asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now seek powers to introduce a positive allowance for blind people whose incomes are not sufficient to enable them to take full advantage of the tax allowance for the blind.

There are already a number of schemes which provide benefits for blind people with low incomes, and we have no plans at present for a special scheme on the lines my hon. Friend suggests. As he knows, the Government have the problems of disabled people generally very much in mind.

Whilst I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that the benefit of tax allowance for the blind is available only to the better off and that it is not possible for those who are really destitute to take advantage of it? Would he think again about making it a positive payment?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the attendance allowance which is to begin shortly is only the first of a series of measures which the Government are planning to help the disabled.

Would not the Minister agree that a very important principle is at stake because very poor blind people need more financial assistance than those who pay taxes? Would he not also agree that the same principle should apply to all disabled people?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points. I am sure that he will realise that most of them are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he will take to secure accurate information on the extent of hazard to health in smoking cigars and pipe tobacco.

On the whole, evidence to date suggests that pipe and cigar smoking is far less harmful than cigarette smoking. I am considering whether further research is needed.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that members of the public have it definitely in their minds that cigar and pipe smoking are relatively safe, and that they would regard it as a great deception if, in due course, research proved that this was not the case? Will he bear in mind that it is urgently necessary to ascertain the truth?

The recent Report of the Royal College of Physicians came down categorically on the side of the view that cigar and pipe smoking is less dangerous than cigarette smoking.

When will the right hon. Gentleman announce what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Royal College of Physicians?

I have already announced that I am in discussion with the cigarette manufacturers.

My right hon. Friend has twice said "less dangerous" in the context of pipe tobacco and cigars. Does not he agree that the only safe course is to abandon tobacco altogether—and in that I bracket all tobacco products, including snuff? Has his attention been drawn to the provisions of the Tobacco and Snuff (Health Hazards) Bill, already before the House and due for Second Reading on 12th February?

As I read the Report of the Royal College of Physicians, I cannot answer "Yes" to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, since it thinks that there is little harm in pipe and cigar smoking. I must record that Swiss and German research shows that cigar and pipe smoking is as dangerous as cigarette smoking.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes".

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while his Department spends vast sums warning people of the dangers of smoking, very many young people turn all too frequently to drugs, and that some attention should be paid to this urgent and sinister matter?

Although that does not follow from the Question, is it preoccupying the Ministers concerned in the Government, myself included.

Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the Report of the Royal College of Physicians as conclusive evidence in this very serious matter, or does he still have doubts about the evidence of the Report? Is he willing to make firm decisions on behalf of the Government on the evidence of the Report?

The answer to the last part of the hon. Lady's question is "Yes". But "conclusive" is a very definitive word in a world of constantly deepening research. Certainly the Government accept the Report as a highly valuable document to be treated extremely seriously.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present administration of pneumoconiosis medical panels; and if he will make a statement.

I have no evidence of any general dissatisfaction with the present administration of pneumoconiosis medical panels, but the question of their organisation is one of the matters the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is considering in its major review of pneumoconiosis.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer and recognise the extent to which he has inherited the present administration, but does he accept that there is gross dissatisfaction at the outcome of these pneumoconiosis panels? Will he undertake to look at the situation with what might be termed compassionate interest?

Certainly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Council is looking at the problem at the moment, in view of the difficulties to which he has referred. He will also know that there is a central panel which can look at the more difficult cases. My information is that this arrangement is working satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what non-departmental advice he receives regarding the pathology of lung disease.

Our medical advisers are in constant touch with leading authorities on industrial lung diseases, with which I assume this question is concerned. In the particular field of the pneumoconioses, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has been receiving both written and oral evidence from all sources, including a number of pathologists with a direct interest in the diseases.

While I thank the hon. Gentleman for another very helpful answer, is he prepared to look at the methods adopted in the pathology of lung diseases? I am thinking primarily of pneumoconiosis. Is he aware that some very experienced medical men have expressed doubts about the methods at present adopted? For example, they believe that before a proper diagnosis can be made the lung should be blown up, and I understand that this is not a general procedure. Will he look at the methods of diagnosis?

Yes. This is one of the reasons why the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is assessing the situation at present. If the hon. Gentleman has any further specific points that he would like to put to me, I shall be glad to hear from him.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the annual number of pensioners dying through hypothermia due to shortage of heating.

