asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the date of the major pay settlements in health and social services in the past 12 months.

As the answer contains a list of dates, both of anniversaries and settlement dates, I will, with permission, publish it in the Official Report.

Given the understandable concern that nurses should not Receive increases below those received by most other people, would it not be a good idea to bring together the settlement dates to a two or three-month period of the year so that various settlements can be looked at together and the nurses' settlement regarded as a maximum, with the rest of the country aiming at settlements lower than the 14 per cent. on offer?

My hon. Friend makes two points. The first is a procedural suggestion that all settlements should be considered together. That point has some merit, although it would give rise not only to administrative difficulties but would be difficult to achieve without substantial extra cost in the year of changeover. The second point deals with the best way of trying to determine relatives between different groups in the Health Service with a view to trying to reach a better method of dealing with these matters.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the nurses feel a considerable sense of betrayal by this Government—not for the first time by a Tory Government—more particularly in view of the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health, sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman, said that the nurses should be treated no less generously than the police, the Armed Forces and the firemen, and that has not taken place?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Clegg Commission, at the end of its report, drew attention to the need to avoid what has sometimes been called the four-year ratchet effect on nurses' salaries. This is a matter that the Government have taken on board and to which we are seeking solutions. A commitment was given by both parties before the election in relation to nurses' pay. The commitment has been met fully by this Government. It is now for the relevant Whitley council to decide whether the settlement recently reached can stand.

Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that those persons, such as members of the Royal College of Nursing, who refused to use the strike weapon against patients, do not suffer as a result of their restraint?

I accept entirely the point made by my hon. Friend. When professions decide, as a matter of principle, that they will not strike, thus avoiding detriment to patients, this places a considerable obligation on Governments and, indeed, on all parties to see that they are treated fairly.

How can the Secretary of State justify his attitude to the nurses, particularly when the Minister for Health, as my hon. Friend said, is on record, on 15 March 1979, as saying that the nurses should be treated in a proper manner? How can the Secretary of State justify the different treatment accorded to doctors compared with nurses? When will he meet his obligations to the nursing profession?

The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that his party gave a

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set up a study to identify what roles could be performed within his Department by a system of national community service based on a wide-ranging national voluntary scheme of one year duration for 16 to 21-year-olds.

No, Sir. I agree that young

I would not have rejected them, but I should not have treated the nurses in a different manner, as has the Secretary of State.

I do not want to get involved in bandying figures at a sensitive time when discussions in the Whitley council are taking place this week. A number of clear commitments to the nurses were made by both parties. The commitments have been met in full.

Since the growing level of youth unemployment will give rise to many social problems, does not my hon. Friend agree that a system of national community work, starting with basic training and followed by various options, including options in the social field, would have a lot to contribute in dealing with the problems of our stretched resources in the hospital services, help for the elderly and looking after young people? Since the benefits, financially and otherwise, outweigh the costs, will my hon. Friend discuss the matter with his right hon. and hon. Friends with a view to making proposals later?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says, so long as such a scheme is voluntary. For that reason the Home Office voluntary service unit makes grants of £600,000 a year to several organisations which provide opportunities and work for young people. My Department has drawn the attention of health authorities and local authorities to the opportunities under STEP and the youth opportunities programme to encourage work for young people and provide services to the community. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my colleagues who might be able to help.

Does the Minister accept that community service orders have been successful for young adult offenders, particularly as a way of demonstrating the potential of a sentence which combines the element of punishment through the deprivation of liberty and with the ability to enable young people to perform constructive activities in reparation to the community? Will the Minister press within the Government for the scheme's extension to people under the age of 17? Will he also press for an extension of community service under the umbrella of intermediate treatment?

I agree about the effectiveness of community service orders which apply to young people over the age of 17. For many juveniles it is agreed that community work is appropriate and helpful. Schemes to promote such work operate in many parts of the country. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of making it compulsory for the under-17s, and that raises issues which cover my Department and the Home Office. Powers are already available for the courts to make intermediate treatment available where appropriate. My right hon. Friend and I attended a conference today and yesterday to encourage the development of intermediate treatment throughout the country.

Will my hon. Friend give more positive thought to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Does he agree that some form of voluntary community service for all young people between the ages of 16 and 21 years would be beneficial to the country? Is he aware that many young people would like to have the opportunity to serve the community, their fellow young people, the elderly and the handicapped but that the funds and schemes to enable them to do that are not available? Will my hon. Friend therefore, give more constructive thought to this reasonable request?

