asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he has given to the representations which he has received that all registered blind persons should receive a special blind allowance comparable to non-contributory invalidity benefit.

I have made it clear that, although the Government have the greatest sympathy for blind people and the problems they face, resources are not available at present to finance new benefits.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas great progress has been made in the past 12 years in regard to financial help to the disabled, the blind have not done very well? Would he agree that the top priority for future progress is the blind? Is he aware, from the answers that he gave me yesterday, that it would cost less than half of 1 per cent. of his Department's expenditure on social security—which lies well within the margin of error in the Department's estimates—to give the NCIP to the registered blind?

Yes, although another way of interpreting the replies that I gave yesterday is that if the benefit were of the same order as mobility allowance it would cost nearly£100 million a year, and if it were equal to non-contributory invalid benefit it would be more than£100 million a year. In present circumstances, it is not possible to make progress towards an objective that we would all like to achieve.

Why does the Minister state that he is unable to give a blind allowance? Could he not at least realise that optical charges are costly for blind persons? Would he not agree to relieve registered blind persons of such optical charges, thus encouraging them to believe that Government Departments and Parliament are interested in their welfare?

Again, there would be a public expenditure implication. As to optical charges, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is already help with charges for people on low incomes whether or not they are blind.

Speaking recently in Eastbourne as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, the right hon. Gentleman said that if he had to apologise for anything it was for cutting too little and too late. How does he reconcile that statement with his right hon. Friend's sympathy for a blindness allowance, and how can it possibly be reconciled with the right hon. Gentleman's reported statement that there is now an unanswerable case for such an allowance?

The statement that I made in Eastbourne applied to public expenditure in general, and I stand by it. I recognise—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House do—that there is a strong case for a blind allowance, because, apart from the handicap of blindness, identifiable extra costs also arise from blindness. We would all like to provide such an allowance if the resources were available, but at present they simply are not.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about his decision to stop index-linking of retirement pensions.

No such decision has been made.

Why, then, is the Secretary of State hell-bent on trying to make pensioners the scapegoats for the failure of Tory economic dogma, first by stealing two weeks' pension increase from them and, secondly, by reducing the real value of the retirement pension by refusing to keep it in line with the rate of inflation? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud to be cast in the role of a Tory bovver boy who specialises in mugging defenceless old men and women?

The only bovver boys in this game are the people who consistently misrepresent the Government's policy.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 16½per cent. pensions increase which came into effect on 24 November more than compensated for price rises, and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Government intend

"to compensate fully for price increases over the lifetime of a Parliament"?—[Official Report, 25 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 488.]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the decision to remove the indexing by cutting it by 1 per cent. below the level is just about the meanest and pettiest act of this mean and petty-minded Government? Is it really worth it to clobber the 8 million or 9 million old people in this country to save £60 million, which the Treasury could easily have achieved by a minor cut in the taxation handout to the rich?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we gave an undertaking that pensions would remain in line with prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) said, the Prime Minister confirmed that from the Dispatch Box only a few weeks ago. This year we have overshot, probably by about 1 per cent., but, of course, we shall not know that until the detailed figures are published. It is entirely consistent with the pledge which the Government have given that the adjustment should be made next year to take account of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, having regard to the Northern Ireland experience, any consideration is being given to the merging of the health and social services in other parts of the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

In a Department which, admittedly, is looking for savings, is not that an area in which some savings might be achieved and also one in which a more efficient service might be provided? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are parts of the country—I suggest that my constituency is one—which would benefit from a merger of these services?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does his constituents such a disservice. After all, it was only a month or two ago that I presented a prize to the chairman of the hon. Gentleman's area health authority for its admirable collaboration with the local authority in relation to social services. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not notice that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a reason against any merging would be that co-operation was working satisfactorily? Does he also accept that the actuality is different from area to area throughout Britain and that in many areas there is a failure to reach the objective that was set out in the Health Services Act of close co-operation between health and social services? Unless that is achieved, surely there will be a need to look at these matters again.

The point made by the hon. Gentleman was well made by the Royal Commission when it said that successful collaboration between health and local authorities depended far more on the willingness to collaborate than on any institutional arrangements. I hope that all authorities will achieve the record of the best—of which the Isle of Wight is certainly one—in regard to effective collaboration for the benefit of patients and clients.