In 1969, the last year for which detailed figures are available, the deaths of 155 people of 65 years and over were attributed to excessive cold, hunger, thirst and neglect in which hypothermia was a contributory or underlying cause. Shortage of heating is not the only factor responsible for the onset of hypothermia; some of these deaths occurred in the warmer part of the year.

Is it not a fact that there are other contributory causes of hypothermia which create serious illness, if not deaths, among many thousands of pensioners? Is it not time for an increase in pensions so that old people can afford the fuel that they need to keep them warm at this time of the year?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is empowered to make special provision for the supply of extra fuel for those in this category who are in need.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that heat is very much a question of psychology as well as degrees Centigrade, especially for old people? Will not he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to persuade local authorities to provide old people with alternative forms of heat so that if they want cheerful coal fires they can have them?

Local authorities have wide and flexible powers for people in this condition. We reminded them of their powers in a Circular which was sent to them in November of last year.

In a prosperous country like Britain, is not it disgusting that people should die of hunger and cold? Why does not the hon. Gentleman refer to the fact that in the last few months the prices of gas, electricity, coal and even paraffin, the cheapest fuel, have risen by between 10 and 15 per cent.? Why is it that his right hon. Friend has not been able to extend the arrangements for people with special heating needs, who are a tiny minority of those on supplementary benefit, to everyone on supplementary benefit, as we have asked him to do repeatedly?

In reply to the last part of the hon. Lady's question, she will know that the supplementary benefit levels are flexible at the margin. She must also bear in mind the wide-ranging and flexible powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the local authority medical and social services to help those in this condition. I agree with her first observation. It is unacceptable and shocking that people in this country, prosperous as we are, can be found in this condition and die.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he has given local authorities concerning the qualifications of candidates for posts of director of social services and the procedure that should be adopted in making appointments to such posts.

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Circular sent to local authorities on 10th August, paragraphs 12 to 14 of which deals with his point.

I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is clear that candidates who have administrative experience in local government should not be excluded from consideration for these posts.

The Circular was very carefully drawn. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to study the paragraphs to which I have referred, and send me his questions afterwards.

If evidence is provided to show that some local authorities are deliberately trying to thwart the will of Parliament and not keeping to the spirit of the Act, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to investigate the boroughs concerned?

"Investigation" is a very strong word. I am, naturally, interested in the appointments. If the hon. Gentleman cares to send me particulars, I shall be interested to study them.

Has the Minister observed just how many local authorities have translated their existing chief welfare officer to director of social services? Does not this, in effect, produce a situation where the local authority is giving very much the same services at a much inflated salary? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter?

I have not got the figures in mind. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question, I will look at it.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. In order not to waste the time of the House, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise a point of order on Question No. 6 at 3.30 p.m.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local health authorities to the most convenient date, in England, empowered to bring in fluoridation of water supplies, have voted to do so, how many have refused to do so and how many are still undecided.

According to my information, 94 English local health authorities and authorities with delegated health functions have voted in favour of fluoridation, 85 are against, and five have not yet reached a decision. Two authorities have sufficient fluoride in the water supplies without fluoridation.

Do the right hon. Gentleman's proposals mean that individuals who have artificial teeth and individuals who have no teeth whatsoever will require to swallow this fluoride water, and to what purpose— [Interruption.] —especially for mixing with their whisky? Would it not be wiser if the right hon. Gentleman dealt with those affected, the children, and gave them, where the parents consented, the appropriate treatment by means of pellets?

That is quite a different question, but it remains a free country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about the position in London? In view of the evidence which the hon. Gentleman's Department has had for more than 20 years about the usefulness of fluoridation of water to prevent dental caries, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to look into the position in London where we have 32 boroughs under one water authority and a minority can preclude the rest from having this useful idea?

It is very frustrating to those of us, including the Government, who believe that fluoride is a valuable preventive to dental decay. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will first persuade his hon. Friend and then crusade in the areas concerned.

Cannot the Government do something about this obscurantist agitation to prevent the use of a valuable additive at a very cheap price which could be of such enormous benefit? Why must the Government sit under it and allow this agitation to intimidate one local authority after another?

This Government, like the last Government, have not failed to make clear their view that fluoridation is a valuable and harmless preventive to dental decay.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the new drop preparation containing vitamins A, D and C will be available free of charge to nursing and expectant mothers; what plans he has to inform them of availability; and if he will make a statement.

Like the orange juice and cod liver oil which they replace, these liquid vitamin drops will be supplied free for children in families in need and will be on sale to others. Posters are to be displayed in child health clinics, a million leaflets are to be distributed, and full details are to be included in the publicity to be given to the family income supplement and new welfare milk arrangements.