The work done by Community Service Volunteers is exactly the same as my hon. Friend suggests. It makes available to interested young people a wide range of jobs and opportunities in the community. Various Government Departments support the CSV generously with grants. I shall certainly see whether there is a way of organising that scheme centrally. However, the opportunity for service arises locally and local initiative is needed to harness the good will of young people.

Is not the Minister missing the central point, however commendable are the other matters to which he has referred? Will he examine further, in conjunction with his Government colleagues, the question of paid service to the community? Is not it ridiculous that between £60 and £70 a week has to be paid out one way or another by way of lost revenue or actual payments to the unemployed when, if the funds were made available to local authorities and health authorities, it would be possible to establish a service on a paid basis—and not only for the 16 to 21 year-olds?

I do not dissent entirely from what the right hon. Gentleman says. However, the concept of paying volunteers has always raised tricky issues with the trade unions. They would have to be resolved before progress could be made in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the tobacco industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with the tobacco industry.

Our discussions with the industry are still in progress and I shall make a statement to the House when we reach agreement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that discussions with the tobacco industry include the subject of publication of carbon monoxide levels in cigarettes? Does he agree that the publication of those levels is important, bearing in mind that they can be scientifically determined, as has recently been demonstrated by a Sunday newspaper?

I fully accept the importance of being able to publish carbon monoxide figures for different brands of cigarettes, subject to one point—that any figures for which my Department takes responsibility are known to be accurate. The industry has made its calculations. They are being tested by the Government Chemist. Depending upon the results of the tests I hope that we shall be able to reach agreement with the industry on how the figures can best be presented.

If the Minister does not succeed in persuading the industry to take a more positive stand against advertising, will he use the threat to legislate as a last resort?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there was little enthusiasm for legislation when we debated the issue in May. Discussions with the industry are proving to be constructive. Both sides agreed at the outset that we should not conduct our negotiations in public but that we wanted to reach an agreement.

Is not there a waste of resources involved in the Government spending money on warning advertising against cigarette smoking when the industry spends more on encouraging smoking? In his discussions will my right hon. Friend take account of the proposal that the amount of Government warnings on cigarette packets and elsewhere should be equal to the amount of advertising designed to promote cigarettes?

I take note of my right hon. Friend's suggestion. He will realise that the health warning is one of the subjects of the current negotiations.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time for reaching a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry is grossly overdue? Does he agree that, while the time for reaching a voluntary agreement is rapidly disappearing, the time for introducing restrictive legislation on tobacco advertising is rapidly approaching? Without wishing to buy a pig in a poke, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he introduced legislation, Opposition Members would want to be as co-operative as possible?

I take note of that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the view which he held when he was responsible for these matters—that it is better to proceed by consent and agreement if that is possible. These are complex matters raising sensitive and difficult issues for the industry and other involvements. It is right to take time to reach a satisfactory agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many delegations he has seen on behalf of community health councils.

I have met the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales twice, and my right hon. Friend is to meet it again on 8 July. I have also had a very large number of representations from individual community health councils both when they have come to see me and on visits I have made up and down the country.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the representations that he has received has been in favour of the continuation of CHCs in some form and what percentage has been against? Will he also inform the House when he, or his right hon. Friend, intends to make a comprehensive statement as to their future?

The majority of the representations have been about individual hospital problems and closures but in answer to "Patients First" we have received almost 5,000 replies about the future of CHCs. The replies from voluntary bodies, individual members of the public and CHCs themselves show strong support for retaining them. Local authorities and health authorities were much more divided. We are in no doubt about the strength of feeling about retaining CHCs, but I must ask the House to wait until my right hon. Friend makes his statement later this month.

Since the hon. Gentleman and the Government are concerned to support voluntary organisations will he explain why there has been a delay? Since the hon. Gentleman is a great admirer of the Secretary of State for Industry, and since this was his idea, why does he not encourage it?

There is a general view throughout the House that many CHCs have done a good job and have brought to the attention of health authorities the views of voluntary organisations. We are mindful of the role that CHCs have carried out and would wish to support them.

Does my hon. Friend believe that, to be effective, a community health council needs to be local? Is he aware that in my constituency there is widespread dissatisfaction with the Southampton and South-West Hampshire community health council because Southampton and its suburbs always get their own way? When my hon. Friend looks at reorganisation will he do his best to ensure that no single centre of large population will be allowed to get its own way at the expense of the rural areas?

