asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons are now in receipt of supplementary benefit; and how many he estimates are eligible for benefit, but are not claiming it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many (a) persons of working age and (b) pensioners receive supplementary benefit; and how many did so in May 1979.

In December 1981, 3·7 million people were receiving supplementary benefit, of whom 2 million were below retirement age and 1·7 million were supplementary pensioners. The present total is probably nearing 4 million. In May 1979 there were 1·2 million beneficiaries below retirement age and 1·7 million supplementary pensioners.

Those are significant figures. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are now about 6½ million people, including dependants, living on the supplementary benefit poverty line? Is he further aware that, including those entitled to but not claiming supplementary benefit, according to official figures, there are now nearly 9 million people living in poverty—about one in seven of the entire population—mainly because of the huge increase in the number of long-term unemployed created by the Government?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's first figure should be as high as 6½ million. My information is that it is a little more than 6 million. There has undoubtedly been an increase in the number of people receiving supplementary benefit. I do not doubt that that reflects the economic problems that the country faces. However, we are undoubtedly beginning to get on top of those problems. Meanwhile, we have been able to bring significant extra help to quite large numbers of the population, including the disabled.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the substantial increase in the number of people receiving supplementary benefit is undoubtedly due to the return of mass unemployment and the abolition of the earnings-related supplement? Do the Government not accept some responsibility for the numbers who have been driven to the poverty line as a result of Government policies? What action will the Government take to rescue those people from poverty and the difficult surroundings in which their chilren are being brought up?

The figures undoubtedly reflect the rise in unemployment. There is no mystery about that. The increase in the number receiving supplementary benefit reflects the extent to which the supplementary benefit system is performing its proper task of helping people in short-term difficulty. It remains the Government's determined aim to solve the problems on which the hon. Gentleman touched by resolving the underlying economic problems. I am determined that my Department will play its part in that process.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I fully support the Department's aim to help people in need? Will he emphasise that keeping up the level of supplementary benefit will make more people eligible for it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations.

How many people entitled to supplementary benefit are not claiming it? When does the hon. Gentleman propose to set up the advice and information centre that was recommended by the advisory committee?

The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, have read the advisory committee's report. I was pleased to note its compliment about the work that the Department is carrying out to introduce computer processes into the business of giving advice and information. We are proceeding with that task. I was grateful for the committee's complimentary observations upon it.

The hon. Gentleman will know from an answer in another place that 1¼ million people who are eligible for supplementary benefit do not claim it. Does he agree that £6 million per week is therefore not being claimed by persons entitled to supplementary benefit? What does he intend to do to make that money available?

Had the hon. Gentleman studied the figures that I published yesterday, he would have seen that there is special cause for concern about take-up by the sick and the disabled. I announced yesterday that, as part of our attempt to tackle that problem, we intend to issue leaflet SB1 automatically to all sickness benefit claimants when they have received benefit for eight weeks. I believe that that will help. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we are taking other steps to improve take-up. We shall continue to do that to the best of our ability.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many victims of road accidents were treated in United Kingdom hospitals during the last full year for which records are available.

The latest figures are for 1979, when it is estimated that about 80,200 patients completed inpatient treatment in hospitals in Great Britain for injuries received in road accidents. Information for Northern Ireland is not held centrally, and figures are not collected centrally for treatment given in accident and emergency or out-patient departments.

How many people included in that awful toll were involved in accidents in which drink played a part or in which one or other driver was smoking at the wheel when the accident occurred?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, and as I know from my experience as Secretary of State for Transport, a considerable number of accidents in this country are caused by excessive drinking. That is why, for the first time in many years, the Government have introduced legislation to tackle that problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is tragic that hospitals are under such pressure from road accidents, they do a remarkable and at times exceptional job in caring for people who suffer such accidents, some of which are appallingly bad?

Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may also be interested to know that we have set up a Rayner-style scrutiny of the collection of payments by health authorities from insurance companies, which will add to the total resources of the Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of persons at work who are eligible for early retirement schemes; and if he will make a statement.

In 1979, the latest date for which information is available, at least 5·6 million members of occupational pension schemes—almost half the total membership—were in schemes with provision for early retirement on grounds other than ill health. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment advises me that there will be just over 500,000 persons eligible to apply for the job release scheme by mid-1982.

Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if the upper limit in early retirement schemes for men were reduced from 65 to 60, which would put them on a par with women workers and release more jobs for boys and girls leaving school and for middle-aged people who have been made redundant and cannot get back into work?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

The miners' scheme is an occupational pension scheme. These are, of course, private arrangements between employers and employees in respect of terms and conditions of service. Many private occupational schemes make provision for an earlier retirement age. With regard to the State pension scheme, the Government's position remains as stated in our White Paper "Growing Older". In the longer term, we are looking towards greater flexibility in the retirement age between the ages of 60 and 70, together with progress towards a common pension age for men and women. The precise arrangements will depend upon the resources available when it is decided to introduce the changes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a blanket reduction in the retirement age will not solve the problems of unemployment or of those nearing retirement? Does he further agree that what we need, as he has just announced, is maximum flexibility to suit the needs and conditions of individuals?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As usual, he has hit the nail right on the head.

Does the Minister accept that some of the 5·6 million people are in compulsory early retirement schemes? Since the passing of the Social Security (No. 2) Act, what action have the Government taken to inform people who will be compulsorily retired early, often against their wishes, that in many cases they will be ineligible for unemployment benefit although they genuinely seek to continue in employment?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right with regard to private occupational schemes. Most of those schemes provide for early retirement by agreement between employer and employee. With regard to the State scheme, certainly in the Civil Service the usual retirement age is 60. It has been extended to 65 as a matter of practice in the past. Now, due to the present conditions, recruitment and so on, the age is being lowered to 60 for those in the higher income group, but for clerical officers, for example, the retirement age will remain as of grace at 65.

I do not disagree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister or by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). However, does my hon. Friend agree that people regard the option of early retirement—albeit with flexibility—as sensible in the medium term in an increasingly technological age? Therefore, could greater priority be given by the Department to the earlier provision of this opportunity?

I agree that the majority of people want freedom of choice and flexibility in their retirement arrangements, and we wish to work towards that. Nevertheless, it will cost a great deal of money, certainly in public sector pensions. The resources for a very ambitious scheme are not available and are unlikely to be available for some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much management costs in the National Health Service have increased since May 1979.

The cost of managing the National Health Service as a proportion of total resources fell by 1·2 per cent. between March 1979 and March 1980 and will be reduced by a further 10 per cent. by March 1985.

Is the Minister confident that he can achieve the 10 per cent. reduction from the recent changes, when he has imposed a number of additional duties on health authorities, such as the questioning of overseas patients about payments, the new financial directives and the decision to increase upwards accountability for decision-making in the Health Service? Will not all of those factors add to management costs?

One immediate effect of the recent changes is that 58 management teams no longer exist, saving more than 200 senior posts. We are now beginning to set up the new management structures for district health authorities. The regions will have the first reports on those new structures by July this year, and we intend to ensure that the target of 10 per cent. by 1985 is achieved. With regard to the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if they raise any extra administrative costs at all, it will be to a trivial extent.

Will my hon. and learned Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the figures that he has given, with the reduction of 1 per cent. in administration charges, especially as since 1979 21,000 more nurses have been employed in the Health Service?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. Inasmuch as we can save administrative costs, more resources can be devoted to the care of patients. If staff increases are to be made, we must ensure that they are nurses and doctors who are at the sharp end of the provision of treatment to patients.

Why does the Minister persist in saying that there are 21,000 more nurses when he knows that they are whole-time equivalents and that he is really just fudging the figures? Secondly, will not a further 10 per cent. cut in management costs fundamentally damage the service?

Because there are part-time nurses, the figures can only be presented on the basis of whole-time equivalents. Otherwise, I should have to say that there are 34,000 more nurses. I am glad to say that staffing increases in the Health Service are heavily concentrated on improved care of patients. That is a measure of the extent to which the Government are devoting more resources to the Health Service. That is what we have done for the past three years and shall continue to do for the remainder of our period in office.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will list the organisations which were asked to participate in the working party on charges for overseas visitors but who declined to do so; and what were the reasons given for their refusal.

