asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March 1987.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present at Victoria to mark the arrival of King Fahd. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall he attending a state banquet in honour of King Fahd.

Is the Prime Minister happy that, as a direct result of her policies, as from next Thursday cancer patients on chemotherapy will be paying as much as £12 per script for their medicines or £33·50 annually for a season ticket? Chemotherapy may make a young lady, who is probably suffering the trauma of losing a breast, also go bald, yet the NHS charges her £16 for a wig. Is it not an injustice that the average taxpayer, healthy and sick, pays £2·20 every week for medicines, but only the sick pay twice? Will the Prime Minister immediately negotiate with the BMA for cancer to be added to the seven diseases which are already accepted by the BMA for prescription exemption?

The hon. Gentleman has asked this question many times, I think probably of all Governments. He knows that the answer has not varied from Government to Government. It is extremely difficult to put that on the list of treatments— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]— which rank for special prescriptions, first because it is not easy to detect precisely when the disease occurs and, secondly, because many people would not wish to know that they have it. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about costs. May I remind him that the average family of four pays some £26·50 in taxation every week to support the National Health Service. That is very considerable. Naturally, most of the prescriptions are exempt—75 per cent. of people are exempt—but no Government have found it possible to add that disease to the exempt list.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement by the CBI of record order books and industrial confidence provides further evidence that only through the continuation of the Government's economic policies can we look forward to further economic growth and a return to full employment?

Yes, the CBI forecast is excellent. It shows a healthy and balanced growth of exports, investment consumption, manufacturing output and total output. It shows that the Government's policies are working extremely well, not only to create new jobs, but, at last, to get down the numbers on the unemployment register. That is very good news and further expansion is in prospect, and therefore further falls in unemployment are in prospect.

Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the rise in the manufactured trade deficit to a £8 billion deficit this year,

"is neither here nor there"—[Official Report, 23 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 33.]

I think that what matters is the overall performance of the economy. The overall performance of the economy is excellent. I fail to see why the right hon. Gentleman should consistently try to keep out of account the performance of other industries such as the extractive industries of coal mining and oil, the construction industry and the service industries, all of which give the most excellent performance in the British economy.

None of which escapes the fact that the forecast for the balance of payments deficit, largely attributed to that manufactured trade deficit, is £2 billion this year, despite the fact that the right hon. Lady has at her disposal very large oil revenues and a saving of oil imports. Will she accept that the CBI, even on the basis of the fortunate recovery recorded in its statement, still expects manufactured imports to go up 25 per cent. faster than manufactured exports? On the basis of the fact that already this year—[Interruption.]

Order.

there has been a 6 per cent. revaluation in sterling, how sturdy does she think the recovery is supposed to be?

The recovery is very sturdy. That is the right hon. Gentleman's problem and he knows it.

Given the right hon. Lady's responsibility for putting unemployment up by 2 million and the fact that we are on record as fighting it that much harder than she does, all good news is welcome. Will she now answer the question? Given the continual deterioration in manufacturing trade performance, how sturdy does she think that the recovery is?

The recovery is very sturdy. I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should consider that those who work in the oil, coal and construction industries and in the great service industries, which make an enormous contribution to Britain's balance of payments, should be thought to have no right whatever to import goods. It is absolutely crazy.

asked the Prime Minister when she last hosted an official reception at Chequers.

I cannot recall having ever given an official reception at Chequers, although there have been official luncheons.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she give some thought to the possibility of holding some such function in the future, which would give an opportunity for providing generous supplies of Scotch whisky to invited guests, thereby enabling them to appreciate the most excellent qualities of that fine product, the bulk of which is distilled in my constituency?

I know my hon. Friend's concern about the Scotch whisky industry and I recall having visited a successful distillery in his constituency. I assure him that the whisky served at Chequers and at No. 10 is genuine Scotch whisky, and very good it is.

If the Prime Minister is to host an official reception at Chequers, will she consider inviting those who are unemployed in Cleveland, and will she then agree with them that, since Cleveland now has the highest unemployment and the third highest crime rate in Britain, there is a clear link between unemployment and crime in Cleveland?

I am very well aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will therefore have welcomed the latest unemployment figures, which showed that unemployment in all regions was down. I am sure that in his more honest moments he will welcome and support the Government's economic policy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is not the way to create greater enduring employment through prudent climate-setting by Government and prudent spending by Government? Is not the current CBI report, combined with the report that the Government have prudently saved £75 million on prescriptions, a good example of exactly the way that we should go?