I am aware of the concern felt by my hon. Friend. We shall certainly look at this when we consider the future of CHCs.

Can the Minister say that when the Secretary of State makes his statement later this month it will be given orally in the House?

Under privilege.

That is what we want to know today. Does the hon. Gentleman further appreciate that the widespread support for community health councils goes wider than the bodies he mentioned and that support also comes from all political parties at grass roots level? [Interruption.] Just because some community health councils—

Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) must be allowed to put his question.

Finally, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, just because some community health councils occasionally upset bureaucrats and administrators in local authorities and in the National Health Service, that is not a reason for abolishing CHCs? It is a reason for keeping them.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I had some difficulty in hearing part of his question and, perhaps, the reason for that. I ask hon. Members to wait until my right hon. Friend makes his statement which will be an oral statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, pursuant to his reply, Official Report, 3 June, column 1229, he will study the opting-out kidney donor system, and the relevant difficult, sensitive and emotive questions; whether he expects the number of patients on renal dialysis to increase at a rate of 15 per cent. per annum; and if he will make a statement.

I have considered the case for an opting-out system, but in my view this is ruled out by the weight of public opinion against it, which was recorded in the survey published last year. I am hopeful that the supply of kidneys will be improved as a result of the new kidney card scheme and that we shall maintain the rate of increase in patients on renal replacement therapy, which has averaged 16 per cent. in recent years.

Will Ministers and their officials cast their most critical and beady eye on precisely how these public opinion surveys on transplants were done? Could the Point be considered, in relation to the whole contracting-out scheme, that casual questions from strangers on highly emotive issues are not really a proper way of determining policy in this area?

I shall certainly give the hon. Member an undertaking to look at this again. We are as concerned as he is that the maximum number of renal cases should receive treatment. We are concerned that there are 1,700 people waiting who could have kidneys if they were available.

Would not the best way to discover people's views be to get a sample survey done through GPs—who are thinking about medicine and the problems of those who need to be cured —rather than tying the matter into a questionnaire which might be about totally unrelated subjects?

I shall give support to my hon. Friend's proposal.

Further to my hon. Friend's important question, will the Minister state what is now the average waiting period for a kidney transplant and what action he is taking to improve staffing and resources to reduce the average waiting period?

I know that the waiting period has been significantly reduced. I shall have to find out the exact period and I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the action he is taking to ensure that National Health Service hospitals provide hospital care and treatment for mentally disordered offenders.

The NHS already accepts, under the Mental Health Act, a large number of detained patients from courts and prisons each year. There continues to be difficulty with a smaller number where a hospital place cannot be found or where the power to detain the person under the Act is in doubt. I and my Department will continue to tackle this by discussion with the NHS at all levels, close consultation with the Home Office and professional bodies and with the relevant trade unions and through research into the problem.

Does not the Secretary of State accept that there would, quite rightly, be a major public outcry if hospitals were to refuse to accept and treat accident victims or kidney patients? Is it not both disgraceful and indefensible that the National Health Service should refuse to admit, treat and care for mentally disordered persons who, as a consequence, are in prison? There are 446 of them to date and that is not an insignificant or minimal number. When will the Secretary of State assert his responsibility for the National Health Service and insist that the service—doctors, nurses and ancillary staff—lives up to its proper obligations to mentally disordered and mentally ill persons?

The hon. Gentleman has made a considerable reputation for himself for campaigning on this issue and he deserves, I think, the thanks of the whole House. We need to get the figures into perspective. In all, the National Health Service has, at any time, about 2,500 detained patients who have come from prisons and the courts. The service accepts almost 1,000 such patients a year and in 1978 the special hospitals admitted 187 of them. The main concern of my Department and the Home Office is with about 150 sentenced prisoners suffering from mental illness, within the terms of the Mental Health Act. The numbers, therefore, are not large.

May I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)? May I ask my right hon. Friend to insist that in future hospitals do take mentally disordered offenders? It appears that at present they have the right not to do that.

I am well aware of the point made by my hon. Friend. Whether or not a patient should or should not be admitted to a hospital for treatment is, primarily, a matter of clinical judgment. That is not a matter which it would be right for any Minister to seek to override. But where clinicians have decided that a particular admission and particular treatment is right and appropriate, I am bound to say that I think it is intolerable that others take it upon themselves to deny the patient the treatment and the admission that has been recommended.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the likely timetable for the introduction of changes in the structure of the National Health Service.

