asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which regional health authorities have not yet submitted plans to his Department for regional secure psychiatric units; and what are the reasons for the delay; and what action he now proposes to take in light of the fact the the units were advocated by his Department as a matter of national urgency in 1974.

Of the 14 regional health authorities only East Anglia and North-West Thames have not so far submitted proposals. The establishment of regional secure psychiatric units has proved ex- ceptionally difficult, often because of local opposition and problems in finding a suitable site. My right hon. Friend will continue to urge authorities to press ahead with suitable plans and to deal with the setbacks which we must expect, such as those in Oxford and North-East Thames.

Does the Minister accept that it is a national disgrace that neither East Anglia, which has received £1.3 million, nor North-West Thames, which has received £2½ million since 1976, has yet submitted plans to his Department for the units, at a time when more than 500 mentally disordered patients in prisons are receiving inadequate care and treatment because of the absence of the regional secure units? Is he aware that those units were recommended as a matter of urgency as long ago as 1974? Will he now forget his fine words and take action to ensure that the projects get under way?

The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to either of the regional health authorities involved. North-West Thames proposes the establishment of a 30-bed unit at St. Bernard's wing in Ealing. It has completed the initial consultation process and draft outline planning documents have been drawn up. East Anglia recently issued a consultation document on its proposals to establish a 40-bed unit at St. Andrew's hospital in Norwich, and the consultation period ends on 30 September. I cannot accept that those regions have been inactive. Ministers have done all that they can to further the construction of the regional secure units.

Is my hon. Friend right about the South-West region? Is he aware that as recently as a week ago there were no plans for a regional secure unit, but only for one of two sub-regional units? Does his reply mean that within the last week he has received firm plans for the other sub-regional units?

As my hon. Friend knows, in the South-West region a 30-bed purpose-built unit is being constructed at Langdon hospital in Dawlish. The area health authority is currently considering and discussing proposals for the provision of a secure unit in the northern part of the region. It is hoped that a second-unit will be available in the period 1983-86.

Does the Minister accept that there is now active discussion about the proposal in East Anglia for the establishment of a secure unit, which will be part of the St. Andrew's hospital, Thorpe? Is he aware that the local authority concerned has already confirmed its support for that project but that there is concern among local residents about it? Will he and the Secretary of State do as I am seeking to do at this moment—namely, to reassure the residents that it is a vital and necessary form of psychiatric treatment that should be carried through?

It is primarily the responsibility of the regions to assure local residents about the future of facilities. Of course, Ministers will do all that they can. We welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now in a position to make a statement about his conclusions on the death grant.

Ministers are still actively considering this question. We are aware of the great concern felt about it by hon. Members as well as by outside bodies, and we shall make a statement as soon as we are in a position to do so.

Since the grant has not been increased since 1967, the 20 per cent. inflation this year is affecting funeral costs and the cost would now have to be more than £160 if it were to reflect its 1949 value, does the hon. Lady realise that a time of death for elderly people causes great anxiety, which could be removed if funeral expenses were met by an increased death grant? Will she deal with this matter urgently?

We are seeking to deal with this matter as thoroughly and urgently as possible. I am well aware of the serious concern felt by so many people, particularly the elderly. To increase the value of the death grant to more than £160—in fact, £164—would cost an additional £75 million. That money is simply not available.

When considering this matter, will my hon. Friend take into account the special problem of parents faced with the sudden and unexpected death of a child, a contingency against which it is not possible to insure?

We are very well aware of the serious concern among parents with young children who lose those children and where there is no entitlement at present. That is one consideration with which we are dealing at present.

Cannot the Minister do something especially to ease the plight of pensioners, who depend on benefits paid by the weekly penny insurance contributions of years gone by? As those pensioners are now too old to insure themselves, could not some special provision be made to assist by increasing the death grant, particularly for the elderly in our community who are in such unfortunate circumstances?

We are aware that some elderly people do not qualify at all for the death grant and that there are others who qualify only for a half grant. We have that consideration very much in mind, along with all the other plans that have been put to us by various groups. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Is any progress being made by my hon. Friend with regard to the study of how practicable it would be to relate the level of the death grant to need, thereby permitting a substantially increased amount to be paid, perhaps to people on supplementary benefit, while allowing the £30 to be discontinued to many people to whom it is irrelevant?

