asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to improve the position of the long-term unemployed in relation to their entitlement to benefit.

With effect from yesterday, unemployed men of 60 or over who have been receiving supplementary benefit for a year or more and decide not to register for work have become eligible for the higher long-term rate of benefit. Of course, we have every sympathy with the problems faced by those who have been unemployed for a long time, but, as the cost of extending entitlement to all long-term unemployed people would be well in excess of £100 million, this cannot be done in the present economic circumstances.

Does the Minister realise that that answer is humbug? Does he accept that the under-60s must be facing problems as great as those of the over-60s, and that for a married man under 60 to lose as much as £10 a week is discrimination against the unemployed? Will he for once put his sympathy in the right place, do things properly, and extend the rate for people under 60?

It ill becomes Labour Members to speak of humbug. During the whole of the Labour Administration they spoke of a high priority for extending long-term benefits, but did nothing. We at least have extended it to one class of people and reduced the waiting period from two years to one year. We have done something. They did nothing.

I welcome my hon. Friend's original answer, but will he give special consideration to the long-term unemployed who have children, and particularly bear in mind the fact that they are not eligible for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit, however long their period of unemployment?

I note what my hon. Friend said. We shall, of course, consider the matter carefully.

On unemployment benefit as a whole, will the Minister give a pledge that the Government do not intend—it would be the first time in 50 years that any Government did this—to reduce the real value of unemployment benefit?

I cannot speak of these matters today. Public expenditure is under review, and a statement will be made in due course.

The Minister should be a little more honest when he answers questions. The Government have already cut these benefits, and I wish that he would admit that. Does the Minister realise that we are in a new situation? There has been a 70 per cent. increase in the long-term unemployed as a result of the Government's actions during the past 12 months. He is condemning men in their early forties and fifties to a permanent short-term supplementary benefit rate. The cost of putting them on a long-term rate is as nothing compared with the slow consequences of the Government's actions.

I accept that last year there was a 5 per cent. abatement on unemployment benefit, but that was a preliminary to bringing unemployment benefit into taxation, which will take place later this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ensure that community health councils in England and Wales are provided with an opportunity for adequate consultation with his Department and with regional and district health authorities, in those cases where policies or other factors affecting the availability of a comprehensive health service in their districts are at issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the role he believes community health councils should play in relation to queries or complaints about the National Health Service; and whether he has any plans to enlarge this role in the future.

The community health councils represent the public interest in the National Health Service locally, and not regionally or nationally. Therefore, community health councils will be linked with the new, more local district health authorities in future. We have no plans to alter their role on complaints.

I thank the Minister for his reply. When he reconstitutes the community health councils, I hope that he will hold the fullest consultations. Has the Minister yet called for any nominations? Will he give an undertaking that a substantial percentage of the places on the community health councils will he made available to local authority representatives?

We have had extensive consultations, and a circular will be issued to community health councils soon which will set out more clearly their role and membership. I shall place a copy of the circular in the Vote Office so that hon. Members may see it.

As community health councils represent consumers in the National Health Service, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Department is giving them sufficient publicity to enable those using the NHS to recognise them for what they are?

I understand my hon. Friend's question. Community health councils have a valuable role, but it is a local role. It is for the local health authority and the local community health council to make their presence known.

If that is so, why has the Minister suggested that he will send out a circular defining the role of community health councils? Community health councils help people who have problems with the NHS and represent them when they need assistance. Why does the Minister suggest that some redefinition is needed? Community health councils need more support for the role that they play.

Order. Hon. Members have repeatedly made statements instead of asking questions.

When we reorganised the National Health Service and removed the area health authority layer there was some doubt about the future of the community health councils. Therefore, we consulted and thought it advisable to issue a circular on our views on the consultations and the future role of the community health councils.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is intended to revise the £2,000 ceiling in regard to supplementary benefit payments.

The Supplementary Benefit Policy Inspectorate is reviewing the application of the supplementary benefit capital rule, including the effect of the level of the disregard. Its report will be received shortly by Ministers.