Is not this charging, taking back again and having exemptions like taking a sledge hammer to crush a peanut? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year we had a surplus of £327,000 on orange juice account alone? In view of that, is it not better to have the whole thing free so that people can have this desirable thing for their children?

The surplus to which the hon. Gentleman referred arose from the fact that the stockbuilding, which was customary whilst the scheme was in operation, was run down. The payments for the new vitamin drops will result in substantial economies to those who have to purchase them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action is being taken to improve conditions in the casualty department of the King George Hospital, Ilford.

An improvement scheme is planned by the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to start in the financial year 1971–72.

As the load on this department is infinitely greater in proportion than the amount of resources which have been given to it within the area, could not some action be taken to increase the scope of the proposed improvements?

The proposed improvement will cost a substantial sum—in fact, £60,000. My hon. Friend knows that there are new accident and emergency departments provided in two places nearby which between them should account for the likely need.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beds in units specifically designed for the psychiatric treatment of adolescents are at present available in the areas of the South-East, South-West, North-West and North-East Regional Hospital Boards, respectively; when work is to start on the adolescent unit at Goodmayes Hospital; and how many beds are to be provided.

77, 48, 30 and none respectively; in the Spring; 28.

Is not this rather a poor record? What does the Minister propose to do about it?

The record, particularly in the North-East Metropolitan Region, promises to improve with the commencement, we hope before long, of the Goodmayes unit to provide 28 more beds, which would eliminate at any rate the total failure so far of that region to make any provision.

Does the Minister appreciate that the figures which he has just given are appalling? Does this not represent a general inadequacy of beds in these regions? When will the Minister take steps to ensure that the worse-off regions get a larger proportion of the resources available?

There is a general national shortage of beds for this category. My right hon. Friend has made special allocations, both of capital and revenue, to assist regional boards to plan further provision.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to require local authorities to establish a service charged with the tasks of initiating local inquiries to identify cases of hardship, particularly among old people, and of bringing to the attention of each individual case the benefit to which they are entitled as of right.

There is a close and growing liaison between social security officers and local authority welfare staff for this purpose, and I am not satisfied that a new special service would be helpful.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the basic problem is to find very large numbers of those who are entitled to the support of the social services? Is it not, therefore, time to reverse the onus of responsibility, so that the authorities concerned have a positive duty to take the initiative in seeking out those who need such support instead of waiting for applications?

My hon. Friend will be aware that when the relevant section of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—Section 1—is implemented shortly after 1st April this year this very positive duty will arise.

While recognising the need for confidentiality to some extent, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied with the arrangements which might be made by local authorities or voluntary bodies in the distribution of publicity material at the point where persons claim retirement pension?

I do not think that we could ever be satisfied until there is 100 per cent. information. This is a very difficult object to achieve. However, the Alf Morris Act will certainly impose a duty of wider communication, and we have no doubt that this will bear fruit.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some good local authorities —notably Croydon—already operate such a service on an informal basis? If my hon. Friend requires advice or help, will he apply to Croydon?

Croydon has a remarkable system of collaboration and co-operation between the health and welfare authorities which sets a pattern, I believe, for the whole country.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to have another look at this matter? As he knows, dependence on means-tested benefits turns entirely on the uptake of those means-tested benefits. Clearly, this is the way that the Government are going. Will the hon. Gentleman at least consider whether local authorities might be advised to make clear to persons with whom they came into contact the whole range of benefits to which they are entitled, not only the benefits about which they inquire, which is often the case now?

I take the hon. Lady's point, but she will remember that it is not only those who come into contact about whom we are concerned, it is those with whom local authorities have no prima facie need to have contact that we need to discover.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to assist disabled tricycle owners, in view of the difficulties experienced by them in obtaining fuel for their vehicles.

I am not aware of difficulty in obtaining fuel for the invalid three-wheelers.

From now on the Minister will be aware, because I am going to tell him, that there is a serious shortage of this two-stroke oil and petrol mixture which invalids use in their invalid carriage—many of them to go to and from work. What they are experiencing now, particularly in Middlesex, is that garages find that it is not worth——

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use a supplementary question to impart information; he must seek it.

I thought that I had, Mr. Speaker. With permission, may I now ask the Minister whether he is aware that this is a grave problem, particularly in Middlesex? People who use these tricycles to go to work, to return home from work, and for other reasons, are discovering that garages are not stocking this mixture. This is a very serious problem, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would examine it.

