asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to increase the resources available for community homes and schemes for the care of children in the community so that they will not have to be remanded to prisons.

Expenditure on facilities for children remanded into care is the responsibilty of local authorities. It is for each local authority to decide, in the light of its own needs and priorities, how to deploy the resources available to it. We are continuing to make available in the current financial year £2 million for capital grants to local authorities for the provision of secure accommodation.

Will the Minister say, first, when sufficient resources will have been provided both in community homes and in alternatives in the community so that we no longer have the despicable practice of remanding children to prison establishments? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is far more constructive and sensible to deal with difficult and recalcitrant children in the community or in community homes than to mess about with this nonsense of so-called short, sharp sentences?

I share the hon. Gentleman's general view that it is better to try to deal with children in the community than in institutions. In response to his specific question I can tell him that at present there are 86 secure places available for boys on remand and that a further 108 places are under construction.

Does the Minister accept that his answer to my hon. Friend's original question will not bring much comfort to local authorities when they face enormous cuts in expenditure, and that it will be difficult for them to make the right sort of provision for these children?

The Government's recent call for reduction in expenditure by local authorities means that they have to review their priorities. However, a recent circular has made clear the priority which we attach to law and order services, and we are prepared to regard secure accommodation and other facilities for children remanded into care or found guilty by the courts as an integral part of the national pattern of those services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of job losses on Merseyside following proposed spending cuts in the National Health Service.

National Health Service expenditure in Merseyside is not being cut.

Is the Minister aware of the strong concern and anger being felt by trade unions about the proposed cuts? I am informed by union representatives that the proposed cuts will affect especially the training hospital which has been opened recently. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no partial closures in local hospitals, particularly at the new Royal Liverpool hospital?

Temporary closures are a matter for the local health authorities. An additional £5 million has been allocated to the Mersey regional health authority this year, but that is likely to be offset by the constraints on cash limits. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision not to fund in full the costs of additional pay settlements, for example, was taken by the previous Administration.

Will my hon. Friend remember that when he creates changes in the National Health Service the professionals working in the Service should be involved in the decision-making process, and that it should not be left to the bureaucrats and administrators to do it on their own?

We are well aware of this, and I remind my hon. Friend that this underlies the Conservative health policy, which is to reduce bureaucracy in a way which will allow the money available to be used to provide medical care for patients.

How can the Minister say that there will be no cuts when Merseyside will have to take its share of the £100 million cuts proposed by the Government?

Apparently the right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the statement which I made just now. The Mersey region has been asked to meet £1·3 million of the excess costs of pay awards, but the region is getting £5 million of additional alocated resources. This money will offset the extra costs resulting from pay awards and value added tax.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the reductions in manpower and services to patients in each regional and area health authority which will flow from the Government's refusal to finance the whole of the Clegg pay awards for ancillary staff and ambulancemen.

Since the Government have not refused to finance these Clegg awards, the question is misconceived.

Is it not true that the financing of the awards is to be reduced by the Government by £22 million even though they have said that they will implement the findings of the Clegg report for ancillary staff and ambulance men? Is it not also the case that this will form part of the £100 million shortfall in the cash limits, which will mean substantial reductions in the National Health Service in every area and regional health authority in the country? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer cynically and deliberately mislead the House when he said in his Budget Statement that there were to be no cuts in the National Health Service? When will the right hon. Gentleman, as a spending Minister, make clear to the mad monetarists at the Treasury that he is responsible for the National Health Service and needs more finance?

On the funding of the Clegg awards, the Government are adhering precisely to the policy of their predecessors, on which the hon. Gentleman fought the last election.

Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that this pay award and others in the future are firmly tied to no-strike agreements so that patients do not have to suffer the inconvenience and hardship that occurred last winter?

I believe that all parties in the House and in the Health Service are as anxious as I am to avoid any repetition of the events that struck the Service last winter. These are matters for the Whitley Councils to come to terms with. I hope that when they embark upon negotiations in the next pay round it will be possible to make some advance in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.