Is the Minister aware of the deep and understandable sense of grievance that is felt by many men in their fifties who, having been made redundant, cannot claim a penny of supplementary benefit because they have saved £2,000 or more during their working lives? In many cases redundancy money has been included in the £2,000. When will the Government drop this penal measure against ordinary people?

I am aware of the concern expressed by many hon. Members about not only redundancy pay, but other forms of saving. We have asked the inspectorate to take a special look at all those difficult problems. It would be wrong for me to anticipate the report that will shortly be given to Ministers.

How long has it been Government policy to penalise thrift?

It is not Government policy to penalise thrift. We cannot ignore the fact that some people have amassed considerable amounts of capital. People save for a rainy day and when that day arrives the Government have a right to take some of that capital into account. The £2,000 allowance has been considered to be fair in the majority of applications. People fall outside that limit, and I can go no further than to say that we are well aware of that.

Does the Minister accept that not only the principle is wrong, but the scale was set 12 months ago? As inflation stands at about 12 per cent., surely the Government should increase the uprating by £200 or £300.

I am aware of the concern felt by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. However, this matter should remain part of the review. It would be wrong to ask for a special inspectorate report to be undertaken on the whole issue and then to prejudge its answers.

I accept that there probably is a case for maintaining a level of capital above which benefits are affected, but does my hon. Friend accept that, in all conscience, £2,000 is not much in 1981? Will she give an assurance that that figure will be kept constantly under review and that, as soon as it is possible to take account of the changing value of money, some increase in the figure will be forthcoming?

My hon. Friend and some hon. Members seem to have forgotten that we raised the limit from £1,250 to £2,000. As a result, 44,000 people gained from being allowed to retain more of their savings. We are aware of the problems, but as there was a large increase in November last year, I think that we are right to await the result of the inspectorate's review.

Will the Minister confirm that the £1,250 was not a cut-off limit, equal to the present £2,000 limit, and that it was part of a sliding scale? Will she also confirm that her answer was grossly misleading to the House as well as to those outside? As the House wrote the regulations, why could not the House and the Government take a decision on redundancy payments, savings and life insurance policies? Why should it be left to civil servants in the inspectorate to take such decisions?

I should state at the outset that I had no intention of misleading the House. Of course the £1,250 was part of a sliding scale, but that does not alter the fact that 44,000 people gained as a result of last November's change. Although 9,000 people initially lost entitlement, some have regained it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issues that have been referred to the Supplementary Benefit Policy Inspectorate. The inspectorate will make recommendations and, when those are received, Ministers will consider them and take the decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of craft apprenticeships in the National Health Service started each year since 1978.

Information in the form requested is not collected centrally and could not be obtained without undue cost; but the available statistics show that 401 building and engineering craft apprentices were employed in the National Health Service in England at 30 September 1978 and 460 at 30 September 1979.

Is it not astonishing that the Department cannot find out from health authorities how many craft apprentices began this year? Will the same thing happen in the NHS as happened when the Under-Secretary of State was in charge of the Property Services Agency? Will there be a 70 per cent. cut in apprenticeships?

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that the running down of the PSA was part of a policy that was begun under the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the finding contained in the report of the Health Education Council that 5 per cent. of patients stopped smoking when advised by their own doctor to do so, he will place greater emphasis on the role of the family doctor in his anti-smoking campaign.

General practitioners are well placed to advise their patients on the dangers of smoking and have an important part to play in helping people to stop. The Health Education Council and Action on Smoking and Health recently sent every general practitioner a special kit designed to help them to advise their patients on giving up smoking, and I very much welcome that action.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given that the death rate from lung cancer and heart disease is higher in Britain than in other countries, will he give every encouragement to doctors to distribute these information kits to their patients? We must recognise the report's finding that if each doctor persuaded 25 people a year to give up this pernicious habit, 500,000 people would stop smoking in one year.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Smoking is a danger to health, and my aim is to reduce the toll of disease and death that is brought about by smoking.

Do the Government intend to give in to various pressures and to back-track on their commitment to impose statutory controls on advertising if voluntary efforts fail? Is it not time that we banned the advertising of cigarettes, inch, ding televised sponsorship of smoking, because of the ill-health and cost involved?