Does not the Minister agree that the professionalism of members of the social services has demonstrated that they are capable of doing an extremely good job? What will be his attitude towards their belonging to trade union organisations, in view of the fact that he appears to be suggesting in personnel circulars that there may be some way in which health authorities can get round the Employment Protection Act? That is hardly a way to promote either professionalism or good standards in the social services or the NHS.

I offer my congratulations to the hon. Lady on her appearance at the Dispatch Box as a health spokesman, and I hope that she will soon make the Shadow Cabinet as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many employee organisations or unions have welcomed the proposals in his Green Paper on sickness benefit.

Approximately 30 trade unions and other organisations representing employees have commented on the Green Paper "Income During Initial Sickness: A New Strategy". None has expressed support for the proposals.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which confirms that the overwhelming opinion among unions and other employee organisations is to condemn a proposal which will at the same time increase the burden on industry and cut the benefit to the sick. Will he confirm that the effect of the abolition of earnings-related supplement and the introduction of a flat-rate sickness benefit will be to cut in half the maximum benefit available to a married man with two children? Does he admit that if any private insurance company were to renege on its obligations to policyholders in the way that he is reneging on his obligations to national insurance contributors, it would end up before the courts?

The phasing out of earnings-related supplement is an entirely separate issue, which was part of an Act of Parliament that went through all its stages during the previous Session. The Green Paper proposes financial provision for people during the first eight weeks of sickness which, taking employees in this country as a whole, is equal in value to the existing provision under the national insurance scheme.

Why should trade unions or anyone else oppose proposals when one of the aims is to treat income for taxation purposes equally whether it is earned in employment or during sickness? Could not that be said to be a basis of equality that should appeal to the trade unions?

When I met a deputation from the TUC about a fortnight ago to discuss these matters, I tried, with my usual tact and gentleness, to explain that I thought its attitude was a bit stick-in-the-mud. Trade unions have worked over many years to extend the rights of workers to receive sick pay from their employers. Between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of people at work in this country are covered by employers' sick pay arrangements. I would have thought that the TUC would welcome a statutory provision which ensures that remaining workers are covered. If it took an adventurous view of the future and was not so stick-in-the-mud, it would regard this as a basis for negotiating in better times more favourable arrangements than those laid down as the statutory minimum.

if none of the 30 employees' organisations with which the Minister has had meetings has agreed the proposals, what proportion of employers' organisations supports the proposals?

We received a great many representations from both employers' and employees' organisations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall come to the main question. Because it was a consultative document, we have benefited from many detailed suggestions made by both trade unions and employers' organisations. The final shape of the scheme will take note of many of their points. In general, I agree that there is too much conservatism on the part of employers' organisations and trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in the light of the recent fall-off in the number of kidney donor cardholders, he will now provide the revised figures for the introduction of a computerised donor system; and if he will take steps to introduce such a system.

No, Sir. A computer register would cost about £4·5 million initially and about£340,000 a year to run. We do not think that it would increase the number of kidneys donated. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State put this in his letter to the hon. Gentleman on 29 September, and I shall circulate a full text in the Official Report.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is farcical to distribute kidney donor cards on what appears to be a haphazard basis when there is no return to any sort of central bank? Does he not agree that the figures which have been given for providing a computerised system seem to fall regularly, although provided by his right hon. Friend? They have gone down as time passes. Is he aware that computer systems experts believe that the cost would be only a fraction of the latest figure?

I cannot accept that it would be an improvement on the present system. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Conservative Government who introduced donor cards in 1972. Since then, 30 million cards have been issued, 16 million since May last year. That shows the way in which the Government have extended the range of contact between possible donors and kidney transplants.

Has there been any recovery in the number of kidney donors coming forward?

Yes. There has been a small recovery. I hope that this will continue.

I appreciate the Minister's personal concern with this problem. Is he aware that if he is not prepared to adopt a computerised system, which he ought to do, despite the cost, he should introduce the opting-out system, which is the only realistic way to ensure that enough kidney donors are brought forward?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should raise that matter. He knows, like the Government, that the majority of people who have been asked about the matter would prefer not to have an opting-out system. They would prefer to continue the present system. We think that the present system should be extended.