Does the Secretary of State accept the conclusion of the letter from the chairman of the South-West Thames regional health authority that the squeeze imposed by the Government as a result of their Budget may lead to a doubling or a trebling of waiting lists and the closure of wards and hospitals on a scale not seen before? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have just come from the Westminster hospital, where I was told that 10 wards are due to close as a result of the squeeze imposed by him? When will he come clean with the House and the country?

I have made clear that the policy of the Government is exactly the same as that of our predecessors, both on the funding of the Clegg awards and the offset of £23·4 million which the right hon. Gentleman announced before the election, and the fact that we were asking health authorities to abide by the cash limits laid down by the previous Government. As I said in the debate in the House recently, this will lead to a squeeze on cash limits overall of between £90 million and £100 million. This means that health authorities will need carefully to review their priorities in the current year. Neither the National Health Service nor any other part of the public sector can escape the logic of the proposition that the more that is taken out in pay, the less there is for everything else.

Now that the public service unions have embraced the principle of comparability as their byword, is it not time to point out to all those employed in the Health Service and elsewhere in the public sector that, as in the private sector, there must be some trade-off between the level of settlements and the scale of employment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter which I would expect the management side of the Whitley Councils to point out to the staff side during pay negotiations.

Is it not clear that the circular issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on 11 April is a light age away from current circumstances in view of the heavy burdens that this Government, by their own decision, have placed on the Health Service in the last two or three months? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a clear undertaking that his Government will meet the pay rates of the Clegg award for the existing labour force? Otherwise, he will be laying a further burden on the National Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider paying 35 per cent. extra to the doctors over the next few months. Why not treat the ambulance-men and the ancillary workers in the same way? Or are we to regard the Prime Minister's speech at Beeston on 18 April, when she promised to keep the National Health Service fully funded, as a cynical exercise in electioneering?

It is interesting to recognise that the right hon. Gentleman's party would perhaps not have honoured the findings of the doctors and dentists review body to which, we understand, it had committed itself before the election. No doubt the medical profession will take note accordingly. I have made clear that additions to cash limits will be provided for the purpose of funding acceptable awards. The arrangements for this have been stated many times in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the way in which national insurance regulations affect the pay of those in the hotel and catering industry.

Yes, Sir. Employees in the industry are treated no differently from those in other industries who receive gratuities as well as wages. Their earnings are liable for class 1 national insurance contributions but gratuities distributed independently of the employer do not count as earnings for this purpose.

Is it not ironic and scandalous that by not applying the national insurance levy to gratuities earned by workers in the hotel and catering industry not only does the Exchequer lose many millions of pounds that would normally be contributed to it but some of the lowest paid workers in the community lose in the short term through a lack of entitlement to earnings related benefits in sickness and unemployment and lose at the end of their poorly paid working lives by a reduction in the occupational pension that they will have earned?

There is some merit in that argument. These are real problems. The practical difficulty is how to measure payments that the employer does not handle and does not distribute. I should have thought that if employees in these industries wanted a change their unions might want to negotiate a different method of payment that would make it easier for the national insurance system to accommodate the problem that has been mentioned.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the appalling story in today's Evening Standard about Italian drop-outs in London who are drawing full social security benefits but have no intention of working in the hotel, catering or any other industry, and who are openly boasting that they are permitted to cheat the system? What is my right hon. Friend doing to stop an abuse that is undermining the interests of genuine, legitimate workers in these industries?

I have noticed that report. The question before the House concerns contributory benefits, which would not be available to newcomers to this country. It is the intention of the Government to be much tougher in dealing with abuses of the system than has been the case in the past.

Since the Minister has expressed concern about abuse, what action will he take about the abuse perpetrated by employers in the hotel and catering industry, and in the construction industry, who either fail to pay national insurance contributions on behalf of their employees or do not pay enough?

It is an offence not to pay contributions, and the Department is constantly chasing up cases of people who fail to do so.