There has been absolutely no change in the Government's policy on smoking. Successive Governments have preferred voluntary agreements. We are currently looking at those agreements, but no decision has yet been taken.

Will my right hon. Friend reject some of the advice that has been given him today? Does he agree that if we point out the dangers of smoking it is no part of the Government's job to continue to be "grannies" on every issue? For once, let us leave the issue alone. There are enough warnings already for intelligent people to take note of.

There is a responsibility on Ministers to give advice on the dangers of smoking. There can be no question about the dangers to health of smoking, and I shall continue to give that advice.

Does the Secretary of State agree with his predecessor that the current agreement with the tobacco industry is unsatisfactory?

As I said, we are currently looking at the voluntary agreements—not only the agreement with the tobacco industry generally, but the agreement on sports sponsorship. No decisions have yet been taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the medical profession about medical emergencies arising from a nuclear attack; and what plans he has to protect the population.

None, Sir. However, I am aware that the British Medical Association has set up an inquiry into the medical effects of nuclear war. The National Health Service has been given guidance on how health care services should be organised in the event of such a war.

Does the Minister consider that the medical profession should give information to the public about how restricted it would be in preventing terrible suffering and a massive number of deaths in the event of a nuclear attack? Does he believe that he should encourage it to do that? Does he agree that the best way of preventing the appalling calamities that could happen to this population would be to do away with all nuclear weapons and make sure that they were never used?

Whatever else my responsibilities are, they are not in foreign affairs and defence. The British Medical Association is a free organisation, quite able, if it wishes, to put forward its own views.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the local authorities already have a responsibility for civil defence, which all hon. Members should support, and not try to cause alarm and despondency?

If my hon. Friend was saying that the question was causing alarm and despondency, I agree with him.

Is it not a scandal that the Secretary of State is prepared to spend £500,000 on creating ludicrous defence organisational posts in the area health authorities? Is not the reality that in 1978–79—apparently the last year for which figures are available—there was a shortage of 900 doctors and consultants in the National Health Service? Should not money be spent on providing those posts rather than ludicrous defence organisational posts, because the Minister knows full well that there is no defence against nuclear warfare?

That is the subject of a later question.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses are now registered as unemployed; how this figure compares by numbers with three, six, nine and 12 months ago; and what percentage increase these figures represent over the same periods of time.

The Department of Employment provides quarterly returns on the number of nurses and midwives registered as unemployed. On the basis of those returns the information requested is as follows: at 30 September 1981, 5,311 qualified nurses and midwives were registered as unemployed in England; at 30 June 1981, 4,644; at 31 March 1981, 4,499; at 31 December 1980, 4,351; at 30 September 1980, 3,932. These figures represent corresponding percentage increases of 14·4, 3·2, 3·4 and 10·7.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Department of Employment's figures show that there are now more than 14,000 nurses unemployed—43 per cent. above the position 12 months ago, and three times as many as when the Government came to power? In the light of the pressure that is now being put on the National Health Service, is not that disgraceful?

The best thing that I can do is to compare the figures for the period when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State with the position now. In March 1979 the number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff employed was 192,000. The number now is 213,000—an increase of about 21,000 in this Government's period of office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of trained nurses cannot be employed because they have injured their backs lifting patients? Is he further aware that 750,000 working days are lost each year because of that? If I write to him, will he see what can be done to step up preventive measures?

I shall do that even if my hon. Friend does not write to me. We are aware of the problem and have commissioned a research project at Surrey university, which we are financing.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts over the last two years mean that area health authorities have put cash limits on the employment of nurses and that that is having a diabolical effect on specialties? Nurses are working overtime at weekends merely because there is not sufficient cash to employ those who are available and could be employed.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have been listening to what I said. There are now more, not fewer, nurses employed. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman was talking about when he mentioned the cuts. Over the last two and a half years we have protected and increased spending on the National Health Service in real terms by 5 per cent.