Will my hon. Friend say how the national multi-organ donor card system is progressing, on the lines of that pioneered so successfully by the south-west Leicester community health council?

The take-up of multi-donor cards is increasing satisfactorily. A most important advance is that the Post Office, having previously refused, has now agreed to distribute cards. From January next year, the Post Office will be distributing 5 million cards, 2·5 million of them kidney donor cards and 2·5 million the new part-kidney, part multi-donor card. We shall also be introducing next year a multi-donor card—a green and white card—in its own right to replace the present cards.

rose—

Order. This matter comes up again on Question 7.

Following is the letter:

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that additional funds are made available to provide geriatric and psychogeriatric hospital beds in areas in which the numbers of elderly people are increasing at a significant rate.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 24 November our plans for increased spending on the NHS in 1981–82. These take account of population changes nationally, in particular the rising number of elderly people—factors which are also taken into account in allocating resources to health authorities. It is for regional and area authorities to decide how much to spend on individual services in accordance with local needs and priorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of cases of old people in desperate need of a hospital bed who are now being refused admittance is growing steadily in many parts of the country? Is he further aware that the Harlow area needs immediately at least 60 more psychogeriatric beds and 80 more geriatric beds to meet the need? Is it not a disgrace if old, sick people are refused admittance to hospital and left at home to die?

I estimate that about 0·7 per cent. growth is required each year in the Health Service budget to cater for demographic changes, including the needs of the elderly. Next year we are planning to spend a 1¼per cent. increase. With regard to the specific problems in Harlow, I understand that a start is being made by the area health authority to tackle these needs and that at Honey Lane hospital, Waltham Abbey, work on upgrading a ward is nearly completed. The area health authority has identified three other schemes which are required and which, if implemented, would make a start on tackling the needs which the hon. Gentleman describes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is clearly a growing problem with an ageing population? Does he agree that an important role is played by joint funding between the NHS and the local authority in ensuring that more people on the margin of hospitalisation remain in the community? It is important to make progress in this sphere.

I endorse what my hon. Friend says. That is why we have increased by 16 per cent. in real terms the budget for joint funding this year.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that, as a result of the cuts in the social services and especially the domiciliary services and part III accommodation for elderly people, the pressure created by elderly people on the National Health Service will inevitably grow? Will he give some help, in terms of either additional funds or additional beds, to cope with this serious problem that concerns my constitutency and, I believe, every constituency?

I do not accept the premise from which the right hon. Gentleman started. All our information from local government indicates that expenditure on social services this year is higher than last year.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider another aspect of the problem? Will he consider providing more resources for geriatric rehabilitation? Will he encourage doctors to take up this area of study and bring the elderly hack into the community to make better use of existing resources?

I hope that this is one of the subjects that might be mentioned in the White Paper on the elderly that we hope to publish early next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what figures he has for the number of kidney transplants performed for any convenient four-week period after the "Panorama" programme on 13 October, with any convenient period before 13 October.

We know of 59 transplants in the four weeks immediately before the "Panorama" programme and of 44 in the four weeks following. This shows a small fall. I am glad to say, however, that there was some increase in the four weeks up to 8 December, with 56 transplants notified.

I should like to put a question of which I have given notice to the Minister's office. What is his reply to Professor Roy Calne, who says that one-third of the organs expected are being received? What does he say to those who expect dialysis but cannot obtain it due to the limited facilities.

I think that the "Panorama" programme was an absolute tragedy. I am personally very aware of the 1,800 people who are waiting and whose lives would be saved or transformed if a kidney was made available to them. It has always been our view that the BBC owes it to the public to try to repair the damage. I am glad that the BBC announced yesterday that there will be a full studio debate in February on BBC1. This is to be welcomed.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the BBC at long last intends to get off its high horse to try to repair some of the damage that it has done to critically ill patients who could benefit from transplants where donors are available?

Yes. I am glad that the BBC has agreed on the programme and that there will be full medical co-operation. It has emerged that the programme was misleading and that there was no opportunity for the British medical profession to tell the public what went on. There will now be a possibility of that happening through the next programme.