Is the Minister not aware that at least one worker in London—a former employee of Simpsons in the Strand—is losing unemployment benefit because that company, contrary to what it told the Inland Revenue, was not paying proper national insurance contributions and has told untruths to his Department, which is now investigating the matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the consequences of what em- ployers are doing in these rip-off industries, namely, depriving workers of future pension rights, unemployment rights and redundancy payment rights? He must be more positive about this problem.

I am aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions. The matter is before the Secretary of State for what is in effect a quasi-judicial decision under the original legislation, and I cannot therefore comment on the matter in detail. If our consideration of that case and our decision on it help to point to a solution to some of the genuine problems that have been raised in questions today, we ought to reconsider this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to protect elderly people from the risk of suffering from hypothermia in the coming winter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what new steps he is taking to protect elderly people from the risk of suffering from hypothermia in the coming winter.

Authorities and practitioners in all disciplines are well aware of the need to be alert to the possibility that some elderly people may suffer the effects of cold and to be ready to take appropriate action.

Is my hon. Friend aware of recent research which shows that up to 500,000 elderly people could be at risk this winter? Will she stress to the Secretary of State for Industry the importance of introducing a fuel discount scheme to include not only electricity, which was all that was provided by the previous Government, but solid fuels, gas and, above all, paraffin?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are aware of the research. However, there is at present no firm evidence that the incidence of hypothermia is high. We know that many people feel the cold intensely, and action must, therefore, be taken. The electricity discount scheme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I assure my hon. Friend that I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend on all the matters that he mentioned.

Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that there is no substitute for an adequate living pension that will relieve pensioners of the fear, worry and indignity of this annual exercise? Is the hon. Lady aware that last year 600 death certificates gave hypothermia as a possible reason for death? That was an increase over previous years.

The bitter winter led to hypothermia appearing as the underlying cause of death on 20 death certificates. It was mentioned as a subsidiary cause on about 600 further certificates. Last winter was one of the harshest for many years. In the uprating this year we have increased the heating addition for pensioners. I shall bring the hon. Member's comments to the notice of my colleagues.

Will the Under-Secretary of State prevail upon her colleagues to reconsider the decontrol of the price of paraffin, which will ration paraffin by price and deprive the neediest members of our community of the fuel on which they will most rely this winter?

This is a matter for the Department of Energy. All the effects of price increases in whatever fuel an elderly person uses are being carefully considered. I note what the hon. Member says.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the House will not be satisfied with her rather generalised answers? The original question asked what steps the Secretary of State was taking. Is it not possible for the Government to take action under the Homes Insulation Act, which has been operating for 12 months? Is it not open to the Government to introduce a scheme of special assistance to elderly people who are suffering and who are at risk?

The Act enables local authorities to give grants towards the cost of home insulation. It limits the grant to 66 per cent. of the total cost and a maximum of £50. Obviously, there are other things that we must do to help the elderly. Local authorities are also able to provide help to elderly people who are in need. The Supplementary Benefits Commission is prepared to pay extra lump sums for heavier curtains and simple draughtproofing. We shall be examining what can be done further to help elderly people who may be in need because of the severity of the cold and the cost of fuel.

The hon. Lady has got the Act wrong. There is a scheme such as she described, but is she aware that the Act allows the Government, with parliamentary approval, to introduce new schemes of special assistance of a different kind? Will the Government take action on the report to which I referred?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the operation of that Act is a matter for the Department of the Environment. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has more knowledge of this than I do, and I shall examine all that he has said. He may be assured that I shall not rest when it comes to a question of helping elderly people who may suffer from the cold this winter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects next to increase the rate of child benefit.

I must ask the hon. Member to await future announcements. I have no plans for making such an announcement in the immediate future.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's failure to uprate child benefit, apart from the puny 50p for one-parent families, will increase the disincentive to work and enlarge the biggest single group in poverty—poor families with children? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the utterly indefensible proposed public expenditure cuts will hit poor families hardest? Does he accept that it is his responsibility to resist those cuts and to fight to uprate regularly those benefits that will most reduce poverty?