I expect to make a statement later this month on changes to the structure and management arrangements of the National Health Service and this will include the timetable for their implementation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that continuing uncertainty is unsettling? In the meantime will he give some indication to the House as to the year in which he expects the changes to be implemented? If the system is to be based upon new and stronger ditricts does he agree that there needs to be local and outsider chairmen and local representation on those bodies? When does my right hon. Friend expect to make those appointments?

I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which I hope to make within a matter of three or four weeks. There has been a widespread welcome for the proposals made in "Patients First" and a widespread expression of view that they should proceed with all due despatch so as to minimise the period of uncertainty. Those are matters which the Government are keeping carefully in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the statement by the Minister for Health is an inaccurate reflection of Government policy? Is he aware that his hon. Friend indicated an intention to bring a large section of the Health Service within the area of private health? Will he give an assurance that that is not true and that profits will not be put before the interests of the mass of the people?

The Government have never made any secret of their wish to try to bring more resources into the health care of the nation through the development of the private sector. The pace at which that will proceed will depend upon the willingness of people who are now subscribing in ever larger numbers through group schemes, trade union schemes provident funds and in other ways. It would probably not be right for the Government to attempt to set any target, except to say that we believe that these are making a valuable contribution that we hope to encourage.

Now that the initial period of consultation is complete will my right hon. Friend press ahead as fast as he can so that the staff in the NHS will know where they stand? Will he take into account the strong view that there should be flexibility in the administrative structure, and that no one pattern of administration should be imposed on the whole country?

On the first point I hope that my hon. Friend welcomed our circulating to the Health Service a few weeks back the offer that had been made about staff protection terms, early retirement and so on which is currently under negotiation in a special committee of the general Whitley council. I think it has gone some way to relieve the anxieties of those who have been understandably concerned about what the future holds for them.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not want to set a target for private practice. Is he aware that his hon. Friend the Minister for Health did set such a target—

No.

Yes, he did. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend said on television that he wants 25 per cent. of the health care of this country dealt with through private practice? Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Government or not? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend announced a timetable for the reorganisation of the Health Service during the Report stage of the Health Services Bill? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's vagueness on that this afternoon, are we to understand that he has overthrown his hon. Friend's timetable and will produce another?

On the first point I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await my statement, which will be coming shortly.

Yes. He was saying that he wanted 25 per cent.

Of course he was not. I suggest that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) studies the script because it was perfectly clear that the answer covered the whole range of factors. No question of any time scale in this direction has ever been raised. These matters must be left to find their own level.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reconsider the practice whereby a pensioner pays a hotel charge after a certain period in a National Health Service hospital whereas a person of working age does not.

There are long-standing provisions under which certain social security benefits are reduced after certain periods of free in-patient treatment. My right hon. Friend has no plans to terminate these provisions which apply to most income replacement benefits regardless of the age of the beneficiary.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman once again demonstrated his absolute ignorance of benefits paid? I am not talking about supplementary benefits. May I remind him of the shock that people suffer when they realise that their pensions, their sickness benefits or their industrial injury benefits are not paid as of right when they enter hospital? Is he aware that they realise then that, if they have no dependants, their benefit is reduced by £9·30 a week? Is he further aware that a person who is working and is being paid a non-contributory pension benefit, particularly in the public sector, has his deduction made up by his employer? Is this not discrimination against a person who is receiving benefit?

The hon. Gentleman referred to a reduction of £9·30 after eight weeks. That applies in the case of someone with no dependants. For a person with dependants the reduction would be £4·65. This principle has been operated since 1948 and has continued under all Governments because it has been generally recognised that public funds should not be used twice for a person's maintenance.

Since millions of people get their pay made up when in hospital, and thereby make a profit out of being in hospital, why can there not be a charge in respect of those persons while they are in hospital?

That idea has been studied and rejected. There would be considerable administrative costs in operating a scheme of that kind. There would be problems of assessing people's incomes, including those incomes which were reduced because of the sickness. There would be a problem of collecting the money and of chasing up bad debts. Therefore, the net saving to public funds would be very small in relation to the problems that would be created.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if there is any substantial evidence to suggest that the taking of aspirin and similar drugs is in any way detrimental to the health of a pregnant woman or the foetus.