I agree with the Minister about the tragic effects of the television programme in question. Will he tell the House whether the figures have been affected by the letter that he sent to the special kidney unit at the Dulwich hospital telling it that it should send bills to health authorities in the areas where their patients live? What is the cost of employing civil servants to send and receive these internal invoices? What happens if a health authority refuses to pay? Is the patient merely allowed to die?

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position and hope that he will occupy it for many years to come?

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of retirement pensioners who have ceased to draw supplementary pension since the change in capital limits operative from 24 November.

Actual figures of the number of pensioners ceasing to draw supplementary pension on account of the new capital rule are not yet available, but on the basis of November 1979 information it is expected that 6,000 supplementary pensioners will have lost title to benefit.

Is the hon. Lady still happy that the capital limit now includes the surrender value of insurance policies? What action has been taken since the promise of 10 October to the Tory conference that this harsh and unfair rule would be investigated?

Only beneficiaries with life policies with a surrender value of more than £2,000 will have to encash them. There are no statistical details yet available, but I understand that few beneficiaries have policies with surrender values exceeding £2,000. If people wish to spend their capital so as to obtain supplementary benefit, that must largely be a matter for them. I am guided by the resources regulations. The interpretation of the regulations is for the independent adjudicating authorities. I said in October that the matter would be considered. It must be remembered that we are not changing anything. The former Supplementary Benefits Commission used a practice similar to that embodied in regulation 6(1)(c).

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory that up to half a million pensioners who could receive a supplementary pension do not do so? Will she instigate yet a further campaign to try to bring in these people and ensure that they receive their rights?

I sympathise fully with what my hon. Friend has said. When considering the future computerisation of the Department, we hope that it will be possible for those with an entitlement to supplementary benefit but who do not now claim it automatically to be brought in.

Will the hon. Lady confirm that if two elderly pensioners who are both in receipt of supplementary benefit and with savings of slightly more than £1,000 each get married, they will lose their entitlement to supplementary benefit because their savings when aggregated will be over £2,000?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that two persons married or living together, each with savings in excess of £1,000, would have those savings aggregated as an assessment unit in the calculation of the capital cut-off point. It has happened before that persons with savings slightly over the limit spend that money in the course of natural spending and quickly become entitled to supplementary benefit. That is reasonable, but it is important that people should not abuse the system. In trying to make the system simpler, we need to have a single cut-off point.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the operation of the new supplementary benefit regulations.

Bearing in mind that the regulations have been in force for less than a month, yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many social security officers believe that if a single parent asks for help on the ground that the children do not have shoes in which to go to school, under the new regulations they have to say that no help is available and that the only advice that can be given is that the children should be kept at home? Do the officers have it right? Is that what the Minister intended?

Provision for normal clothing, including shoes, is covered by the scale rates. There are additional regulations that enable additional payments to be made for clothing in certain circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one-parent families. He will be aware that families with children, including one-parent families, are among the main gainers in the changes that we introduced in November.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that severe penalties are imposed upon school leavers who are eligible to leave school at Easter and who decide to return to take examinations? Are they not likely to lose as much as £10·50 a week? Is it not remarkable that the National Association of Head Teachers—not the most radical body—is now saying that the regulation may well be disastrous for those who decide to take examinations? Will he estimate the effect that this provision will have on examination results?

This issue was fully argued in an Adjournment debate last week. I do not think that I can add to what was said on that occasion.

Are we to take it from the Minister's answer that he has no intention of trying to deal with the problem? Is not this one of the many regulations that have been introduced over the past few months which, more and more, extend the ethics of the workhouse into our society? Is the Minister aware that the doubling effect of family unit assessment plus increasing unemployment and the clobbering of redundancy payments is making the bonds ever tighter around those caught in the developing poverty trap?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has it entirely wrong. One of the main differences between the old system and the new system is that the new system depends less upon discretion and more upon entitlement as a matter of law. Surely, that is getting further away from the atmosphere of the workhouse.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase prescription charges.

The prescription charge was increased from 70 pence to £1 per item on 1 December 1980. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for any further increases.

I am grateful for the last part of the Minister's answer. Is he aware that a considerable number of items being prescribed cost less per article than the prescripton charge? Will he consider giving a directive to chemists that, when that occurs, they should inform the customer, who could pay the price of the article and save the £1 prescription charge?