I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to help poor families with children. That is why, next November, there will be increases in the child additions for families, the heads of which are unable to work, those who are sick or unemployed and parents who are widowed or earning low wages. They will be helped by the uprating of the family incomes supplement. Lone-parent families will be helped by the 20 per cent. addition to the child benefit increase.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are overwhelming advantages for the economy, as well as for the families concerned, of paying the same level of child benefit, as of right, to the children of those who are in full-time work as we pay to the children of families of which the head is an invalid or unemployed?

As a statement of the ideal, I cannot fault what my hon. Friend said.

Does the Secretary of State agree that many families will be delighted to receive the existing rate of child benefit, in view of the industrial dispute? Is he satisfied with the emergency payments system in his Department? Has there been any publicity about it? Will he have a word with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries and ask them to be gentle in their policy of cutting off supplies to parents who have not been receiving child benefit? Is he aware that child benefit not being paid can mean the difference between paying and not paying a bill?

I am grateful for the hon. Member's recognition that the problems are due to the industrial dispute and are not, as one of his hon. Friends said, the result of a Scrooge computer, which seemed to be a strange concept.

It was operated by a Tory.

The problems of the child benefit centre at Washington arose during the five-week strike which ended on 1 May. The computer was out of operation during that time. Since 20 June the staff have been operating a ban on overtime, which has prevented them from catching up on the backlog that arose from the strike.

At what times of the year is it possible to raise child benefit, and how much notice needs to be given to the staff?

The question of the time of year for raising child benefit is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in conjunction with myself, and we have the matter under regular review.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the story that he is giving from the Government Dispatch Box is very different from the one that he gave from this Box on the question of child benefit? Is he aware that millions of working families will be deprived of the 50p per child which the Labour Government had pledged before the last election? What will he do to overcome that? Is he aware that many of these families receive no benefit from tax cuts and that they will suffer from his Government's economic policies?

The remarkable thing about the Labour Party's 50p is that no money at all was earmarked for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Service if he proposes to review the policy on the provision of health centres.

Health centres will continue to be built only where there is a clear wish locally. We are also exploring alternative ways of providing good general practice facilities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many general practitioners would like to buy an equity stake in a health centre, either through a long leasehold or through a freehold, and will he urgently consider sending revised instructions to the health authorities to make this possible?

I am aware of that, and I have already met representatives of the General Practice Finance Corporation. My right hon. Friend is considering proposals which it has made for increasing the amount which it can lend from £25 million to £100 million and for a scheme which would permit purchase and lease back of newly built practice premises. If accepted, these changes will require legislation.

The Minister said that he would continue to permit health centres to be built where there was a local demand. Does that mean where there is a demand from local people or only where there is a demand from the local general practitioners? If the latter, they will be able to continue to obstruct the development of health centres.

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that it is not possible to run a health centre without the collaboration and joining in of the local general practitioners.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to public funds to date of supplementary benefit payments made to those involved in the industrial dispute at Chrysler and to their dependants, respectively.

Nothing up to last Tuesday, the latest date to which information is available.

I am relieved to hear that, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be most undesirable for the taxpayer to be invited to subsidise an industrial dispute of this kind, where it has been made clear by Peugeot that it is not prepared to maintain employees regardless of performance, as Chrysler, perhaps, and Lord Lever were prepared to do in the past?

The dispute has coincided with the holiday shutdown, and to date the requirements of those involved have been covered by final earnings and holiday pay. I understand also that the unions involved have not declared the dispute official, so they have made no strike payments. We shall watch what happens in this matter, but the question that we have to face is the need of the family. The situation has not changed from what pertained hitherto. The striker is not entitled to supplementary benefit.

Can the hon. Lady give the aggregate cost to public funds of the 100,000 workers who have just gone on the dole, and the aggregate cost to public funds of the 500,000 workers who will go on the dole as a result of the cuts which the Government now intend to impose on the British people?

The answers that the hon. Gentleman seeks do not arise on this question, and without notice I cannot give him the detailed figures. If he cares to put down a detailed question he will be given the information.