I shall certainly examine it. The indications are that petrol stations, stocking the two-stroke mixture have not, in any noticeable sense, been reduced in number. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to send me details, particularly of his part of the world, I shall gladly look into them.

If there is to be a national shortage of fuel, as is forecast by some sections of the Press, will my hon. Friend take particular care to ensure that the disabled do not suffer from it? Second, will he discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of raising the allowance for petrol for these vehicles for the disabled?

The second part of that question lies outside the scope of an immediate answer. The answer to the first part is that we would hope to make any provision that was possible to protect vulnerable sections of the population from emergencies such as this.

Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more helpful and tell the House when it is proposed to withdraw the one-seater tricycle and supply a two-seater car? Would not he agree that the present vehicle is not only anti-social but must, of necessity, mean that if a break-down occurs away from home a disabled person is left without any immediate help?

That goes rather wide of the Question. I know the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter but he, in return, will know that one-seaters have certain advantages, in the sense that they provide space for taking in collapsible wheelchairs.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will add to his pleading to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a plea to increase the supply of mini-cars to the disabled?

The supply of mini-cars to the disabled forms part of the review of the whole invalid vehicle service which my right hon. Friend is carrying out, and the results will be announced to the House in due course.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much the most helpful thing that he could do for many tricycle owners would be to give them four-wheeled vehicles? Would he agree with Graham Hill and others who have been in touch with me that this could be done at no greater cost per car? Finally, will the hon. Gentleman keep in the closest possible consultation with the Disabled Drivers Association, the Hœmophilia Society and other organisations concerned with this problem?

We keep closely in touch with all those associations. But the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the three-wheeler, with its peculiarly light steering, is an essential form of mobility for some categories of disabled people.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the effect of recent Government announcements about increased dental charges on the dental health of the nation.

The new system of dental charges will give a financial incentive to patients to look after their teeth —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and should, therefore, have a beneficial effect on dental health.

One could call that reply standing logic on its head. Does the right hon. Gentleman know of the opposition put forward by the British Dental Association, particularly in view of its experience when dental charges were introduced in the 'fifties, of the reduction in the level of treatment demanded by patients? Is he further aware that in 1948, before the National Health Service was introduced, about 11 per cent. of people under 30 in this country had no teeth of their own, and that since the introduction of the National Health Service this proportion has been reduced to 4.6 per cent.? Is not that a complete case against his own argument and his reply to me? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long!"]—in view of the genuine and serious concern expressed by experts in this matter, look at the issue again and withdraw the proposed charges?

The hon. Lady is right that there is serious concern. She is right that in the 'fifties the imposition of a charge did lead first to a surge in treatment, and then to a dip, but a dip that was only temporary.

The House will be aware that under the new arrangements two-thirds of treatments will remain either free or be at a lower cost than they were under the Labour Government. The number of people exempt altogether from charges will rise. Between me and the British Dental Association there will be a comprehensive campaign to explain to people the advantages, the immunities and the probable costs under the new system.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind during his campaign that the most valuable contribution which he, personally, could make would be to step along to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out to him that the scale of charges and the excess treatment now required arise partially from the fact that, while toothbrushes are free of purchase tax, toothpaste and dentifice are purchase-taxed at 36⅔ per cent.?

I thought my hon. Friend was going to say that these taxes are higher than those on sweets, As a user of sweets, toothbrushes and dentifrice, I have to point out that I do not think that a change in purchase tax, even if my right hon. Friend agreed, would, bring about a reduction in dental caries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman sack the civil servant who gave him the original answer? If the right hon. Gentleman himself believes this, why does he not do the job properly and double the charges, and then we shall all have first-class dental health?

I drafted my reply with loving care—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"]—because I believe, and I believe that the House will come to realise, that a system by which a regular attender at a dentist will bear far less cost than those who do not attend regularly will improve dental health.

Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of children who qualify for free dental treatment take advantage of the facilities available to them, and what steps he will take to encourage greater use being made of free dental treatment?

All children are entitled and will remain entitled, to free dental treatment. I hope that one result of the system of charges proposed will be that dentists will reach out to provide even more treatment to children, which will remain free.

The right hon. Gentleman is sounding a little as though treatment is bound to be extraction, because his loving care has persuaded very few dentists. Does what he has said mean, first, that he is informing the House that he is going to reduce the age of exemption from 21 to 18, or keep it at 21, because his last reply implied that the situation would be the same?