Why does the Secretary of State persist in saying that, when he knows that by applying rigid cash limits he has made certain that, with rising inflation, which is not included in his calculations, there will be a cut in resources?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Withdraw that? Not on your life!

Withdraw.

Order. Hon. Members must give the Minister a chance. Then we shall see how we get on.

I called the hon. Lady an hon. Gentleman. I undoubtedly and unreservedly withdraw that. But the hon. Lady is still talking nonsense. Why does she not recognise—surely it is a matter of agreement between both sides of the House—that the Government should be congratulated on the fact that there are now more, not fewer, nurses working in the NHS?

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the nurses rules provide a sufficiently impartial and equitable base for the hearing of disciplinary complaints against nurses.

Yes, Sir. The rules provide for a full, impartial hearing of disciplinary complaints against nurses under the rules of evidence.

Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituent, Mrs. Wilshire, has a keen sense of injustice following her hearing before the committee on a number of charges that were the responsibility of others who have not been similarly proceeded against? Is he aware that she was physically incapable of committing one of the charges? Is he further aware that the proceedings were conducted in the nature of a prosecution by the medical profession? Should there not be an independent element?

If my hon. Friend feels that there was a miscarriage of justice in that case, I should be pleased if he would contact me again. We are most concerned that these hearings should be not only just, but seen to be just by the persons involved.

Has the Minister read the recent report from Social Audit about what happens to various nurses in psychiatric hospitals who make complaints about the conditions in those hospitals? They are frequently victimised for bringing to light scandals that should properly be brought to light. Does he remember the recent case at Broadmoor, where two nurses were victimised for bringing to light the fact that electro-convulsive therapy was being used in an unmodified way that was frowned upon by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and still remain victimised by his Department as well as by others?

I cannot accept that there has been general victimisation in any way, as the hon. Gentleman implied. If there are individual cases where he feels that complaints have not been properly looked into, my right hon. Friend and I will be glad to hear about them. There is a well laid down procedure, which should be followed. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is not followed, I should be glad if he would let me know.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement following his consultation on the level of the death grant.

Our considerations are not quite complete, but we expect to make a statement before the end of the year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been waiting a long time for such a statement? Does he recognise that the Dignity in Death Alliance, which is supported by 40 national organisations, is deeply concerned about the derisory level of the death grant, which has not been increased for nearly 14 years? Will he please ensure that there is a statement before Christmas and that there is no question of any means test at the time of bereavement?

I agree that we have been waiting a long time for something to be done about the death grant. We have been waiting for 14 years. I promise that there will be a statement before Christmas. I assure my hon. Friend that we are most reluctant to impose a means test upon anyone at a time of bereavement.

Does the Minister realise that when the death grant was increased in 1967 it represented 76 per cent. of the cost of a modest funeral, whereas today it represents only 9 per cent? In view of the high cost of dying—incidentally, elderly persons are prevented from insuring against it—will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that we shall receive more than a statement and that there will be intimation of an urgent and substantial increase when he comes to the Dispatch Box to make a statement?

If we were to increase the death grant to represent its 1967 value, the grant would stand at £145 and the total cost of paying that to everybody, irrespective of whether they needed it, would be £98 million.

Does my hon. Friend realise that if the grant is paid to those who do not need it it will be recovered by estate duty and the Government will not lose?

These are matters that we have to take into account in considering this complex issue. I ask my hon. Friends to be patient. We shall produce a statement before Christmas.

I understand the difficulty and complexity of this issue, and I do not wish to make a party point, but, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Government's great reluctance to impose a means test, will he be prepared to go one step further and give a commitment that there will be no means test involved in payment of the death grant?

We are considering ways of being able to make an increase in the benefit by passporting means. These methods are still under consideration and no final conclusion has been reached. I cannot make any commitment in advance of a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take action on the Equal Opportunities Commission formal investigation report on the British Steel Corporation concerning the effects of the statutory pension ages for men and women on the various redundancy provisions applied at the Shotton works of the corporation; and if he will make a statement.