Would it not be morally indefensible to take any action about the payment of supplementary benefit to strikers' families that would cause those families and the children to suffer in any way? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of ever doing such a thing?

I understand what my hon. Friend says. We shall not be taking any hasty decisions about what should happen, but clearly one of the possibilities is the deeming of strike pay, which we shall be examining in due time.

For the benefit of some of her hon. Friends, will the hon. Lady confirm that, in the period 1974 to 1978, 81 per cent. of strikes, official and unofficial, were settled within 12 working days and therefore no supplementary benefits were involved?

I am well aware that in many cases supplementary benefit is not paid because strikes are, one is thankful to note, settled very quickly. If the figure is 81 per cent. I am glad to hear it. I wish that it were even higher, because then we might have the opportunity of gaining the benefits from continuous productivity in our factories—a problem that has so bedevilled our situation hitherto.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on Government policy relating to the payment of a blindness allowance.

We have the greatest sympathy for blind people and the problems they face, but the resources are not at present available to finance new benefits.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that since 1948 blind people in this country have consistently fallen behind and that in comparison with Europe we are not even in the same league? Can he assure the House that, unlike the Labour Government, he regards the provision of help to blind people as a priority?

I think that the case for an income in the form of a blind allowance is unanswerable on its merits, but if it were administered at the present time at the rate of £10 a week it would cost about £80 million or £90 million a year. No Government, including the recent Labour Government, have been able to find those resources, and clearly in present circumstances we are not able to find them, either.

Is the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, in any way concerned that there was not a word about the disabled in the Queen's Speech? Does that mean that we shall have to wait at least until 1981 for even a Green Paper about a new general disablement benefit which will embrace blind people? Is it not utterly outrageous that disabled people should be made to wait after a Budget that gave £1,400 million to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers in this country?

If it is outrageous that I cannot anounce a general disability income after 11 weeks in office, I wonder what is the appropriate adjective for the right hon. Gentleman, who held this job for five years.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from parents of autistic children.

One, Sir, and a paper from the National Society for Autistic Children. I hope to meet the society in the near future to discuss its paper about services for autistic people.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the distress caused to many parents of autistic children in that they are unable to leave any money in their wills or by other means to buy them a few creature comforts while they are in residential care after the death of their parents? Will he look into the possibility of exempting up to a certain small sum these would-be bequests from being paid into the kitty of the residential home?

I understand the problems that my hon. Friend describes, and I shall be happy to raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will the Minister take into account that there are many disadvantaged persons in this country whose parents are going through quite a deal of trouble, trial and tribulation in an effort to provide for their children's future, but will he take into account also the position of grandparents who take over the responsibility of looking after their grandchildren when the mother has passed away and the father is not there to take on the responsibility? They receive no allowance if they do not have to be on social security benefit or supplementary benefit.

I do not think that that arises directly out of the original question—

It is a good question.

—but I shall be happy to look into the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many Giro cheques issued by his departmental managers in local offices were lost or stolen in 1978; and what was the amount of public money paid twice over as a result of these losses.

A total of 57 million Giro cheques were issued by my Department in 1978, of which 91,000 were reported missing. About one-third of these were replaced immediately on hardship grounds, but over half of these resulted in duplicate payments causing an estimated loss of £480,000. I am reviewing policy in this area.

Will my right hon. Friend take care not to fall into the trap of regarding this matter as one of small importance because it concerns a relatively small part of the total that is paid out? May I commend to him the theory that if he looks after the thousands the millions will take care of themselves? Will he take steps to take greater care of security at the payout point so that the money goes to the person whose name is on the Giro cheque?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The review that has been carried out by my Department embodies a series of additional checks at the point of payout to reduce and, I hope, to minimise the amount of fraud that is carried out through the issue of Giro cheques. The issue is always one of balance. Undoubtedly there are cases of immediate hardship where immediate relief is required, and these have to be balanced against measures to check possible fraud.

