minister doing to secure a reduction in the waiting time?

That is hardly the Question put on the Order Paper. I agree that even if operations affect adults—quite apart from children—there is some anxiety on the part of the patients themselves and the relatives. I assure the hon. Member that as far as humanly possible, given staff and resources, we are doing what we can to deal with the problem.

asked the Minister of Health if he will give an assurance that new extensions to hospitals will not remain unused because of the refusal of his Department to grant the necessary finance.

This would be my intention, but it is for hospital boards to decide how they allocate their total resources to the various parts of their services.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the very valuable laboratory and research equipment lying idle at Hammersmith Post-graduate Hospital? In view of the fact that the first National Plan reduced the proportion of the gross national product devoted to health, will the Minister give an assurance that in the revised edition of the National Plan there will be no further reductions? In the present difficult financial circumstances, is he thinking of having a national lottery to help the hospitals?

The answer to the last part of the Question is, "No, Sir". I do not accept the hon. Lady's figures about a reduction in the share of the national resources going to health. This is a story which has been put out from the Opposition benches more than once and has been contradicted. I am happy to contradict it again. The hon. Lady raised a particular case involving Hammersmith Hospital. I have heard nothing about Hammersmith, but perhaps she would put the question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take following representations made to him by the Association of Official Architects for the reconstitution of the National Health Service's Professional and Technical Council B Whitley Council Committee F.

The composition of the staff sides of the Whitley Council is a matter for them; my right hon. Friend has therefore conveyed the representations of the Association of Official Architects to the Staff Side of the Professional and Technical B Whitley Council.

While I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to stress to the Whitley Council that pretty well every architect employed in every regional board has signed the petition? It is important that they should know that.

No doubt the Whitley Council will take into account the hon. Member's observations, but this is a matter for the staff side of the Whitley Council. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that certain sub-committees are not necessarily composed wholly of the members of the staff side and that members of organisations may be co-opted for special purposes and special considerations.

asked the Minister of Health why the Regional Hospital Board's proposals for hospital developments in the Brighton and Lewes Group involve the wasteful duplication of expensive specialised medical services such as radiology and pathology and operating theatres; and who represented the authors of the alternative consultants' plan dated March, 1966, at the meeting of the Board on 16th April last.

The regional hospital board's proposals do not involve the duplication of services but the replacement and expansion of existing services. Ten of the consultants concerned were present at the meeting with the board, which took place on 14th April last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a very important ingredient for the success of proposals of this kind is local good will? Is he aware that this is, unhappily, sadly lacking from the point of view of local public opinion and professional opinion? Does he not think, in these circumstances, that it is essential for him to hold a public inquiry, which I mention in Question No. 32, with a view to either justifying or modifying these proposals?

No, Sir. While we, of course, want to carry local public opinion with us in local developments of this kind, there has been full consultation in this case. There will, I understand, be an opportunity to debate this matter later today, and I think that it would be better if we left the matter till then.

asked the Minister of Health on what date, and from what source, he received the consultants plan for hospital services in the Brighton and Lewes group; when, and by whom, he was informed that this plan has the overwhelming support of professional medical opinion in the area; and if he will arrange for a public inquiry at which the relative merits of this plan and the proposals of the regional hospital board can be compared.

A memorandum was handed to me in December last by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) who informed me that the suggestions made had a large measure of local support. I see no purpose in further discussion of the alternatives.

Although, as the right hon. Gentleman said when replying to the last Question, this matter will be debated later today, will he at least give an assurance at this stage that he still has an open mind on the issue?

No, Sir, because I do not have an open mind on the matter. The contract for the Royal Sussex County Hospital has been let and work will start later this month.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the memorandum which I put before him has been revised since then and that I understand that it has been put before him again by another hon. Member?

Yes, Sir. This is one of the matters which I propose to deal with in the debate later today.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the division of opinion between the hospital staff in Brighton and the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, he will review the present system of hospital planning, with a view to introducing more adequate representation of local and municipal opinion in planning decisions.