Yes. The Government's task is to provide a sound financial background and a sound framework of law within which enterprise can flourish. We are entering the seventh successive year of growth. That is a very good record and shows the strength and rightness of the Government's policy, as confirmed by the CBI estimate and forecast today.

Does the Prime Minister agree that anything that the Syrian Government could do to assist in bringing about the release of Terry Waite and other hostages would materially affect attitudes in this country towards future better relations with Syria?

I assume that anything that Syria can do she would already be doing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

As my right hon. Friend will be visiting Moscow and meeting Mr. Gorbachev, will she please tell him that, while it is very important that we should negotiate on nuclear and conventional weapons for peace, harmony and friendship in the world, it is absolutely imperative that he show his human heart, human face, compassion and sincerity by allowing the people in Soviet Russia the freedom of speech, religion and movement, that we take for granted in this country. [Interruption.] Then we could negotiate on nuclear weapons. Only when, for all people in the Soviet Union, the barriers are broken down, the Berlin Wall is demolished and slave labour camps are abolished can the people be free. [Interruption.]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.]

Order. The whole House knows why the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend and can assure him that I shall, of course, be raising those matters under the Helsinki accords, which deal with the free movement of people and ideas. I am having a bigger correspondence than I have ever had from people who wish certain personal cases to be raised and from people who hope that I will raise the matter of religious freedom and freedom of speech for all in the Soviet Union.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister take time out today to look afresh at the guidelines for civil servants when asked by their Minister to give advice on such personal issues as tax problems? Would she care to comment on the report in The Guardian today which concerns one such case in connection with her Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I see no cause whatsoever to comment upon a particular case. I am satisfied that the standards on both sides were upheld.

Did my right hon. Friend, during her discussions with President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, discuss our independent nuclear resources in France and the United Kingdom, and was it ever mentioned that the new European forum for discussion of defence matters should be the reactivated Western European Union?

Yes, of course we discussed the independent nuclear deterrents of both the United Kingdom and France, reaffirming once again that they are wholly outside the present arms control negotiations. They are our last resort deterrent and are absolutely vital to our security and future. We did not go into the wider matter of the European forum, although I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made an excellent speech on it the other day.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

The House having given approval last night to the Budget proposals, in which the tax concessions benefit the wealthier sections of the community the most and give little benefit to the poorly paid, will the Prime Minister indicate her concern for those pensioners who are receiving only their state pension, who are to receive a mighty small increase in April compared with those of pensionable age still in well-paid occupations, even if for only a short time, who will obviously be benefiting considerably from the tax concessions?

The tax concessions will benefit many people— factory workers, nurses, teachers, policemen, on average earnings and one in three pensioners. Of course, many pensioners do not only have the basic state pension, but have a second pension as well. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1979 second pension, SERPS, amounted to 95p per week for those who retired then. People who are now retiring and who have the SERPS pension to add to the basic pension have an extra £16·25 a week. Pensioners, too, benefit from tax reductions.

Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the Leader of the Opposition's most recent recipe for jobs is not dissimilar to that adopted by Derek Hatton and his friends for Liverpool——

Order, Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that she should adopt a recipe for jobs similar to that adopted by Derek Hatton and his friends for Liverpool?

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, our recipe for jobs is absolutely the right one. It has produced 1 million extra jobs since 1983 and is reducing the numbers of unemployed on the register. In addition, since 1979 we have spent £10·5 billion on special employment measures and are introducing yet another one, a new job training scheme, on 1 April. That will also help those who have not got jobs to get a training to help them find a job.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the reports emanating from Washington about the modernisation of nuclear weapons, which, as I understand it, have been denied by at least four Ministers? Would it not be reasonable to suggest that they have been handling the truth rather carelessly, or is it yet another example of this Administration's rather perverted use of the term "open government"?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. At the Montebello meeting of the nuclear planning group in 1983, NATO agreed both a major reduction in the number of its theatre nuclear weapons in Europe and the need for possible improvements to ensure the effectiveness of the remaining stockpile. This was clearly set out in the comminiqué issued at the Montebello meeting. Since then SACEUR has put forward his proposals for these improvements. These are being pursued with the individual nations concerned, but, as Defence Ministers have made clear to the House, no decisions affecting the modernisation of the theatre nuclear weapons in service with British forces have yet been made. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking the question.