Will the right hon. Gentleman resist attempts by his hon. Friends to attack those who claim supplementary benefit and to regard them as scroungers? Does he accept that we are all concerned that there should be no fraudulent use of supplementary benefit? Will he also accept that far greater sums go astray? For example, tax evasion amounts to several hundred million pounds a year, while the loss from supplementary benefit payments is only about £3 million. Will he tell his Cabinet colleagues that, far from attacking the majority of decent ordinary people who are on supplementary benefit, they should pursue tax losses, which represent by far the greater amount?

I have many varied responsibilities, but the pursuit of tax evasion is not one of them. I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that none of my right hon. or hon. Friends has ever described any legitimate claimant to supplementary benefit as a scrounger.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the provision of geriatric services in the London borough of Wandsworth.

The Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth area health authority and the London borough of Wandsworth are primarily responsible for the care of the elderly in Wandsworth. I have no reason to suppose that these authorities do not provide adequate services.

May I assure the Minister that many local practitioners and organisations that look after the elderly in Wandsworth are deeply concerned about the provision of services? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Wandsworth we, unfortunately, have the most reactionary Tory council in Britain, which is now deliberately cutting all social services, across the board, within the borough? As a matter of urgency, will he seek a meeting with the Wandsworth council social services department and local hospitals to make himself fully aware of the lack of provision for elderly geriatrics within the borough?

No, Sir. I think that last year one of the biggest swings throughout the country took place in Wandsworth, in response to the previous regime.

Where it is proposed to close old people's homes, be it in Wandsworth or at Everton Grange, in my constituency, will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the doctors concerned, especially those who are attending the old folk, are at least given the opportunity to be consulted, rather than being treated as arrogantly as they have been in my constituency, where they have not had a chance to express their opinions.

This is primarily a matter for the local authority, but I shall draw to its attention what my hon. Friend said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is being suggested that it will be necessary to discontinue pocket money payments to the elderly in old people's homes in local authorities throughout the country because of the Government's cuts? Does he support that suggestion, which comes from the Tory Association of County Councils?

Regulations have been laid prescribing an increased personal allowance for residents of old people's homes from the date of the November uprating of the retirement pension.

asked the Prime Minister when she expects next to visit Lady-wood.

I have no plans to do so, but I visited Birmingham last Friday.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that when she visited Birmingham on Friday it would have been in the better interests of the city if she had had consultations with public representatives, community leaders and others who are desperately concerned about the future of Birmingham's inner city partnership scheme, rather than swanning around presenting awards to press men and photographers?

I happen to think that the press is a rather important part of a free society. I was pleased that the Lord Mayor of Birmingham was there, too.

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

In addition to duties in this House I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with General Rogers, the new Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

Will the right hon. Lady find time today to consider answering a question that she has failed to answer three times in the House in recent weeks, namely, what comfort is there for the many thousands on housing waiting lists in the light of her Government's policy to encourage sales of council housing when those on the waiting lists cannot afford to buy the houses that might be on offer?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to find a connection between two things that are not connected. There are many, many people in council houses who will be tenants for life, who will never move, and who want to own the homes they will live in for the rest of their lives. They will be given an opportunity, which they would never have had under Labour, to purchase their homes.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today, or at the earliest opportunity, to deny categorically the reports that are becoming increasingly current that defence is also to have its expenditure cut?

If I am to deny or confirm each and every question that is put to me on public expenditure, I shall be in considerable difficulty. We shall, of course, honour our NATO commitments.

On the question of the opportunity that is to be given to council house tenants to buy their houses, will the right hon. Lady deny the proposal made by one of her advisers that mortgage interest relief is to be disallowed for tax purposes?

I am delighted to deny it. One's advisers are not always right, and I often tell them so.

Will my right hon. Friend have the opportunity this afternoon to check whether she has yet received a response from the Transport and General Workers Union to the enormous concern that was expressed in the House a week or more ago that several speakers at its most recent conference who wanted to support the Government's proposals for trade union reform were denied the opportunity of going to the rostrum to speak? If my right hon. Friend has a chance to check to ascertain whether a response has been made, will she take up the matter further with the union? Is she confident that we shall get a fair hearing from trade union leaders, when that sort of thing goes on?