Extra-statutory redundancy provisions at Shotton are a matter for the British Steel Corporation to determine through the normal process of collective bargaining. Equalisation of State pension age, which is a principal recommendation of the Equal Opportunities Commission report, is already a long-term objective of the Government. However, as the recent White Paper "Growing Older" makes clear, cost and other considerations preclude any early change.

Is the Minister aware of the tremendous campaign that has been waged by Mr. J. G. Jones and other redundant workers from Shotton? Does she agree that the men of Shotton who were made redundant have achieved a moral victory? Can the Minister speed up the implementation of the objective that she has stated?

I am aware of the campaign that the hon. Gentleman has cited. I understand the impatience about moving towards a common pension age. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the all-party Select Committee on Social Services is undertaking a study of earlier retirement, or the equalisation of retirement ages, and flexible retirement ages. We must await its report and the conclusion of the many other discussions that are taking place. A common pension age will perhaps have a greater effect on the occupational pensions industry than on the State pension sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he proposes to take to make good any shortfall in the value of the increases in pensions and other benefits payable from 23 November due to any underestimate made in the likely rate of inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that the increase in pensions and other benefits payable from 23 November is sufficient to compensate for the increase in prices since the last uprating in 1980.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ensure that the increase in pensions and other benefits payable from 23 November is sufficient to compensate for the increase in prices since the last upating in 1980.

The extent of any shortfall this year will not be known until next month. But, as I made clear on 6 November, the Government have given a commitment that we will fully compensate pensioners for price increases over the lifetime of this Parliament. Therefore, any shortfall in this month's uprating of retirement pensions will be made good at the next uprating.

Last year the Government hurried to introduce legislation that had the effect of preventing pensioners from receiving increases in excess of the cost of living increase. Against that background, would it not be shameful, if pensioners were left for the whole of the year until their next increase without any steps being taken to provide for a supplementary increase? That would be especially shameful, as they will be 3 per cent. worse off this year as matters stand.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, successive Governments have considered that annual upratings provide the only practical way of dealing with 8 million or 9 million pensioners. I cannot promise any change in that procedure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that yesterday's increase cheated pensioners out of 3 per cent. of the increase that was due to them? Does he agree that next November will be far too late for the many pensioners who will have died by then? Will he make a prompt announcement about an early increase to make good the shortfall?

I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's approach. We have made it clear throughout—I shall continue to repeat the Government's pledge—that we shall retain the value of the pensioners' pensions. That continues to be our policy. Pensioners have been protected against price increases, and since November 1978 pensions have risen by nearly 52 per cent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the other key link is the relationship to earnings? Last year the Government introduced a Bill to claw back from pensioners a miserable 1p in the pound. Why cannot they restore the position? Each married pensioner is losing £1·20 from his uprating because of the Government's action. The Government could introduce an interim measure. They could attach the increase to the Christmas bonus, for example, to ensure that pensioners get back the 3 per cent. for the rest of the year. Methods are available to the Government and one was found, for example, in 1975. Is that not right?

The hon. Gentleman must know that items such as the Christmas bonus were settled months ago. The extent of the shortfall will not be known until next month. We shall have to continue with the annual uprating, which I think is the fairest and most reasonable way of proceeding.

This is the most serious shortfall that we have had, against the background of a specific cut that was made last year. That was done despite the Prime Minister's commitment that she would act in the lifetime of this Parliament. However, old people will still be deprived of their rights for the remaining 12 months. If the Government need a fresh Bill——

Order. It is not fair to argue a case now. It is Question Time.

I repeat that the Government will continue to protect pensioners. I cannot and will not give the sort of commitment that the hon. Gentleman wants. If he were in my position, I do not believe that he would be able to do so either.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of those entitled to receive one-parent benefit are receiving it.

Our latest estimate is that one-parent benefit is being paid to about 66 per cent. of the lone parents who stand to gain by claiming the benefit.

While this represents an improvement compared with the position 12 months ago, does my hon. Friend agree that it is still rather a disappointing percentage? Does she propose to take any further steps to initiate an improvement?