May I suggest that we wait a little while to judge the effect of the new £1 charge and the effect that it has on the take-up of prescriptions? There are already changes in the pattern of prescribing.

What is the proportion of those who are given prescriptions who pay the £1 charge?

Those who are exempted from prescription charges amount to 64 per cent. of those receiving prescriptions. A further 5 per cent. are on season ticket arrangements.

Will the Minister confirm that the income from the sale of six-month and 12-month prepayment certificates was taken into account halfway through the financial year, resulting in a deduction of £10 million nationwide? Does he accept that that was not conveyed formally to area health authorities and that the authorities had to pick it up from an appendix to a financial report?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's implied criticism. There is always a delay between a change in the charge and the recovery of charges. Overall, the new £1 charge will raise an extra £30 million, which can only be of benefit to the National Health Service.

What is my hon. Friend's reaction to the provocative posters appearing in chemists' premises under the heading "Tax on Health"?

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter. I deplore the wording of the posters, which is misleading. The charge is not a tax. It is a reasonable contribution by a user, when he is able to afford it, to the cost of the National Health Sevice.

Is it not true that pharmacists are reporting more and more cases of patients asking them to decide which items they do not need on a prescription? Is it not also true that there has been a disastrous and frightening drop in the number of prescriptions being issued—about 19 million down on the figure before the £1 increase? How does the Minister explain that?

The hon. Lady is trying to put an alarmist side to the matter. Supposing that there is a small decrease in the number of prescriptions, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot ask people to take fewer drugs and then complain when they have fewer prescriptions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the present contribution conditions for the weekly maternity alllowance, in view of the length of time that elapses between the contribution year and the birth of the baby; and if he will make a statement.

The arrangement of contribution years and benefit years means that a particular tax year determines title to benefit for periods of interruption of employment commencing from nine months to 21 months after the tax year has ended.

Will my right hon. Friend consider making an alteration that would provide a fairer system whereby, provided that a woman has paid full contributions for two years before she stops work to have a baby, she should be able to receive full maternity allowance? Would that not be a fairer system and, in due course, easier to administer?

The present arrangements have stood the test of time since 1975. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.

In order to impress upon the House the Government's determination to see open government, will my right hon. Friend agree to consider sympathetically the recommendations of a Select Committee report that is likely to be published in the near future? Will he urge the Secretary of State to bring forward a debate on this matter so that the issue, and the emotive issues that lie behind it, can be aired by the House and a favourable and fair position established?

As the Select Committee report has not yet been produced, it might be premature to comment. I shall give it full attention when it appears.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish his final proposals for the structure of the ambulance services in the context of reorganisation of the Health Service.

We must await the recommendations of the Health Service working party on patient transport services, which, I understand, hopes to report early next summer.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the rumours that the Government favour dividing the service between the emergency service and the social transport service? Will he confirm that the Government are open-minded about the matter? Will he, then, do the obviously right thing and keep a unified service, based essentially and generally on the new districts?

The rumours mentioned by my hon. Friend are unfounded. The Government are awaiting the report to which I referred. I recall my hon. Friend's spirited speech on the subject on 27 October. At this stage, we are not ruling out any solution to the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to issue his Green Paper on possible changes in insurance payments for the National Health Service.

We are examining the strengths and weaknesses of our present system of health care financing and those of other countries. It is too soon to say when and in what form consultative proposals will appear. In the meantime, I welcome debate on this important subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Health Service needs an increase in resources which it cannot, and should not, get from the Government? Does he agree that there is much to be said for amalgamating the private sector into the present Health Service so that they may work together? When my right hon. Friend publishes a White Paper, will he ensure that action arises from it as soon as possible?

I must make it clear both to my hon. Friend and to the House that I do not think that a White Paper or a consultative document will appear in the near future. We have a great deal of work to do before we can put forward any proposals for consultation. On the question of collaboration with the private sector, I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the arrangements that we are trying to make in the Health Service to have much closer collaboration between it and the private sector for the benefit, above all, of National Health Service patients.

Quite apart from the principles at stake, about which most of us on the Labour side feel strongly, is not the Secretary of State aware from all his studies that insurance-based health provision is much more expensive and bureaucratic than the present system under the National Health Service?