I know of no evidence which indicates a special risk to the pregnant woman or foetus arising from such medicines. However, in view of a recent report of an association between aspirin and blue babies, I am urgently seeking the advice of the Committee on the Review of Medicines.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many women are greatly confused by the newspaper reports, particularly in the light of the comments of the director of the child hospital in Toronto, Dr. Richard Rowe, who suggested that the sensitive period is the last three months of pregnancy and that there is insufficient evidence to establish whether aspirin is dangerous? Can the Minister give guidance to pregnant mothers?

I hope very much that the media, while warning of doubts about drugs, will also give reassurance in respect of drugs which have been used for a very long time. Aspirin is such a drug. There is extensive clinical experience that aspirin has no harmful effects. At first sight the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not strong, but I am taking urgent expert advice on this matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are far too many scare stories about this sort of thing? Is he aware that, since the last scare story about Debendox, thousands of women throughout the country, including my wife, have given birth to perfectly healthy babies after taking the drug? Does he agree that it is about time this sort of preposterous scaremongering and publicity-seeking by certain hon. Gentlemen ceased?

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I assure him that we shall do everything we can to see that scares are not perpetuated. Pregnant women are normally at no greater risk from aspirin than any other women.

With more and more drugs coming under suspicion as to their tetragenic effects, ought it not to be the policy of the DHSS to ensure that women under 16 weeks of pregnancy should take medicine only when it is necessary and is prescribed for them by their physicians?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, women are already advised that during pregnancy they should not take drugs except on the advice of their doctors.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House will know that when a personal attack is made on one hon. Member, it is a convention of the House that that hon. Member should be allowed to reply. During Question Time this afternoon, a strong attack was made from the Government Benches on the campaign against Debendox. The House will know that I am the one hon. Member who has campaigned for the suspension—not the ban—of that drug. I have tabled an early-day motion and I have asked questions on the subject, and yet I was denied the right to reply to that personal attack. I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that you were wrong in refusing to allow me the privilege of making a reply.

The right hon. Gentleman was not named in the question that was asked, and, therefore, his complaint has no substance whatsoever.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I submit that the fact that I was not named in the question to which I referred is wholly irrelevant, in so far as the whole House knows that I am the only Member who has campaigned for the suspension of the drug Debendox. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that you are wrong in your interpretation and that I have every right, in view of the fact that the Minister endorsed criticisms—[Interruption.] I know that the Minister has no evidence to support—

Order. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is upset, but I cannot change my ruling.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what considerations led him to decide the size of his recently announced grant to MIND.

There were four considerations. These were, first, our priority for mental health; second, our high opinion of MIND's work, especially by its branches; third, our assessment of MIND's income and expenditure; and, fourth, our policy on section 64 grants. With all these points in mind I decided that a grant of £275,000—a 10 per cent. cash increase over last year—was right.

Is it a fact that during this consideration my right hon. Friend received a letter from the director of MIND apologising for the way in which he prosecuted his accusations against the staff of Broadmoor hospital? If that is so, if that written apology has been received, does not that totally vindicate those like myself who, in very sharp terms, criticised those who have sought to bring charges against the doctors and nurses when they were unable to defend themselves?

I have both welcomed and accepted Mr. Smythe's apologies. As my hon. Friend knows, when I announced the 1980–81 grant for MIND I made two points—first, bodies that accept public money owe a high duty to act responsibly and not to fling about wild and unsubstantiated charges. Secondly, I said that it would be a sad day if the Government ever used the power of the purse to muzzle their critics. I hope that those sentiments are acceptable in all parts of the House.

Does the Minister agree that wild and, as yet, unsubstantiated charges have been made under the protection of privilege against Mr. Tony Smythe which had nothing to do with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). Does he accept that many hon. Members welcome the grant to MIND? Should not the other comments made by the hon. Member for Wokingham about Mr. Smythe be substantiated, made outside the House, or withdrawn?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Van Straubenzee) is well capable of looking after himself.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the members of the new Social Security Advisory Committee will be announced.

My right hon. Friend will announce appointments to the committee well before it is due to start work at the end of November.

Because of the savage cuts being made in real terms in many benefits, is it not important that this vital committee be appointed as soon as possible so that it can have an effective voice in preventing people's benefits from being cut in that way?