I shall look into that later today. I am certain that we have the support of many members of the Transport and General Workers Union, and of other unions, in what we are trying to do to reform trade union law.

Will the right hon. Lady consider with care the letter delivered to 10 Downing Street by representatives of 3,500 marchers of Equity, pointing out that the VAT rate of 15 per cent. and the annual contribution of 45p per head compare pretty miserably with £7·80 per head and zero rated VAT in other European countries for the living arts?

I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that the substantial reductions in direct taxation will enable many private people to contribute to the arts who have not been able to do so before, and that that will be of great benefit to many in Equity.

Will the right hon. Lady concede that she might have been badly advised about the contemplated changes in the immigration rules, and that if she goes ahead with them after the recess she may be brought before the European Court of Human Rights on the matter of women and families?

Those changes in the immigration rules were set out in detail in the manifesto. We intend to bring them in after we return from the recess.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

In the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to ask her hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Construction to speed up the preparation of the housing Bill? More important, can she give an assurance that the right of council tenants to purchase will be enshrined in that Bill in such a way as to make it impossible for Labour-controlled authorities to deny tenants that right?

That is most certainly our objective. We shall need to do that. Otherwise, many Labour authorities would deny tenants that right. We are determined that they shall have it.

Will the right hon. Lady apply the same strictures to the Conservative-controlled authorities that may not wish to sell council houses, especially in the rural areas? Will she reconsider the Government's proposals to make the sale of council houses compulsory? Will she extend to the sale of council dwellings the same logic that she extended in the Education Bill to allowing local authorities the choice of making up their minds about whether they should continue with selective education?

If one applied the reasoning behind the hon. Gentleman's question, there would be fundamental laws governing every citizen in the United Kingdom. If one applied his reasoning to education, we should not have a law about the school starting or leaving ages. Some things are so fundamental that they must apply to all citizens regardless of the local authority area in which they live. Others are matters for the local authorities. We believe that the right to buy council houses should belong to everyone, with one or two possible exceptions, such as some houses in national parks and tied houses. In general, the right should apply to everyone. That is the line that we shall follow in the legislation.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider the answer that she gave to the Leader of the Opposition about mortgage interest repayments? How does she square that answer on the favourable treatment given to those people and the slashing of housing subsidies to council houses, which will inevitably put up the rents by about £2 a week?

As far as I remember, council house rents meet only about 43 per cent.—it might be a little more; it is well below 50 per cent.—of the cost of council houses.

As to Government spending cuts—announced, proposed, or the figment of many people's imaginations —will my right hon. Friend confirm that this year's total public expenditure will be no less than £11 billion more than it was last year? Should not these so-called cuts be seen for what they are—an attempt to cut back profligate Government spending?

The level of planned expenditure of the previous Government would very rapidly have led us back to where we were in 1976 when the IMF had to be called in and when even the previous Government had to impose public expenditure cuts. It is important that we reduce public expenditure as a proportion of the total national income. Our task at the moment is to constrain it.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that what she said in the first part of her answer was totally untrue? As to the second part, does she not recognise that if there is no growth in the economy the burden of public expenditure will become greater? When will she apply her mind to the present absurdly high interest rates, which require industry to curb its investment and are dragging in foreign money, which itself increases the value of sterling and depresses exports? When will she get round to these fundamental problems of growth?

In the autumn of 1976 the right hon. Gentleman said, on the question of cutting public expenditure, that it ought to be reduced over a period as a proportion of GDP. That is exactly what we are trying to do. It was reduced. The IMF comes in later. The IMF letter of intent said that

"an essential element of the Government's strategy will be a continuing and substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector. It is also essential to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement",

Will the Prime Minister now answer my question? When will she deal with these absurdly high interest rates?

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I forgot the third part of his question.