Second, does the right hon. Gentleman deny that as a result of high demand there has been a consistent fall in the price of dental treatment, largely owing to the much more efficient use of dentists?

Third, can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that a situation in which treatment for extractions is going to be very much cheaper than treatment of a conservative kind—I use the term technically—is one which will improve the dental health of this nation?

The Government propose to introduce legislation to reduce the age of exemption from 21 to 18, and there will be an opportunity to discuss the merits of that at the time. I am the first to pay tribute to the improvement in the dental health of the nation which the dental service, dentists and the skills of those who serve them have brought about.

The National Health Service.

Yes. The answer to the third point is that I think it will always be important for dentists to explain to patients the advantages of one sort of treatment against another. A few will refuse what is sensible, but most will accept it.

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 opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had about the establishment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for the National Health Service.

I am still studying the comments made by the bodies that were consulted by the previous Administration on this proposal.

Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on the suspicion that only the top of the iceberg of any maladministration can be revealed due to the understandable but unjustified reluctance of doctors to bear witness against each other? Can he tell the House if and when he intends to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Health Service?

The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating, and I think he is being too hard on doctors, but there is an element of truth in what he says. I hope to be able to tell the House something—not on his last point, but on his question—soon.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it might be possible to extend the very narrow capabilities of the present Parliamentary Commissioner to encompass health matters?

I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but the first thing is to decide whether there is a case for some such official in connection with the Health Service.

Would the right hon. Gentleman recollect the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) during discussion of the Bill, when he was Secretary of State, that he would bring in some proposal before the Bill got to the House of Lords to cover the concern which was felt about maladministration in the Health Service which did not involve clinical judgment, and that, since that time, the Select Committee has unanimously recommended that this area should be brought within the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner, although that proposal has never been discussed in the House?

Technically, I am not, of course, responsible for my predecessor's proposals but his intention was to consult the interests concerned. He did do so, and I am studying the results of that consultation.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a need for completely impartial investigations into patients' complaints and that the present procedures by Health Service area authorities are regarded by many people as being not completely impartial?

It is because I have sympathy with that point of view that I told the hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, (Mr. Ashley) that I hoped to be able to tell the House something very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate an inquiry into the circumstances in which hospital emergency generators have failed to operate instantaneously in the event of power cuts; and whether he will make a statement.

Reports on significant failures of mechanical and electrical plant are sent to my Department, and I am aware of a failure at one hospital on which the manufacturer's report is awaited. If further inquiries show that standby generators designed to take up the load instantaneously failed to do so I will consider whether additional technical guidance should be issued.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that, as this equipment is designed to deal with emergencies, it is by definition expected to deal with the unexpected, but that there are reasons to believe that. at the moment, it cannot fulfil this function? Will the hon. Gentleman speed action to allay public anxiety by having a full inquiry into the Health Service and hospitals as a whole?

The hon. Gentleman will know that in the older hospitals, where it is not possible to have dual circuitry conveying power both to essential and to non-esesntial services separately, there has to be some element of switching, taking up a slight amount of time, when a standby generator is brought into effect. However, we are carefully considering the routine engineers' reports to see whether further steps should be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a further statement about the proposed development of the Hospital of St. Cross, Rugby.

At a meeting with representatives of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board on 28th January it was agreed that further consideration should be given by the Board to the provision of acute beds.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we shall be meeting on the Adjournment tomorrow night and that I shall be expecting something rather more positive than that?

I look forward to that encounter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take into account, in his forthcoming review of retirement pensions, recent increases in the cost of fuel.

Yes, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable hardship which is being caused at present, particularly to old-age pensioners, by the increases in fuel prices? Is he satisfied that these are properly taken into account when assessing the amount of supplemental benefits?

The Government are certainly aware of this problem, and that is one of the reasons why the special allowances for extra heating needs are being increased.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to encourage and enable local authorities to alleviate the shortage of district nurses and home helps.

My right hon. Friend proposes to bring into operation on 1st April Section 13 of the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, which makes the provision of home helps by local authorities a duty. I know that local authorities fully recognise the need for expansion. So far as home nurses are concerned, while there may be difficulties in particular areas I am not aware of any general shortage.

I welcome the first part of that answer, but does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the second part is unsatisfactory, in view of the fact that a comparatively small expenditure on home nursing can provide a considerable saving in hospital expenses and, in addition, of course, provide comforts for old people, who much prefer to be in their own homes rather than in hospital?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will recall that my right hon. Friend had made substantial extra allocations for health authorities for precisely this sort of provision, where it is needed, in the current financial year.