My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that some people do not have difficulty in finding the money with which to pay the burial costs of their relatives. The proposal to which he has alluded is one of a large number which remain under consideration. I repeat that we shall make an announcement as soon as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average cost per hour of providing a home help; and what are the highest and lowest figures.

According to information published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the average for England and Wales in 1978-79 was £1 · 75, the highest £2 · 42, and the lowest £1 · 26.

Do not those figures show a surprisingly high average hourly cost for this vital domiciliary service? Does my hon. Friend agree that they may reflect too high a proportion of administration and overheads and that it might be advantageous to decentralise the service, perhaps involving the voluntary sector in its administration?

We have no plans to denationalise the home help service. However, I am sure that my hon. Friends and I would welcome experiments in the provision of home helps by the voluntary sector if it felt that it could provide the service as effectively. I hope that local authorities will consider having a contract with the voluntary sector to harness extra resources. On overheads, my own view is that that cost represents good value for money, but I hope that in their search for economies local authorities will see whether they can trim the overhead costs of this valuable service.

Even taking into account the high cost of home helps, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better to remove the supplementary barrier which has been imposed by the Government and to allow a large number of frail, elderly people to continue to receive this service, thereby keeping them out of hospitals, long-stay homes and local authority institutions?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the possibility of recipients being charged for this service. The Department's long-standing advice to local authorities, dating from 1971, is that no charge should cause a recipient to seek supplementary benefit or an addition to supplementary benefit.

Is the Minister aware that many of the constituents of the Secretary of State are now being charged for their home helps, although they live on supplementary benefit? He has just said that it is the Government's policy that such people should not be charged for their home helps. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking over the defiance of that policy by his own political cronies in Redbridge? Is not their decision a brutal attack on the poor?

No, because in cases of extreme hardship there is provision in the London borough of Redbridge for reassessment if such clients claim that they cannot meet the charges. I understand that in those cases the charge is totally waived.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the criteria for qualification for mobility allowance.

Mobility allowance was designed for people, primarily of working age who are unable or virtually unable to walk. I believe that existing criteria broadly meet that objective. There are a number of claims for further relaxations, but the economy does not permit any extension of scope at present.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the totally blind satisfy one of the other major underlying principles of mobility allowance, in that they cannot drive? Will he give this matter some thought so that when things improve, as they will, some action can be taken? Will he consider the possibility of a modified mobility allowance scheme to take the needs of the blind into account?

The present definition relates to people unable to walk or virtually unable to walk, and it does not extend to particular kinds of disability. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea of extending it to blind people, but I am under equal pressure on behalf of epileptics and people suffering from agoraphobia and other disabilities. I am afraid that in the foreseeable future there is no possibility of an extension.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling that the regulations have been tightened in recent months so that many people who two or three years ago might have received mobility allowance do not now do so? Can he give an absolute assurance that there has been no tightening of the categories of people who can get mobility allowance?

There has been absolutely no general decision to tighten the rules for mobility allowance. The decisions in each case are made by the adjudicating authorities, but there has been no guidance to them to narrow the definitions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mobility allowance and other payments for the disabled are made piecemeal? Will she undertake as soon as possible to set up a review of the needs of the disabled, which could be put into action when the economy is in rather better shape?

We have taken the view that we would rather not go into the general question of the disablement allowance at this stage, because it would simply raise expectations which could not be fulfilled. As to the mobility allowance itself, the House will be aware that when we came into office it was £10 a week and that from November it will be £14 · 50 a week—an increase of 45 per cent. That shows our particular concern with the needs of this group.

Having complained publicly before the Select Committee that there had been too much expenditure on social security, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this was one of the most important, humane measures carried out by the previous Government? Does he also accept that the standards of judgment across the country can vary enormously? That applies to my constituency where, first the mobility allowance was rejected and secondly, it was granted until the year 2043.

I think that I have already answered the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. As to the second part, we regard this as an important allowance, which is why we have increased it more than other benefits, and why we phased in the 60 to 65-year-old age group more quickly than the previous Government had planned to do.

We are making slow progress, and I suggest that shorter questions should be asked.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce a uniform occupational health provision to cover all staff employed in the National Health Service.