In view of the consequences of the foreign money now attracted to London by these high interest rates, and the consequential effect on the strength of sterling, how many bankruptcies does the right hon. Lady expect that there will be and how much unemployment must we see before she sees sense on this absurdly high level of interest rates?

The level of interest rates is below the record achieved by the right hon. Gentleman in office.

I realise that the right hon. Lady is having a difficult time about this matter, but will she undertake to ensure that the present level of interest rates will last no longer than the level of interest rates to which she referred under the Labour Government?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we can never, never, never give any undertaking on interest rates. If he were at this Dispatch Box he would say exactly the same.

Why make the comparison?

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the progress of the all-party talks on new constitutional proposals for Scotland.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had preliminary discussions about all-party talks with those parties represented in Scotland and hopes to put proposals about terms of reference to those concerned in the autumn.

Which member of the Cabinet will be in charge of the talks on the Government side?

The Leader of the House will be in charge, as he has been in charge of the all-party consultations.

When the talks reach an appropriate stage, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a considerable desire among the people of Scotland to listen to these talks in public? Will she take steps to ensure that they are so held? May we also make use of the buildings and grounds on which the crowd on the other side spent so many millions of pounds?

I think that there might be an occasion for due reticence on this matter when the talks begin. But we hope to establish a Select Committee on Scottish affairs when we return from the recess.

Will the right hon. Lady accept that any talks she may have in Scotland will be most unwelcome, given that she has now reneged entirely on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs? How can we trust the Government in any way at all?

I hope that there will be a statement later in the week on on the dispersal of jobs. [Interruption.] What is on the tapes is not always accurate.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I did not give you warning of my intended point of order, but I was not to know what was to occur during exchanges at Question Time. As you may know, the press is full of reports that the Government have agreed to spending cuts in the region of £4,000 million. It was reported in The Daily Telegraph today that

"The Cabinet did not feel that the situation justified making a statement to MPs before the Commons rises on Friday for the Summer Recess."

That is not a matter for me but it is something that could be raised in the debate when we discuss the length of the Adjournment.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may—

Order. It was not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman has something entirely different to say, I shall listen to him, but that was not a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make my point as briefly as I can, because I believe it to be of great importance. It is that on a matter which concerns our constituents, we are not to be given the information before we break up for the Summer Recess.

That is not a point of order for me, as the House understands.

I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a question that was asked by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) yesterday, during questions to the Secretary of State for Industry referring to certain aspects of the British Steel Corporation's activities in my constituency. The hon. Member for Lancaster was asking that question in her capacity as a Member of the European Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have no objection to the hon. Member for Lancaster wishing to know the answer, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would tell the House whether it is in order for Members of the European Parliament to use their position in this Chamber by asking questions which may not be helpful to hon. Members representing the domestic constituencies.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—of which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) did not have the courtesy to give me notice. I would point out that if an hon. Member for a particular constituency is not present, as the hon. Member was not when the question of the Shotton steel closures arose—a question that intimately concerns his constituency and mine—it is up to somebody else to stick up for the people of Workington. That is what I was seeking to do.

rose—

Order. I will give the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) an opportunuity in a moment. I first want to give a ruling on a very important question. The wider constituencies belonging to the Assembly in Europe have no bearing at all upon us here. I treat every hon. Member here as a Member for the constituency for which he or she was elected to this House.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a breach of the conventions of this House for the hon. Member for Workington to table 17 written questions, which will cost the taxpayer £560 to answer, relating exclusively—[Interruption]—to my constituency, with which he has no concern whatever? [Interruption.] Does this not—

Order. The House must allow the hon. Lady to make her point.

The hon. Member for Workington last Tuesday night on the radio was asking for vastly increased sums for research facilities. If he is to use these sums for research into other hon. Members' constituencies, will not this be an abuse of the taxpayers' money?

Order. I listened to the hon. Member for Workington, who, I hope, will not pursue this private duel.

I want only to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the courtesy that you have extended to me by explaining this highly important constitutional question. I was embarrassed by what happened, and I might add—for the benefit of the hon. Lady—that I was present at both of the debates to which she previously referred.