I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement. Is he aware that there are many people who need not be hospitalised if we tackle this problem as keenly as we could? Will he draw attention of local authorities to their new legislative powers in this field?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the economic matters discussed at the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers at Singapore.

We had discussions on a number of international economic issues. Details are to be found in the Final Communiqué of the Conference which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 26th January.—[Vol. 810, c. 336.]

But, since the Prime Minister has been prepared to go so far as to jeopardise the very existence of the Commonwealth in order to sell arms to South Africa, surely some estimate of the value of these arms has been made by the Government. In the interests of more open government, will the right hon. Gentleman give these figures to the House?

These figures were not discussed at the Commonwealth Conference to which the hon. Gentleman is referring; neither was this matter discussed during the day-long discussion on economic matters of an international nature. The Heads of Government concentrated on other very important matters of aid, special drawing rights, investment, trade, development and the special Commonwealth programmes.

Did discussions take place on the problems of Commonwealth fruit exporters, particularly of those supplying bananas to this country?

Yes, Sir; this was one of the subjects which was raised in the general discussions in the economic debate, and it was also one which I had the opportunity of discussing outside the Conference with some of the Caribbean Prime Ministers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any discussion of the Basle Agreement? Is it not a fact that this comes up for renewal this year and that one of its most important aspects is that our sterling depositors voluntarily restrict themselves as to the percentage of their deposits which they convert into dollars? If that restraint is to be renewed, is it not a fact that unanimity will be required by all the sterling depositors? Is the right hon. Gentleman, finally, aware that the sale of arms to South Africa would gravely impair the chances of obtaining that unanimity, with a damaging effect on sterling, which would in turn damage and weaken our bargaining position in regard to the European Economic Community?

This, again, was not a matter discussed in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference. It was not raised by anyone there, because the Heads of Government knew that it was a matter to be negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct to say that the agreement comes up for renegotiation this year, but it is also well known, I think, that the arrangements affect different Commonwealth countries in a variety of ways. It is entirely a matter for negotiation with them.

Did my right hon. Friend find a great welcome among Commonwealth countries for his speech to the United Nations last October, when he said that this country would do its best, as soon as possible, to achieve a 1 per cent. target of transfer of net resources to the developing countries?

Yes, Sir; I found a very warm welcome for that when I made the speech in the United Nations, but it was true that the speeches at the Commonwealth Conference in the economic day's debate re-echoed those sentiments. I also emphasised that if we were to reach the target of 1 per cent. by 1975, this would, of course, include not only governmental aid and technical assistance but also private investment. It is a matter for each individual country to decide whether or not it wants private investment, but if it does, I suggested that then the right climate should be created for it, in which investors could have confidence, and that by far the best form of private investment is that which is made in partnership with the people or the Government or the organisations of the country in which the money is being placed.

As immigration is basically an economic matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Government's new immigration Bill was discussed with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in view of the fact that the details of the Measure are being discussed with race relations interests in this country?

This was suggested as an item for the agenda, but the Heads of Government did not agree that immigration should be placed on the agenda for the Conference. It was not, therefore, raised at any of the Conference discussions. However, talks on the subject were held outside the Conference.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his insistence on Britain's right to pursue its own policies and his refusal to be pushed around has given wide satisfaction in this country?

I think that this position is now recognised throughout the Commonwealth.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 1 per cent. aid pledge to which he referred would carry a lot more conviction if the Government's official aid figures took us nearer the United Nations target for official aid, instead of towards the figure of 0.5 per cent., which is what his statistics indicate?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that it is rather more than that, In any event, it has always been clear, from the United Nations Development Decade reports, from the Pearson Report and from everything that has been said on this subject, that the 1 per cent. target can be reached only if there is a combination of private investment, whether by firms or by individuals, and Government assistance.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Birmingham on 11th January on inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on 11th January, on economic policies, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning inflation to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on Monday, 11th January, 1971, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

So much for Government policy! Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that quite responsible organs of public opinion, including The Times, castigated that speech as being irresponsible and disappointing and, in particular, criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his very foolish, offensive and offhand disregard of the T.U.C. proposals— [Interruption.] —for curbing inflation and the fact that he made no mention whatever of prices, a promise on which the right hon. Gentleman and the Tories were elected?