There has been an improvement of 6 per cent. since a year ago, but the action that we are taking is as follows. We have already changed the name from "child benefit increase" to "one-parent benefit", which is more expressive and encourages more single-parent families to make applications. This month a note advertising one-parent benefit to all new child benefit recipients will be sent with their books. From January, over a period of 10 weeks, a letter will be sent to 300,000 people who are single payees on the child benefit order book. There will be a television filler film for both BBC and ITV and cassettes for local and national radio stations. In March 1982 we shall update the note advertising one-parent benefit with a special note in the child benefit order books advertising pictorially one-parent benefit on one side and family income supplement on the other side.

Does the Minister agree that one-parent families are probably the poorest families in the country? Is she satisfied about the attitude of inspectors in the Department regarding the harassment of such one-parent families? Will she undertake to investigate such harassment and report back to the House?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are already a large number of disadvantaged two-parent families as well as single-parent families. With regard to his second point, there is no excuse and no reason for any claimants to be harassed. The instructions on the investigators' guide are clear. We are following up any cases of potential harassment reported to us.

As the Minister shows such great sympathy for one-parent and two-parent families facing difficulties, may I ask whether she saw the programme on television last night in which it was alleged that people being investigated by the special squads were taken into a room and locked inside until they could provide answers? Will she make a statement and arrange for a full investigation, and make sure that if someone is to be investigated he is allowed to take a friend with him or at least is not locked in while the investigation is taking place?

I saw the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers. With all my experience, I found it to be an unbalanced programme, for a number of reasons. One is that it is often for the privacy and security of the person concerned that he is in a room with the door locked. On frequent occasions, in the public waiting areas of our local offices, people burst in through doors, which destroys privacy——

These doors were locked on the outside.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am looking closely at all the allegations that were made in the film, but they were vastly exaggerated and unbalanced in their presentation. I shall certainly look into the matter a good deal further.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services for what measures in the Gracious Speech he will have departmental responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

The Gracious Speech said that there would be a Bill to introduce a statutory sick pay scheme and a housing benefit scheme, and another to make reforms in the law on mental health in England and Wales. My Department has responsibility for those Bills, both of which are now before Parliament.

Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the reference in the Queen's Speech to further reductions in wage settlements does not mean that his Department will try to force a 4 per cent. wage settlement on the nurses? Does he realise that it would be sheer exploitation of one of the most dedicated professions to try to force on it such a settlement, which would be a wage reduction in real terms because of the high rate of inflation created by the failed policies of this discredited Tory Government?

I share the admiration of the House for the nursing profession. Under this Government the wages and salaries of nurses have increased substantially. I expect to see representatives of the nursing profession shortly to talk about those matters.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking, with regard to his Department's responsibility for implementing the economic aspects of the Queen's Speech, that he is not considering a real cut in the value of supplementary benefit payments, on which the 2 million poorest families in this country depend?

The decisions will be announced in due course. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for them.

As there are growing signs that the problem of those who leave employment to go to another private firm and who lose their occupational pension rights is becoming acute, does my right hon. Friend see any reason to add to the commendable list of Bills for which he is responsible, a Bill dealing with this matter?

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is here, I can tell my hon. Friend that I cannot promise to introduce legislation this year on that subject, but I am aware of the problem, as are the Government. I shall certainly consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received a copy of the report from Age Concern "Services for Old Age: A Growing Crisis in London"; and whether he will make a statement on the response which Her Majesty's Government will make to the report.

The Department received a copy earlier this month. I see it as a useful contribution to the continuing debate about how limited resources can best be allocated.

Is the Minister aware that his Government's policy of reducing the numbers of acute beds in London's health service, coupled with the actions of the Secretary of State for the Environment in cutting the rate support grant, is placing services for old people in London under serious attack? Will he make strong representations—after reading that report carefully—to the Secretary of State for the Environment, calling for no further cuts in the rate support grant in London with regard to old people?

The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the things that we are trying to do is to get patients, including geriatrics, out of hospitals when possible and into the community. In personal social services, as my right hon. Friend has said, there have not been the cuts to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the President of the European Commission. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Speaker of the Indonesian Parliament. This evening I shall attend the annual diplomatic reception given by Her Majesty the Queen.