It is for health authorities themselves to determine what resources they will devote to occupational health services.

When will the Secretary of State stop subjecting nurses to delay and deferment because they are conciliatory and do not take industrial action? Negotiations on nurses' pay have been taking place for three years. Is it not a disgrace that whole areas of the country have no occupational provision for nurses in the Health Service? Will the Secretary of State take immediate action, and issue instructions or a circular to all the authorities concerned?

That would not be appropriate. Talks are being conducted on gradings and job descriptions for occupational health work. When those talks have been completed, and conclusions reached, I shall consider whether guidance is necessary on the scope and organisation of this service. It must be for employing health authorities to decide what proportion of their resources should be devoted to this service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the number of representations he has received about the introduction of a 54-week year for current pensions, he will now change his policy on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters of complaint he has received from members of the public about the date of payment of the annual increase of the state retirement pension.

About 800 representations have been received, from individuals and organisations, about the date of this year's uprating of pensions and other social security benefits, which it is proposed shall take place in the week beginning 24 November.

Is it not now clear that this proposal, however it is dressed up, is simply another way of saving money at the expense of those who need it most? Will the Minister confirm that this sort of Government decision is without precedent? Even at this late stage, will he change his mind about this mean trick?

The House knows that the reason why the date was changed by one week was that it had been creeping forward in recent years. Regarding the second week's saving, the hon. Gentleman is correct to the extent that it is part of the savings that we reluctantly had to make as a contribution to the essential restraint on public expenditure this year.

Does not my right hon. Friend accept that there are 52 weeks in a year? Next year, will he please review the pension increase on the basis of a 50-week year?

It is a little early to say what the date will be next year. When winding up the debate last night, I gave my hon. Friend an assurance that the Social Security Act makes it essential that the updating next year will be during November—in other words, not later than the week commencing 23 November 1981.

By how many millions of pounds are the Government cheating pensioners? Will he confirm that it is more than the cost of the Christmas bonus, and that therefore this year the Government are asking pensioners to pay for their own Christmas bonus?

This proposal has no connection whatever with the Christmas bonus, except in the fevered imagination of Labour Members. The saving, as it affects retired people, will be about £65 million. Retired people would certainly be cheated if the Labour Party's policy of hyperinflation were followed.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in speaking of the 54-week period in the House yesterday, the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of bad faith and of misleading the House? Have those serious and scurrilous charges yet been withdrawn?

To my knowledge they have not been withdrawn. Any hon. Member with respect for our parliamentary traditions would expect the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) to withdraw those charges at the earliest possible opportunity.

Will the Minister confirm that the figure of £65 million means that a married couple will lose £12.30 between now and the date of the Christmas bonus—that is more than the £10 Christmas bonus? Why should millions of pensioners be expected to put their shoulders to the wheel in that way?

In view of my last reply, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was one of the best qualified to advise his right hon. and hon. Friends on the techniques of withdrawal. His arithmetic is approximately correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many acute surgical beds there are in the National Health Service and how many there are in the private sector.

During 1978 the average daily number of surgical beds available in NHS hospitals in England was just over 79,000. There are about 5,500 acute surgical and medical beds in the private sector, the majority of which are used for surgery.

Do not those figures show that private medicine has a valuable part to play in the nation's health? To what extent may some beds in the acute surgical private sector be used for the contracting out arrangements to which he referred earlier, which will obviously benefit NHS patients?

We believe that a greater use of private contractors will improve the care of patients and help to reduce waiting lists. Under the Labour Government, waiting lists increased every year, but under this Government they are already falling. We are determined to continue reducing the waiting lists, if necessary by the use of private contractors.

How many of the acute beds in the National Health Service are available in Merseyside, and how many will be supplied in the private sector? To my recollection, there is not a great private sector in Merseyside.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are many ways of reducing waiting lists, not simply by the use of private contractors. In December 1974, there were only 517,000 people on the waiting lists, compared with 752,000 in March 1979. That was an increase of 235,000, or 45 per cent., under the previous Government.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that in some parts of the country the demand for acute surgical beds in the National Health Service is less than in others? Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider setting up a pilot scheme to see whether a computer bed bank could be established in the Department of Health to link a vacancy for a surgical bed in one part of the country with a patient waiting for surgery in another part of the country?