I do not accept those strictures on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he pointed out in that speech, he had had an opportunity for three weeks to make a careful study of the proposals put forward by the T.U.C. as to how this matter should be dealt with, and had in the end concluded that they did not represent a satisfactory way of dealing with the present inflation; and I entirely support him in that.

Is it not Government policy, while restraining wages, to encourage prices and profits to rise to provide the resources for industrial investment? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, confirm that it is contrary to Government policy to act directly on prices?

There is certainly no encouragement being given by this Government for prices to rise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!") As far as the nationalised industries are concerned, we have been constraining prices as a matter of policy. As for our agricultural policy, that was clearly explained at the General Election— [Interruption.] It is perfectly all right for hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their nervousness, to giggle. It was a deliberate point of policy which would enable the Government to reduce taxation. Already, both in the direct field and in corporate taxation, those steps have been taken.

Mr. St. John-Stevas.

On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that this Question is being answered with my Question No. 14?

I am aware of that. Any hon. Member who has a Question being answered with another is entitled to put a supplementary question. I will call the hon. Member in due course. In the meantime, it is as well to have supplementary questions coming from alternate sides of the House. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Does not the prime responsibility for the present inflation fall on the head of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who lost his nerve in the last days of the Labour Administration and, judging by his performance on "Panorama" last week, has not got it back since?

I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend—but what concerns the country even more is the fact that the Labour Party still shows itself to be a firm ally of inflation as well as a supporter of industrial disorder.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his replies today will hardly be seen as a serious attempt to justify his election pledges? Will he endeavour to get a firm grip on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

By the throat.

—and perhaps, at a stroke, suggest that he stands on his own two feet in these matters and does not seek to abdicate his responsibilities to courts of inquiry?

I had understood hon. Gentlemen opposite to be some of the firmest advocates in industrial relations of arbitration, courts of inquiry and so on. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is disputing that.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that prices would have been very much lower if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and his colleagues had shown more courage in standing up to inflationary wage demands a year ago?

That is, of course, absolutely right, but it was a deliberate policy of the Leader of the Opposition and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage roaring inflation in an attempt to make people feel better in their pockets and to win the General Election. What irritates hon Gentlemen opposite now so much is the fact that they lost.

If the right hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that, why did he claim two days before the election that he had all the magic wands necessary to deal with the situation—which, he says, he then understood—at a stroke? Why has he not done so?

To come to the more serious remark which the right hon. Gentleman made, if I understood him aright he said that it has not been the policy of the Government to encourage increases in prices. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman said that. Does he then repudiate what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Press the day before he went to Cyprus for the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Conference, because that is what his statement would appear to mean. [Interruption.] Does he repudiate that? I am asking a question and I want an answer from the Prime Minister.

Recognising, if not agreeing with, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rejected the T.U.C. proposals, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not be wise at this stage to meet the T.U.C. and discuss these proposals? He will have to do it sooner or later. Would it not be a good thing to do it now?

There exists a forum at which such discussions take place and at which these matters have, in fact, been discussed. That is the N.E.D.C., and that organisation is the right place for Government Ministers, together with the T.U.C., representatives of the C.B.I., the nationalised industries and the independents, to have the fullest possible discussions about these matters. The Government have always been willing to do this. I have taken part in discussions on these matters, and I shall go on doing so.

Will the Prime Minister answer the question whether he is repudiating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Press the day before he went to Cyprus?

I have known the right hon. Gentleman long enough now to know that I cannot take any words like that without examining them. When he gives me the quotation he wishes to refer to, I will answer it.

——

Order.

On a point of order. I understand that the fact that today only two Questions to the Prime Minister were taken is matched by precedent. However, what is quite new today is the fact that each supplementary question put from this side as an oral question was matched by a supplementary question from the other side which was not part of the Question which had been asked. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if this is a new precedent which you are introducing.