I do not necessarily accept the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The distinguishing feature of health services financed by insurance is that they do not have waiting lists anything like the size of ours. That seems to be a target worth shooting at.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 16 December.

This morning I held meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

During the course of her day, will the Prime Minister take a few minutes to consider the millions of people who will have a bleak Christmas because they are unemployed or on short-time working? Will she also consider the scores of elderly people who will die this winter from hypothermia or malnutrition directly as a result of her Government's policies, especially the public expenditure cuts? What will she do about it?

On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he will be the first to be aware that retirement pensions have recently risen by 16½per cent., which is in excess of price increases. He will know also that an extra fuel provision, costing £200 million, is directed towards those who most need the extra heat. The Government have already taken that action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in Britain and the United States have noted that the Taoiseach has not unequivocally said in public that hunger strikers should not be given political status? Is she further aware that that statement was not included in the communiqué from Dublin? Will she say whether the Taoiseach told her that hunger strikers should not be given political status?

I cannot answer specifically for the Taoiseach. I have not been requested to give the hunger strikers political status by anyone except the hunger strikers themselves. There is no question, either now or at all, of giving them political status.

Will the Prime Minister today give time to the consideration that, although I was approached—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]

Learn your lines.

Order. Most unusually, the House requires me to protect the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).

As I do not wish to waste the time of the House, I shall sit down.

While reflecting on recent discussions with the Irish Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no question but that the people of Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as they wish? Does she agree that there is no reason why the obstacles that may stand between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland should not be carefully examined? Will she say whether any suggestion was made during the discussions that an Anglo-Irish council might be formed to consider the question more carefully?

With regard to the future of the people of Northern Ireland, it remains as I have frequently said—they stay with the United Kingdom until they express the wish to do the contrary and that wish is confirmed by this House of Commons and the Upper House. With regard to an Anglo-Irish council, I am not quite certain what my hon. Friend means. We were not considering any specific constitutional measure. We were considering measures of closer consultation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, but very much between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and not between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

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

Has the Prime Minister had the time to see the calculation that, if manufacturing output continues to decline by the annual amount announced yesterday, in about three years' time it will be about half of what it was in May 1979? Does the right hon. Lady intend to go into the next general election, assuming that she is still Leader of the Conservative Party, on a promise to squeeze production entirely out of the economy during the next five years?

In this House very few of us go in for direct extrapolation of that kind, knowing full well that it is likely to be wholly wrong.

Has the Prime Minister yet had an opportunity to consider the exceptionally important speech made by the retiring president of the Royal Society, Lord Todd, in which he argued most persuasively for a more vigorous and direct representation of the interests of science and technology at the highest levels of Government?

We have Tam Dalyell.

In the light particularly of the OECD's recent revelations that the West as a whole has been spending much less on research and development throughout the system than it should be, does not my right hon. Friend consider that Lord Todd's representations are most important?

I am always prepared to give very close consideration to Lord Todd's representations. As my hon. Friend knows, in this country we do have science and technology represented at the highest level of Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed recruitment of 1,000 extra workers by BL for extra production of the Mini Metro shows that jobs will be created if we use modern machinery as productively as possible to create and manufacture the goods that people want to buy?

Yes. The Mini Metro production line is manned by far fewer people than the previous Mini line. It is, therefore, very much more efficient, which is one factor, together with the excellent design, which will contribute to higher sales. If more people are being taken on to produce those cars because the demand is there, I am delighted.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to sack the Secretary of State for the Environment, if for no other reason than that of self-interest, since he is destroying the Conservative Party's interests in local government? Is the right hon. Lady aware that this afternoon he will destroy what is left of local democracy by his block grant allocations, that he has already destroyed Conservative councils' housing programmes and he has even turned the building industry, which has many contributors to the Tory Party and CABIN, against that party, so that its criticism is becoming as virulent as the CBI's?

I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman would like me to dismiss my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The simple reason is that he gives better than he gets from the Opposition.

Would the right hon. Lady care to tell us what increase in unemployment she believes will be produced by the combined statements of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales? How much extra unemployment in those areas that are so badly hit is likely to be produced by the effects of her policy on local government?

When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment, he never gave forecasts for unemployment. They are wholly unreliable. I do not intend to give them either.