That is an important and interesting suggestion. There is already some exchange of beds between one part of the country and another. We shall certainly consider the suggestion further.

When will the Minister admit that all his continual statements about putting National Health Service work out to private contractors, when health authorities think that there is no cost-effective future for it; putting private units into National Health Service hospitals, where they may be subject to staff dissatisfaction; private contractors handling 25 per cent. of health care when no one is putting up the £2,000 million to cover the scheme; are dogmatic and useless, and will merely damage morale in the National Health Service?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that moral in the National Health Service has never fallen faster than it fell in the years of the previous Administration. We are deeply concerned to improve the Health Service, and I believe that we are succeeding.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what circumstances he is prepared to use his powers of default in the case of removal of facilities at present provided by local authorities for disabled persons.

I will continue to consider each case put to me on its merits.

Is the Minister aware that the Essex county council's plans to introduce a 25p per day charge to the disabled for attendance at day centres and a moratorium on the provision of telephones have produced such disgust in the county that even some Conservative councillors voted against the first proposal and that members of NALGO are refusing to collect the charges? If he has the power, will he use is to ensure that the disabled are not treated in this disgraceful way? Would it not be disgraceful not to use those powers?

No. The default power relates to individual cases, not to general policies. The hon. Gentleman has written to me about the moratorium on telephones. We are in touch with Essex about the possible implications. In general, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's extravagant language. I hope that he will discourage members of NALGO from failing to carry out the instructions of the county council by which they are employed.

Is the Minister aware that the mentally and physically disabled in my area are up in arms about the stinginess of Essex county council in imposing this charge for attendance at day centres? Will he reconsider his decision to refuse to direct the Supplementary Benefits Commission to reimburse those on supplementary benefit? Is he aware that these charges are the direct result of the Government's policies? They have cut the rate support grant to such an extent that Essex has had to resort to these means and make sure that the weak and the disabled suffer most.

Several authorities are making modest charges for day centres to reduce, often only marginally, public subsidy for those centres. I see no objection to that, provided that arrangements are made to relieve those who cannot afford to pay. I would rather see modest charges made than see those centres close down.

We have been told that Essex county council is charging some severely disabled people—mostly very poor people—for attending day centres. If some of them cannot pay the charge, is that not in effect a withdrawal of service? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I made public at Ebbw Vale in 1977 the legal advice available to the Department? Should he not now at least remind Essex county council of the Government's default powers?

I think that the council is aware of them. I answered a recent question on the general subject of charging. No default order has been made either by the previous Labour Government or by this Government. Some Opposition Members and some sections of the disablement lobby have caused great agitation by trying to encourage people to make default orders. That is not happening. Fewer than half a dozen cases are in the pipeline. That shows that all the talk by Opposition Members about local authority cuts in this area is exaggerated.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he intends taking to encourage the recruitment of trained post-operative staff in West Yorkshire hospitals.

I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to him on 17 July.

Is it not unsatisfactory for the Government to be so complacent when my constituents, who were taken into Leeds general infirmary for serious heart operations, are kept in a week, and then sent home because there is insufficient nursing care after the operations? Is it not a disgrace that, at present levels of unemployment, the Government cannot ensure enough nursing care in this situation?

I have looked into the case to which I think the hon. Gentleman referred—that of Mrs. Gorham. I regret that she had to be sent home from the hospital without having the operation. I understand that the consultant concerned has spoken to her recently and that the hospital will be in touch with her next month about a date for readmission. On the broader question, steps are being taken by the area health authority to recruit more nurses to try to avoid a recurrence of that problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an urgent inquiry into the link between unemployment and heart diseases, mental stress, suicides and other health problems with particular reference to those areas in the country where unemployment has been, and is, of a very high and long lasting nature.

My Department is already involved in studies of health and the unemployed, including questions of their interrelation. We are also cooperating with outside researchers on a study of long-term unemployment and mortality.

Is the Minister aware that in the United States and this country links have been established among the problems of mental stress, suicides and high unemployment in various areas? Is he further aware that recently the Northamptonshire county council's social services department drew up a report which shows such a link and that in the Northamptonshire area health authority another report is circulating showing that unemployment creates morbidity and increases mortality rates? Therefore, will he stop cutting public expenditure on social services, hospitals and unemployment to ensure that he does not make the position even worse?