The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. I called the hon. Member for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Islington."] No, I did not call the hon. Member for Islington. I first called the hon. Gentleman who asked the first Question and then the hon. Gentleman who asked the second Question—the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). This is a matter on which I am very much in the hands of the House. If three hon. Members from one side of the House have tabled Questions, does Mr. Speaker then call three hon. Gentlemen to ask supplementaries from the other side afterwards? This is a matter for the judgment of the Chair. If it is considered preferable that I call first the three hon. Gentlemen who have tabled the Questions and then call three hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the House, it may well be. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting his point of order, but this really is a matter for me.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a new practice which you have probably unwittingly brought to the House. It was the custom, and has been for as long as I have been in the House, that everyone who had a Question which was being answered with the original had the opportunity first to put a supplementary and then Mr. Speaker decided on his own initiative whether he would give other hon. Members the opportunity to ask supplementaries. I hope the House will agree that that is a preferable practice. If hon. Members want to ask questions they should table them. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will look back at the practice of Mr. Speaker King and his predecessors and follow their practice, which was to call first all hon. Members who had tabled a Question.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help. I was encouraged to embark upon perhaps new procedures. I absolutely agree that if an hon. Gentleman has tabled a Question I will certainly call him to ask a supplementary. The exact order in which I call hon. Members admits of a little experiment.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, did you notice that today Questions to the Prime Minister did not start until 16½ minutes past three o'clock and that at 29 minutes past three you called my name for Question No. 4 and then stopped it and it got lost in the hubbub?

It did not get lost in the hubbub. It got lost because the Leader of the Opposition rose to ask a further supplementary question.

On a point of order. In view of the interest shown in several parts of the House yesterday in the issue of General Baker's statement, and in view of the related question of the approach to the British Government on Laos, have you, Mr. Speaker, received any request from the Government's business managers for time for a statement on the constitutional issues that arise out of this question?

I do not think that that is a point of order at all.

Mr. Speaker, as in giving your Ruling you seemed to be feeling the pulse of the House on what indeed had been the convention and what would be preferred, I would confirm that the procedure you adopted was in accordance with convention and that, as long as the hon. Members who have tabled the Questions on the Order Paper eventually are called to ask their supplementaries, the order of calling for supplementaries has not been important. In terms of giving a view, I would think that it was right to try to call hon. Members alternatively from both sides of the House so that both sides are properly represented.

I am grateful to the hon. Baronet for his assistance. I am not sure that I would be very wise to take either the pulse of the House or its temperature at present.

Further to that point of order. As most of us in the House are less concerned about the calling of questions than with the fact that we do not seem to get any answers under this Administration, and as you, Mr. Speaker, have been perhaps forced into giving a number of impromptu Rulings, would it be right to suggest, in view of the important business still ahead of us today, that you further consider at your leisure what has been said with a view to your deciding whether you really are proposing a new precedent in this matter?

In particular, Mr. Speaker, would you consider one Ruling—or at any rate Obiter dictum —which seems to me to be different from what has happened in the past, in that you said that every hon. Gentleman who has a Question on the Order Paper is entitled to a supplementary? Is it not a fact, certainly from what little experience I have had in answering Questions, that the only supplementaries called are those to Questions which the Prime Minister or another Minister groups with the original Question? If everyone who has a Question on the Order Paper is entitled to an answer, as both the Prime Minister and I know, there can be a habit of hon. Members adding their names to those Questions long afterwards, and indeed right up to the day before Questions are answered, and this might lead to 11 or 12 supplementaries on the first Question.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion and I will certainly consider what has happened. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the practice of adding— "tacking" I believe it is called.

Further to that point of order.

Oh!

This is a special case. Mr. Speaker, you may not have observed that today we had a very small group of people with questions in a peculiar place—the near misses—and that I was one of them. If one or two people could have contained themselves for a number of seconds I would have been called. Does not that at least permit me to establish a claim to a preferential position on Thursday? As I cannot get down to the Table, would the Table note that and put me in the proper place for Thursday?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, "No".

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the reported invasion of Laos by South Vietnamese forces supported by United States air cover". I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not giving notice before 12 o'clock as required by the Standing Order, but I have been seeking either confirmation or refutation of the earlier reports. There were earlier reports today from a Japanese news agency, which now appear to have been confirmed by other agencies. Therefore, I submit that the matter is now specific enough. Even if those reports were in doubt, the threats and clear intention would make the matter sufficient to warrant the attention of the House.

Second, I submit that the importance of a matter concerning war and peace does not require to be substantiated. It is clear that in this situation the British Government have a duty to make representations on behalf of this country, and a further special responsibility as a co-Chairman of the 1962 Geneva Convention, which is clearly being violated. I ask that the House should have the opportunity to question the Government and express its views on this extremely urgent matter.

May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reminding you that under the Standing Order you are invited, in considering the application, to have regard to whether the matter may be brought before the House in any other way. Having regard to the lack of response to the points raised yesterday and today by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I urge you, in the absence of any Government initiative, to enable the House to discuss this vital, urgent and important matter.

The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the reported invasion of Laos by South Vietnamese forces supported by United States air cover. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he would ask leave.

As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given consideration to the representations the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.