We are anxious to set up the committee as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

Regulations have been submitted to the House in respect of the Social Security Act. Does the Minister recall that in Committee we asked that the new commission should consider the regulations? Is that still the Government's intention?

As I explained in Committee, the commission will consider the regulations. However, to bring benefits into effect in November this year they will have to be considered by the House before the commission can consider them. We have agreed that it can consider them in retrospect.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to complete his consideration of all aspects of the death grant, referred to in his parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Official Report, 9 June, c. 64.

The problem is that we cannot look at the death grant in isolation but must consider it in the context of other priorites in the social security field and in the light of the overriding need to restrain public expenditure. However, we shall make a statement about our conclusions on the death grant as soon as we can.

Is the Minister aware that the death grant would have to be increased to £140 to restore it to its 1949 value? Will the Government deal with the matter urgently in response to the strong representations that they have received from the Dignity in Death Alliance, which represents more than 47 organisations?

My figures show that it would cost more than £160 to restore the death grant, which illustrates the size of the problem. The House will be aware that since the death grant was inaugurated in 1949 it has been increased only twice, in 1958 and 1967. That shows the continuing problem faced by successive Governments in trying to deal with this difficult problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of our hon. Friends are concerned that the level of the death grant has not kept pace with reality and, feel that, if it is not to keep pace, rather than give it a lingering death, it might be better to do away with it?

We are considering all options. Our recent study "Families, Funerals and Finances" showed that about 90 per cent. of people did not have any financial problem when dealing with the expenses of a funeral but that the other 10 per cent. did face problems. It is difficult to define the categories of people and the difficulties that they face.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions in the last year he has called in closures proposed by an area health authority and not objected to by the relevant community health council; and if he will list them, indicating his reasons for so doing.

Once, in the case of the Overdene maternity hospital, Saltburn, when I was concerned at the strength of local feeling opposed to the closure. There have been a considerable number of other hospitals, whose future has been in question, where I have intervened to safeguard services in the interests of patients and the local community.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to follow that solitary example with a problem in my constituency which is almost identical to the one that he has described? Is he aware that there is complete opposition to the proposed closure of the Barton maternity hospital so as to concentrate yet more resources on Southampton general hospital?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am taking a close personal interest in the future of the Barton maternity home. Local concentrations are yet to be completed, but if at any point I feel that I should intervene, I shall do so.

Does the Minister recall the case of St. Olave's hospital in the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area, the closure of which was objected to by the local community health council? Does he also recall that certain assurances were given by the Secretary of State to the House during the passage of the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Act? When will the area health authority receive the money implicit in those assurances to re-open the hospital?

I am not aware of any assurances given by my right hon. Friend. It was a temporary closure, and the consultations have extended over a considerable period. We are looking at the future of the hospital.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 July.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the campaign started yesterday by the Evening Standard to highlight the importance to the economic well-being of London of the tourism industry? Will she discuss with her ministerial colleagues the importance of jobs in the service sector, which are in every way as important to employment as jobs in manufacturing industry?

I gladly pay tribute to the importance of jobs in the service sector, and also to the importance of British tourism both to provide jobs and to provide income to the Exchequer. Last year foreign tourists spent about £2¾ billion in Britain, which was very much more than our tourists spent abroad, and long may that continue.

Will the Prime Minister take note that although last year the tourist industry earned in excess of £3½ billion in foreign currency, that figure cannot be continued in the face of the world economic position and foreign competition unless there is a substantial increase in the £31 million allocated by the Government to the British Tourist Authority and the three national tourist boards?

I would not necessarily say that success in the tourist industry depended upon the height of the Government grant to that industry. The industry has done extremely well, and I trust that it will continue to do so. The net benefit to the balance of payments last year through the tourist industry was about £700 million.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to congratulate her Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who obtained an increase from 9 per cent. to 14 per cent. in the import tariff on frozen fish and haddock? Is she aware that that has been warmly welcomed by the fishing industry?

I shall gladly convey my hon. Friend's congratulations, and I shall add my own to them.

Will the Prime Minister take time to study the speech made by Mr. Robin Duthie, the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, in which he draws attention to the basically sound businesses that are collapsing in Scotland? He said that the social effects were intolerable. Will she accept the responsibility for governing the United Kingdom instead of the south-east corner of England?