Does the Prime Minister remember the poster that was used in the last election, produced by Saatchi and Saatchi, portraying an imaginary unemployment queue and with the words "Labour Is Not Working"? Does she believe that Conservatism is working, as unemployment is still hovering on the 3 million mark? If YOPs and other schemes are not taken into account, it is nearer 4 million. What message will she send to the young unemployed coming on the "Jobs Express" from Scotland, England and Wales, when they arrive in London? What hope does she have for the electors of Crosby?

Unemployment is rising in Germany, France, Belgium and all the other OECD countries, with the exception of Japan and Denmark, because of the world recession. That is still causing great trouble with the unemployment figures in all countries. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen from the figures today, there is a reduction in the numbers registered as unemployed, and in particular there is a reduction in the number of school leavers. It is small, but welcome.

Will my right hon. Friend today seek to expedite the meeting between the Attorney-General and the Irish Attorney-General so that when she meets Dr. Garret FitzGerald at the EEC she can put to him firm proposals either for extradition or for some efficacious alternative?

What my hon. Friend asks is not possible, but in any event I am not likely to discuss those matters with Dr. Garret FitzGerald at the meeting of the European Council.

The right hon. Lady has talked of an improvement in the unemployment figures, but does she not acknowledge that it is only in comparison with the terrible and unprecendented figures achieved by her Administration? Is it not a fact that the underlying trend is, tragically, still going up? Have not the figures increased by a total of 200,000 since she was saying that we had passed the bottom of the trough of the recession a few days ago?

With regard to the trough of the recession, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware it always takes longer for the unemployment figures to fall after an increase in production than for any of the other indicators to start to go the right way. That is a well-known but tragic fact, because there is still spare capacity in a number of industries. Therefore, there could be an increase in production before a substantial reduction in unemployment. Nevertheless, the small reduction today of about 35,000 is welcome. There is still an underlying increase, but it is less than it has been. Of course, we still have to face the January figures, which, historically, tend to show an increase.

As the right hon. Lady claims that she studies the figures so carefully and that improvements are taking place, will she tell us when we may expect a reversal in the figures? There has been an increase of 200,000 since the middle of this year. The increase still continues and the underlying trend is still getting worse. When will the figures turn the other way?

I always take the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman himself in answering questions on unemployment from the Dispatch Box. He did not give precise forecasts. I point out again that unemployment is rising in Germany and in France, although they have the draft whereas we do not. Unemployment is rising throughout the OECD, with the exception of Japan and Denmark. Tragically, I believe that it will indeed take a very long time before we can begin to get back to the much lower figures to which we have been accustomed.

As the Brazilian Foreign Minister is about to visit Britain, will my right hon. Friend today make effective plans to build upon the more than £600 million worth of orders that this country has already received from Brazil this year?

My hon. Friend is correct. We have indeed received very good export orders from Brazil. I shall not be going there myself, but I am delighted that those orders have been obtained.

When the Prime Minister attends the diplomatic reception this evening, will she seek out the ambassador from the Philippines and express the abhorrence of the British people at the barbaric cruelty practised in connection with the preparation of dogs for slaughter for human consumption?

I cannot say whom I shall see this evening. I, too, saw the horrible photograph in one of the Sunday papers and I felt the same repugnance as the hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, all hon. Members feel. I understand that the matter has been brought to the attention of the Philippine authorities.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read a report in the Morning Star—not a paper usually noted for its support of the Government—to the effect that redundancy payments are being used to set up new businesses on an unprecedented scale? Will she comment on the report that more than 100,000 such businesses are being set up in Britain this year?

I am not a regular reader of the Morning Star. I have, however, read the Daily Star, which had a double-page presentation—entitled, I think, "Adventure"—giving details of people who have used their redundancy payments very successfully to set up businesses. They are to be congratulated on that. I believe that that, together with the figures that I have showing that some 120,000 new businesses are being set up annually, demonstrates that the spirit of enterprise is still very much alive.