We are aware of the research being done by Professor Brenner and by the department of applied economics at Cambridge, though some has not yet been published. There is as yet no published work which establishes with any certainty a causative link between unemployment and ill health. If the hon. Gentleman has such evidence, I hope that he will send it to me.

Is the Minister aware that it is nonsense to challenge the assertion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Battered wives are also suffering. Would the right hon. Gentleman have given a more sympathetic response if stockbrokers and landowners were affected?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. I said that we were carrying out research and I asked his hon. Friend if he had any further information.

Research is not necessary. We want action.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) quoted the results of research in his area.

Answer the question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned a report by Dr. Neville relating to the Northamptonshire area health authority. We understand that the report has been presented but has not yet been made public. This is of public importance. Will the Secretary of State take steps to have that report published?

I have not seen the report. When I do, I shall certainly consider whether it merits publication. I understand the anxieties of the House on this subject and I am anxious to be helpful. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to battered wives and the NSPCC has talked about child abuse, but many other examples of those social ills have nothing to do with unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes, if any, have been made in the method by which his Department assesses people's entitlement to mobility and attendance allowances.

Claims to mobility and attendance allowances are decided not by the Department but by independent adjudicating authorities statutorily appointed for the purpose. There have been no general changes in their interpretation of the law relating to these allowances.

If the Minister is correct in claiming that there have been no changes in the law or in the instructions from the Department, will he explain why many of my constituents, who previously received the attendance and mobility allowances for years, have had them withdrawn on review even though their circumstances have not altered, except perhaps to deteriorate? If he does not believe that the regulations have been altered, will he intervene to prevent this from happening? If he refuses to do so, will he not be admitting that he is party to the withdrawal of the mobility and attendance allowances?

I can only give an opinion on a particular case if it is put to me. Even then I should have to reassert that the independent adjudicating authority makes the decision. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me recently about a constituent. In that case, the attendance allowance board looked at it again, and the allowance is now being paid.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is a great deal of concern among the parents of mentally handicapped children about the working of the Mobility Allowance Amendment Regulations 1979? Does he further appreciate that the need for a mobility allowance by parents of teenage children with irrational and irregular walking habits is often as desperate as that of parents with children with more conventional types of handicap?

Many teenage children receive the mobility allowance. They must meet the test that is applied to older people—namely, that they cannot walk or are virtually unable to do so. The allowance does not depend on the nature of their disability.

What proportion of applications are turned down at the first stage? Do not many deserving applicants fail to reapply or appeal once they have been turned down? Will he publish figures showing how many people initially apply, and how many receive the allowances once they have gone through all the procedures?

The proportion of those who receive attendance allowance on their first application is about 75 per cent. I do not have the equivalent figure for mobility allowance, but I shall look it up and let the hon. Gentleman know. All hon. Members should encourage applicants to ask for a review or a repeal of their case if they feel that they have a claim, or that their claim has been wrongly turned down.

I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's answers, but does he not agree that many sad and tragic cases come to the attention of hon. Members? Does not he further agree that those who deal with such individuals at first hand, such as general practitioners, home helps and other members of the social services departments of county councils, know best an individual's circumstances and whether he or she deserves a mobility or attendance allowance? Will he review the matter and place more importance on the opinions expressed by those who deal with such individuals at first hand?

A general practitioner, a social worker or anyone else can submit evidence to the adjudicating authorities. That happens every day. I am sure that the evidence submitted is taken fully into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what statistics are kept of women becoming pregnant as a result of artificial insemination by donor provided through the National Health Service.

National Health Service centres providing artificial insemination by donor are not required to return information about these cases. Where numbers are small, provision of statistical information carries a risk to confidentiality and, as the hon. Lady will recognise, it is important, in the interests of the child, that these cases should be known only to the mother, her husband and the doctor concerned.

Is not the Minister aware that, in the National Health Service, this service is very haphazard and that the availability of treatment varies according to where one lives? Does he not recognise that there has been an enormous growth of treatment by AID in the private sector? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that that is wrong and that this service should be available particularly to married women who could then become pregnant?