I am quite ready to accept the responsibility for being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is our objective to create the conditions under which more small businesses can expand. If the hon. Gentleman would do me the compliment of reading my last speech in Scotland, he will discover a list of businesses which are expanding and increasing their exports.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.

Following the statement by Mr. David Lane supporting the establishment of a new civil rights organisation, and the subsequent statement by that body advising coloured people to cease co-operating with the police, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Mr. Lane that his quango was set up to create racial harmony, not disharmony? Will she advise Mr. Lane to be careful about what he says in the future, otherwise she will have to reconsider whether the taxpayer is getting value for money for the £6 million a year which Mr. Lane's quango costs the country?

It cannot be in the interests of any group to withhold co-operation from the police. I have noted the report to which my hon. Friend referred, that a number of extremists in a new group which it was proposed to set up advised that course of action. I join him in deploring it. The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has worked extremely hard to try to secure better co-operation between the ethnic community and the police. I am sure that he will continue to do so and that the vast majority of the coloured community will reject the advice to which my hon. Friend referred.

Will the Prime Minister not only read, but circulate to her Cabinet colleagues, the speech made by the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency yesterday, because he is someone whom the Government have just appointed to do a most important job? Will she take on board his point that, although individual companies can lay off people to save overheads, the country cannot?

We try not to circulate too much paper to the Cabinet. It is generally a good principle not to do so. But in the end, be it the country or individual companies, we survive only by those companies producing goods which other people, whether here or abroad, will buy. None of us can escape that test.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the reports of the massive losses by Vauxhall Motors because of a strike there in 1978? Is it not now time that the car unions of this country realised that by such action —encouraged by the Opposition—they are in effect bringing this country to the verge of bankruptcy?

I read about those considerable losses with some concern. Of course, the car industry, not only in this country but in others as well, is in considerable difficulties. I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike at Ellesmere Port was a particularly damaging one to that company. Indeed, I well remember that when I was in the United States people actually referred to that strike as an example of things which were wrong with Britain.

Does the Prime Minister accept that it is dangerous to shrug off the speech which was made by Mr. Robin Duthie in Scotland yesterday? Does she accept that he is an extremely successful business man who has been appointed to a key economic post by the Government and that his speech amounts to a trenchant attack upon Conservative economic policy, which he described as complacent and positively dangerous to the economy of the West of Scotland? Will she accept that Mr. Duthie's views are evidence of the fact that there is now a consensus across party lines that the tight monetary policy which is being pursued borders on insanity?

No. I am never prepared to pursue a policy which adds to the present amount of money which is being printed. To do so would be to provide next year's inflation at a very much higher rate than this year's. Of course, I shall not shrug off that speech. Similarly, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to shrug off the fact that prosperity comes from producing and selling goods at a price and of a kind which people are prepared to buy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some minutes ago.

Is it not the case that what actually verges on insanity is the action of many employers and trade unions in this country, which agree to pay increases which the country and the firm cannot afford? Given that both the TUC and the Government have set their minds against a formal incomes policy, would not it be a good idea for the unions and the Government to consider what can be done by each to make sure that the general level of pay settlements in the coming year is at least half the general level of that in the past year?

I agree with my hon. Friend that if the general level of pay claims exceeds by very much the increase in output, the result will be increases in prices as a result of which many people both here and abroad will choose to buy goods produced by other nations. One of the problems which we have faced for some time, and which the previous Government were concerned with as well, is that the increase in unit wage costs in this country has gone ahead of those in other countries. The result of that is to produce jobs overseas rather than here.

Does not the Prime Minister recognise that no evidence has been produced by any leading economist in this country to support the answer that she has just given? Is she not aware that of the 20 per cent. increase in prices over the last 12 months, economists have now decided that her Government are responsible for 11 per cent., that a further 4 per cent. came about as a result of increases in the cost of raw materials and that only 5 per cent. is directly due to wage increases? Therefore, will she reconsider the answer which she has just given?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at increases in unit labour costs, he will find that between 1977 and now the increase in unit labour costs here has been 25 per cent., in the the United States 13 per cent., in Germany 6 per cent., and that it has remained unchanged in Japan.

On the subject of incomes policy, does my right hon. Friend agree with the view expressed by the chairman of the Conservative Party in another place, that Clegg is a disaster and the doctrine of comparability of very dubious validity? Will she, there-more, consider saying "Thank you" and "Goodbye" to Clegg and Boyle so that we can have a more realistic incomes policy in the public sector?