In view of the widespread speculation about opinion in the Prime Minister's household concerning tobacco advertising, will the Prime Minister give her own views on that matter?

I do not smoke, and I do not answer for opinion in my household on any matter. I answer only for this Government's policies.

During their present trials, will my right hon. Friend offer kindness to the people of Northern Ireland by saying that not only will they remain part of the United Kingdom for so long as they wish to do so, but that she wishes that they should always remain part of the United Kingdom and that her policies will be generated in such a way that they will always wish so to remain?

Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and of Her Majesty's Dominions. It is the Government's policy to maintain the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with the wish of the majority of the people of the Province. That will continue to be our policy.

Will the Prime Minister today take the opportunity to condemn the South African Government for the latest of their repeated invasions of Angola? Will she make it clear to them that the action that they have undertaken is designed primarily to prevent a peaceful solution to the problem of Namibian independence and that if they do not cease their invasions she will take action in the Security Council to impose sanctions?

If one country has invaded the territory of another, we should be the first to ask it to withdraw. I make it clear that, as a member of the contact group on Namibia, we are anxious to secure independence for Namibia. For that purpose, we are taking part in the negotiations between the contact group and the front-line States at present.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of current inflation rates, she is satisfied with the current level of retirement pensions and Christmas bonus.

The Government are committed to compensate the national insurance retirement pensions fully for price increases over the lifetime of this Parliament, and I have made it clear that the Government will make good any shortfall from one uprating at the next uprating. The £10 Christmas bonus is, as the name makes clear, an extra payment for pensioners and is the most that we can afford within the limits of available resources.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's estimate of the November inflation rate is wrong and that pensioners have not had a sufficient increase this year to compensate for inflation? Does she therefore agree that the Government should not wait until next November to put this right, but that it should be put right immediately, either by increasing this year's Christmas bonus or at least by introducing an Easter bonus to make good the shortfall?

The shortfall will be made good at the next uprating, which will take place next November. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was a shortfall in the November 1978 uprating. That was made good by the Conservative Government in November 1979.

Does the Prime Minister accept that never before have a Government consciously reduced the amount payable to pensioners below even the Government's own expectations and that now, for a whole year, the figure will be roughly 3 per cent. less than the actual rate of inflation? Does she agree that that is a deplorable situation for elderly people?

I do not accept the figure of 3 per cent. I think that 2 per cent. is more accurate. I should point out that the uprating effective from November 1978 was based upon an underestimate of 1·9 per cent.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend take a little more time today to consider the increasing unfairness of the rating system, notwithstanding supplementary rates? Will she recognise that there is increasing impatience on the Conservative Benches for the consultation paper on alternatives to the domestic rating system? May I tempt her to be a little more forthcoming and to agree that that consultation paper should be a short, quick step towards radically reforming the rating system by a Bill in this Parliament?

I know of my hon. Friend's very particular interest in this subject, and he knows that I share his views, as do the Government, about the unfairness of the rating system. The Green Paper to which he refers should be available next month. We shall then enter a period of consultation. The speed of that will determine whether we can bring forward a Bill, as I believe would be advisable if it is possible, during the present Parliament.

Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny the stories in the national newspapers earlier this week that the Government are to cut the real value of unemployment benefit? Given that the Government have already made a 5 per cent. cut in the recent past, does she agree that a further reduction in the real purchasing power of the unemployed is totally unjustifiable?

I neither confirm nor deny any such stories as are prevalent in the newspapers at the moment. A full statement will be made in due course.

May I assure my right hon. Friend that if she wants to make an announcement that domestic rates will be abolished in the lifetime of this Parliament, it will be received throughout the country with great and overwhelming support?

I hope that my hon. Friend is correct. I would have to make clear that the revenue that comes from the rating system, both domestic rates and industrial and commercial rates, would have to be replaced by revenue from elsewhere. [Interruption.] One cannot have expenditure not covered by taxation. Only an Opposition of the irresponsibility of the present one would suggest that one could. The difficulty is deciding what taxation should be levied to cover the loss of income from the rating system.