I am aware of what the hon. Lady has said. We are concerned that the service should be available to those who want it. Nottingham university has the largest number of places, and over the past two and a half years it has dealt with 500 couples. It provides a valuable service, and we should be happy to see that service extended.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people consider AID to be a distasteful and dangerous concept, which should be abandoned?

This is a personal matter. Sometimes couples cannot produce children easily, and it is important that this service should be available. We shall ensure that the service is extended.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to provide for the retirement pension to be paid as of right upon the pensioner attaining the statutory age of entitlement.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the payment of the pension from pension age, whether a person has retired or not. I can only repeat what has been said on a number of occasions, that the Government are committed to phasing out the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, and the retirement condition with it, and will give effect to this commitment as soon as circumstances allow.

Is the Minister aware that many of us also have in mind the fact that State pensioners suffer compulsory deductions that other pensioners do not suffer? Now that the rules have been changed and it is possible for a contributor to contract in or out of the national scheme, should there not be parity between them? Will she ensure that manual workers do not, once again, get the worst of the bargain?

Since the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 came into being, manual workers with schemes of their own have not been treated worse than those in the State scheme. It is for their companies, and for the unions within those companies, to negotiate pension rights for their workers. If, as I suspect, the hon. Gentlieman has a detailed point in mind, I hope that he will write to me. I shall do my best to give him a full answer.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 July.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

While the Prime Minister pursues her schedule, will she consider and explain to the House why British industry—which has its own indigenous supply of energy—should suffer because competing overseas nations can provide oil, gas, coal and electricity at lower prices? Is it wise to ask the gas industry to help to subsidise the public sector borrowing requirement by £450 million this year, at the expense of our manufacturing industry?

It is true that other countries can produce coal more cheaply than Britain. They have much easier seams to mine. Our coal is expensive. Seventy per cent. of our electricity comes from coal, so any increase in the price of coal leads directly to an increase in the price of electricity.

What view does my right hon. Friend take of the United Nations conference on women, which is being held in Copenhagen at a cost of £1½ million? We have sent 10 delegates to that conference. Will the conference help her and other women?

I rather think we made it before that conference took place.

Has the right hon. Lady had an opportunity today to talk to her colleagues about the prospects for selective imports control? Does she not realise that instead of my constituents being told to travel hundreds of miles to find work, they could then find work within the constituency? Does she not accept that it would be possible to ensure that motor cars, radiators and boilers were made in my constituency, which would ensure that my constituents had jobs, and did not waste time travelling to find accommodation and jobs that do not exist?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware that there are many jobs in exports. Motor component manufacture is a particularly successful export industry. If we put up barriers against the import of motor components barriers will almost certainly be put up against the export of motor components.

During her day, will my right hon. Friend tell the Secretary of State for Industry that many of us are pleased about the Government's decision to invest in biotechnology through the NEB? Does not she agree that the Government should intervene in areas on the frontiers of technology and so create employment?

I shall certainly pass that message on to my right hon. Friend. We contribute to this new technology and industry not only through the NEB, but also, to a considerable extent, through the several research councils and through universities. We are good at this type of research and development.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 July.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Is there any level of unemployment at which the Prime Minister would give a higher priority to providing jobs than she now gives to tackling inflation? What level must unemployment reach—2 million, 2½ million or 3 million?

In the long run there is no trade-off between inflation and unemployment. If we were ever to let inflation rip, we would finish up not only with higher inflation but with higher unemployment. One would do a disservice by putting unemployment immediately against the prospect of jobs later.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to give further consideration to university teachers' pay? As a Member for a university town, I find great concern among university teachers about reports in the press that the completion of their pay award for this year may not be ratified.

There was a meeting of the relevant committee this morning and I understand that it has adjourned until Monday.

The combination of the record 1.9 million unemployed, 14 per cent. cuts in our aid programme and the Government's response to the Brandt report is callous, mean and shoddy. Will the Prime Minister repeat to the House today the famous words she quoted from St. Francis of Assisi?

Some of those who are most anxious for more aid to go abroad are often those who demand more import controls to stop trade coming here.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the reports of the Labour-controlled district council that plans to employ only those people who are political supporters of the Labour Party? Will she make it clear that, whatever the view of the Leader of the Opposition, she totally deplores this arrogant use of political power?