Does the right hon. Lady mean to tell us that, when the Cabinet discusses the allocation of the amounts for local government and the services that will thereby be injured—and if she does not know that services will be injured, she must be the only person in the country who does not know—it does not discuss the effect on unemployment of cuts imposed on local authorities?

The right hon. Gentleman is first advocating direct forecasting, which he never followed, and I shall follow his practice and not his preaching. Secondly, he is undoubtedly advocating that any economies in public spending—and, after all, the Government of which he was a member had to make far more severe economies than I have made—should come from current expenditure, so that there is plenty of expenditure for capital. Unfortunately, he has not followed that advice by supporting economies in current spending.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that what I am advocating is that she should answer the questions that we put to her? Will she take into account that the whole country has a right to answers to those questions, particularly because 1980, under her direct supervision, has been the worst year in British history since 1945 for employment of our people, and almost every announcement made by her Ministers from the Dispatch Box adds to the figures? Is she further aware that that is what the country is concerned about, even if she is not?

No. Announcements from this Dispatch Box do not add to the figures. Announcements from this Box are designed to try to release more resources for the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to take away resources from the private sector, which will increase unemployment, as he did when he was Secretary of State for Employment, when unemployment rose by 100 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the facts show that the proportion of world trade that this country has is larger than it was a year ago? Will she further confirm to the House that, if we are to maintain that very satisfactory position, it is vitally important that we do not emulate last year's figures, when we paid ourselves 22 per cent. more for 3 per cent. less production?

I am happy to confirm that, thanks to the success of British exporters, we now have a bigger share of world trade than we had at this time last year. Both management and work force deserve congratulation on that.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 16 December.

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

Does the right hon. Lady understand that yesterday's ministerial statement was very disappointing for the textile industry? Will she instruct her Ministers to take a much tougher line against subsidised American man-made fibre imports, which are taking away our home market? Has she noted the large loss of jobs in the Courtaulds group?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's summing up of the textile statement yesterday. As he is well aware, the interests of different parts of the textile industry vary, and it was necessary not to continue the limitations on imports for polyester yarn because we were under threat of retaliation being taken against Yorkshire worsted. That was a factor we had to take into account. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend pointed out that the European Commission will take up vigorously with the United States the underpricing of oil and gas resources, which are directly in point with textiles based on chemicals.

If my right hon. Friend is considering economic statistics today, will she pay heed to the remarkable surplus in our current account and balance of payments and make a statement paying tribute to British industry—and to the policies that made this possible?

Yes. I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. The volume of exports last month held up extremely well. It was more than 7 per cent. over the volume for the previous month at a time when oil exports were down. That is a very good record and shows that people who have the right design, marketing techniques and vigorous approach can sell abroad in the world at the present exchange rate.

If the right hon. Lady's Government are making resources available for private enterprise, why are all the small business people in Liverpool, particularly small building construction people, writing to tell me that they are going out of business?

One of the reasons might well be that we have taken too high a proportion of resources for public spending. That is exactly what I am trying to bring down.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for our improvement in trade is the export of North Sea oil? Will she consider introducing some system under which the benefits of North Sea oil will be used not only for balancing the national economy but more positively for aiding British industry? As my right hon. Friend said, our manufacturing base can generate the genuine prosperity upon which the future success of the country depends.

The income from North Sea oil into the Exchequer this financial year will be about £4 billion. The output from the Exchequer to nationalised industries alone will be 75 per cent. of that, and extra is already going to support industry in the regions. One could say that the proceeds of North Sea oil are already supporting British industry. However, unfortunately, nationalised industries do not provide as good a service to the British people as does the private sector.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed my untypical and unusual—indeed, one might say practically unnatural—modesty in yielding my place at Prime Minister's Question Time. This is a serious matter. We now have increasing pressure at Prime Minister's Question Time because many more hon. Members want to get in in those two periods of 15 minutes a week. Today, we had 52 questions for Prime Minister's Question Time. I must make the point that the sort of mindless chiacking, the sort of gagging by decibel, that we had today not only wastes the time—those 15 minutes twice a week—but keeps additional Members from getting in on questions. I resumed my seat as a protest against such tactics.

I must say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I often think that the continued noise during Prime Minister's questions cuts out another hon. Member, if only the House realised that.