I think that what Professor Clegg was asked to do was to compare things which were basically incomparable, and which would never admit of that analysis. In those circumstances, he did the very best job that he could. In fact, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, he has tendered his resignation to take effect later this year. I do not think that the life of that commission will be indefinite.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the letter from the president of the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry, in which he says that Leeds industries across the board—. textiles, clothing, engineering, printing and construction—are facing falling order books and working at 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of capacity? Does she recognise that her policies are creating a divide in this nation between the industrial areas of the North and the commercial and prosperous areas of the South? When will she reverse her policies, and what will be her reply to the manufacturing industries of the North of England and Leeds in particular?

Prosperous companies can be found both in the North and in the South. In no way is it a division between North and South. It is the way in which companies are run, the unity of purpose between management and labour and the simple test, which I constantly try to get across, of whether people here will buy goods which are produced here. In fact, net disposable income this year is greater than it was last year. The money is there, and consumer expenditure is up. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask himself why so many of his consti- tuents prefer to buy foreign goods to buy those which his own people produce.

During her busy day, will the Prime Minister have an opportunity to look at the reports coming back from Russia on the comments which have been made about Chancellor Schmidt and what he said about the invasion of Afghanistan? Perhaps she would like to comment.

I believe that Chancellor Schmidt put the whole case for the West very robustly and said to President Brezhnev in Moscow that he and the whole of the Western world insist that Russian troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan, that the continued occupation is totally unacceptable and that in the meantime he stood, and would stand, wholly by the decision of the NATO Alliance on the modernisation of theatre nuclear forces.

asked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Handsworth.

I have at present no plans to do so.

In that case, will the right hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for Employment to brief her on the disastrous consequences to inner city areas such as Handsworth of the massive decline in industrial production during the past 12 months, and on the consequent heavy unemployment, particularly among young people? Will she also indicate when she intends to give some relief to the many small firms in the West Midlands which are being driven rapidly towards bankruptcy by high interest rates and an over-valued pound? If she does not intend to provide relief, what future does she envisage for the thousands of young people who will join the dole queue this month?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a certain amount of relief to small firms in the Budget. We shall not keep interest rates high for one moment longer than we deem prudent in the interests of the control of money supply. With regard to unemployment and opportunities for the young, there are about 250,000 opportunities provided by the youth opportunities employment programme this year. With regard to the problems of inner cities, I am trying to get increased production. The hon. Lady will be well aware that one of the problems in this country is the extent of import penetration. People choose to buy foreign goods. They will choose to buy British goods when they are more competitive.

If the right hon. Lady wishes to restore confidence among small businesses in this country, is she not aware that the best thing she could do would be to dismiss the Secretary of State for Industry forthwith?

No, Sir. There is no one of greater integrity in this House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped your eye that out of 49 questions to the Prime Minister this afternoon, 43 hon. Members wanted to know the Prime Minister's engagements today. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is making a joke of the way in which we use the Prime Minister's time here? Would it not be possible for hon. Members to be required to use their ingenuity in order to ask the Prime Minister questions without this needless repetition? This afternoon other questions could have taken precedence over the repetition—namely, the questions on whether the Prime Minister was to visit Rawnsley, or the West Midlands, her attitude on the progress of the Queen's Speech, her attitude on cruelty to children, and when she next intended to meet the TUC. Should not those questions, where Members have exercised some ingenuity, take precedence over repetition?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, because substantive questions used to be put to the Prime Minister. However, the matter is in the hands of the House. I must call the questions in the order in which they are tabled. However, with a little ingenuity we should be able to return to the Question Time to which the House was previously accustomed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates not to matters that arose during Question Time but to the way in which questions are called. I am not concerned about how the questions are worded, but I am concerned that the number of questions that can be answered in 15 minutes are few. The chances of an hon. Member's question being called within the first three or four are remote. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood by raising the matter, but it would be useful if you, Mr. Speaker, could give some indication of the way in which you call hon. Members during Prime Minister's Question Time.

The House may like to know that I try to keep a register of the number of times that hon. Members have been called. This afternoon, two hon. Members who have never been called at Prime Minister's Question Time were called, and three hon. Members who had been called once before were called. The hon. Gentleman has been called five times.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you inform the House whether you have received a request from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to make a statement or a personal retraction of the allegations that he made last week, which have since proved to be largely unfounded?

I have received no request.