My hon. Friend must be referring to the reports of what the Walsall district council has done. If those reports are true and if jobs in the public service are to be dependent on the political colour of the applicants, that will be the end of democracy.

May I return to the Prime Minister's advice to unemployed persons to move to other parts of the country, where she claims there are suitable job vacancies? How does she propose to provide those people with suitable and acceptable housing?

The hon. Member is slightly misconstruing my speech. I said:

"Of course, frequently investment goes where there are skilled people wanting work, but there must be some mobility."

Will the Prime Minister take time today to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the tragic murder of a Scottish soldier at Aughnacloy on Saturday? Is she aware that, had the Army checkpoint at Aughnacloy been manned, that soldier would not have been murdered?

Every death through terrorism or violence is a tragedy. My right hon. Friend and I, the troops in Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary are doing everything possible to increase the security of the people of Northern Ireland. I wish it were possible to give a 100 per cent. guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland, but it is not. In the meantime, we must continue to fight terrorism and violence wherever they occur.

Will the Prime Minister consider visiting the Clifton training institute for the newly blind? It is the only such institute in the country and it is likely to close because of lack of Government financial help. Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that in the past 10 years more than 1,000 people have been assisted to readjust? Will she undertake to visit the establishment and discuss with the staff the social and economic consequences of its closing? Will she then decide what the Government can do to assist?

I cannot promise the hon. Member that I shall go, but I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department of Health and Social Security will have heard what he said. I think that it is a tragedy if some of these places have to close—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is because of Government policies."] It is a tragedy if such places have to close when massive amounts of money are being spent on bureaucracy.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to congratulate those responsible for restoring full diplomatic relationships with Saudi Arabia? Is it not welcome that we should have good relations again with this traditional friend?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a matter of great regret that relations were ever broken off and we are pleased that they are now fully restored. Saudi Arabia has been a good friend of the West and has done everything possible to keep down oil prices. I hope also that our trade with Saudi Arabia will revive.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the ability to advance or retard careers on the basis of political affiliation is no monopoly of the Walsall Labour Party? Can the Prime Minister put her hand on her heart and say that she has never advanced or retarded anyone's political career on the basis of party loyalty?

I have consistently stood up for people on the basis of merit and merit alone. In all my years in the Department of Education and Science I was regularly condemned for doing so by Labour Members as being an elitist.

During her busy day will the Prime Minister consider sending a message to President Sadat of Egypt expressing admiration for the courageous and humane manner in which he reacted to the plight of the Shah and his family?

I shall be happy to do so. We all have great admiration for the courageous way in which President Sadat has done what he had to do.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate those athletes in Moscow who have won gold, silver and bronze medals on behalf of the British nation?

I am always happy when British athletes do well, but I must be frank with the hon. Member—I advised British athletes not to go to Moscow. I wish that they had not done so. Nevertheless, I am pleased that those who went have done so well.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 July.

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

If my right hon. Friend has time today, will she look into the report in today's papers of the famine in Uganda? Will she try to establish a fund through the EEC for channelling EEC food surpluses to Uganda instead of to Russia where they are sold at a loss to the British taxpayer? Would it not be better to help needy Commonwealth countries, such as Uganda?

There is a terrible famine in Uganda and there are difficult circumstances for other countries in East Africa. This country has spent about £7 million trying to relieve that famine directly or through the European Economic Community. The EEC is regularly sending emergency and ordinary supplies of food to East Africa, including cereals, butter, milk powder and sugar. We urge that that is preferable to subsidising exports of surpluses to Russia. I shall convey my hon. Friend's message, and we shall do what we can to pursue the matter further.

Will the right hon. Lady find time today to ponder the wisdom of her Saatchi and Saatchi posters displaying a few dozen hired hands posing as unemployed, when in present circum- stances there are an impending 2 million unemployed—[Laughter.] It is a comical matter to the Tories. With an impending 2 million unemployed, were those posters not a teensy-weensy bit ill-advised?

It is not a comical matter to us. We are every bit as concerned about the level of unemployment as members of the Labour Party. However, when there was high unemployment under a Labour Government, we did not accuse them of wanting it. That is the difference. The hon. Gentleman accuses us, but we did not accuse his Government.