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the proposed use of the site of the Victoria Hospital, Tite Street, Chelsea.

The site has been offered for the replacement of a convent, the existing site of which will be needed for the proposed grouping of postgraduate hospitals in Chelsea.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this hospital has been empty and unused at a time of shortage of hospital facilities in London?

Perhaps I may first tell the hon. Gentleman that this site is not suitable for hospital purposes. It was closed in late 1964, after full consultation with all the appropriate local interests. Demolition started at the end of May this year, and should be completed by the end of the year.

asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made with the proposed Carcinogenic Substances (Prohibition) Regulations and the Carcinogenic Substances (Prohibition of Importation) Order.

I expect to publish a statutory draft of the Carcinogenic Substances Regulations within the next few weeks.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Regulations will include provisions for the transport and disposal of waste substances which may be carcinogenic, as this is causing considerable concern to many members of the public in the areas where these products are disposed of?

I am afraid that I could not answer that question offhand, but I will certainly let my hon. Friend have the answer.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure by administrative means that all businesses and industrial organisations which employ persons for purposes connected with the health of their employees will obtain a refund in full of any Selective Employment Tax paid in respect of such persons.

If a particular establishment qualifies for premium or for refund of tax, repayment will be made in respect of persons employed for purposes connected with the health of the employees in that establishment. Most, if not all, industrial establishments employing such persons full time are likely to be in this position.

Would not the Minister agree that, for example, industrial nurses are equally necessary, whether employed in the manufacturing, construction or service industries? Would he not think it a little anomalous if some employers were encouraged to employ them, while others were discouraged from employing them?

I can only say that the number of persons to whom he refers would be small compared with the total. I agree that the minority must also be looked after, but I can only say that I shall administer the measure as it is.

asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the likely increase in the cost of processed wastepaper as a result of the operation of the Selective Employment Tax.

It is not possible to estimate this.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tax would mean a significant increase in the cost of waste paper, which the Government have accepted as being a very necessary raw material for industry? Is he, therefore, proud of his position of putting a tax on this raw material for industry?

I do not know quite what to say to the last part of that supplementary question. Quite a number of figures have been brought out of the cost of the tax on processed waste paper. Whether or not those figures are accurate I would not say, but some of the information I have leads me to believe that it is nothing like the amount some employers are stating.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to establish a national council to inquire into inconsistencies and omissions in existing industrial safety provisions and to keep such provisions under periodical review.

No, Sir.

As the Trades Union Congress expressly adopted this suggestion last year as part of its policy, would my right hon. Friend agree to consult the T.U.C. before finally making up his mind on the matter?

My hon. Friend knows that we are already in consultation with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. on means of strengthening the machinery for dealing with this matter but—on what I think is the real point of his question—I have come to the conclusion that such a body as he has in mind, and earnestly believes in, would be too large and its elements too varied for it to achieve a successful result.

asked the Minister of Labour how far his talks with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry have advanced the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 29th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston).

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House of his experience of willingness on the part of employers to accept the principle of equal pay, and does he anticipate their co-operation in any working party he may establish?

My hon. Friend knows of consultations already taking place with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. We have already had a number of meetings, so their very presence at meetings indicates the co-operation of employers.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the anticipated increase in unemployment stemming from the Government's deflationary measures, he will cancel the trial publicity campaign planned for 11 districts and aimed at recruiting more women into industry and instead give practical encouragement to those displaced to move to those areas in which there is a marked labour shortage.

No, Sir. These inquiries have been planned to take place in selected localities where there is an unsatisfied demand for women workers to discover whether there is a reserve of women available for work. I do not think it can be assumed that this demand will fall off as a result of the recent measures of restraint.

As it is part of the Government's policy to produce some mobility of labour, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that it is very difficult to see any sense in increasing the labour force with a costly campaign when others will be deliberately rendered idle?

I think that my hon. Friend is exaggerating a little. We are doing this in certain areas because there is, and will remain, a demand for women workers. What we are trying to do is to assess how that demand can be met. I do not think that the measures which the Government have adopted will diminish that demand.