Only the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants declined to serve on the working party, because it was concerned with the implementation of a policy to which it was opposed.

When will the Government and the Minister realise that, under this scheme, the black community in Britain will pay a heavy price for saving an unspecified amount of money? Inevitably and invariably it will be the black community that will have to prove its residence status.

The working party contained representatives of community relations councils and of the Commission for Racial Equality as well as overseas doctors. They were particularly asked by Ministers to concentrate on arrangements that were fair to all patients and did not disadvantage ethnic minorities. We believe that that will be the effect of our proposals. We shall produce a manual of guidance that will make it clear that there should be no racial or ethnic discrimination in the arrangements. We shall consult all the bodies involved, including the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which has said that it is happy to be involved in consultations, even if it does not wish to serve on the working party.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Conservative Members do not consider the scheme to be racist in any way? We believe that foreigners should have to pay for treatment here, just as we have to pay when N; e visit other countries.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. It is estimated that the new arrangements will raise £6 million extra for the National Health Service. Most of that money will come from tourists. There is no reason why they should not insure against ill health before visiting Britain, just as we have to do when we visit other countries.

Does the Minister realise that there have been cases—and he is doing nothing to prevent there being more cases——

Under the old scheme.

I accept that, but the Minister is doing nothing to prevent an increase in the number of those who should not be questioned from being questioned. What will be the administrative cost?

The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. As the working party discovered, there were cases of racial discrimination. If we had continued with the old arrangements, the risk of racial discrimination would have remained. However, we are introducing arrangements that will be accompanied by a manual of guidance that instructs the staff not to continue with those old and unfortunate practices. The working party contained people who knew more about administrative costs than the right hon. Gentleman or I know. It described the increased administrative costs as absolutely insignificant. The right hon. Gentleman is scratching about to find absurd reasons for resisting an extra £6 million for the National Health Service.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that I have received nothing but support from administrators, doctors and nurses within the NHS, whatever their country of origin or colour? When will he be able to curtail the abuses that remain after his most excellent proposals?

What about all those phoney letters?

We shall have to introduce the new arrangements before we can tell whether they will curb—as we hope that they will—the limited abuse of present arrangements. As my hon. Friend knows from all the examples that he has obtained, the present abuses annoy doctors and nurses within the NHS. They cannot understand why we waive potential income to the NHS, which most tourists would be happy to provide through insurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the increase in optical charges.

I have received representations from about 20 organisations and individuals about the increase in optical charges.

Is the Minister aware that there have been regular exhibitions at the Dispatch Box of compassion for the less well off? I am prompted to ask: is the Minister aware that the Government have failed miserably? Does he support the Government's promises—which have been broken—not to increase charges faster than inflation?

The hon. Gentleman seems incapable of understanding White Papers. If he understood them, he would realise that they referred in detail to the current year's expenditure.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot be satisfied with the level of optical charges levied by the NHS until competition in the private sector has reduced those charges to the levels operating in the United State of America?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Office of Fair Trading is investigating certain aspects relating to opticians. We hope that the report will be ready in the autumn, and we shall study it as a matter of urgency.

Will the Minister confirm that the increase in charges is greater than the increase in costs?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the amount of money remaining unclaimed by pensioners able to claim supplementary and other benefits.

For pensioners the problem of non take-up of benefits is largely confined to supplementary pension. As to estimates of the amount unclaimed, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him yesterday.

Is it not tragic that nearly 1 million pensioners do not receive or claim their full entitlements? Does that not mean that they must be suffering hardship and deprivation? Will my hon. Friend give the maximum priority to ensuring that that number is substantially reduced?

I hope that my hon. Friend will not overstate the case. According to my information, the amount involved is less than £2 a week for about half of those who do not take up their full entitlement. Nevertheless, I accept that we should do everything possible to reduce that number and to increase the take-up. As my hon. Friend knows, we are issuing to all new retirement pensioners claim forms with their new order books. We are specifically drawing their attention to that matter. Quite a lot of unclaimed benefit is due to the confusion caused by the problem of deciding whether to claim rent rebates or supplementary pension. That problem will be considerably eased by the transition to housing benefit. We are actively working with local authorities to ensure that those who still retain an entitlement to supplementary benefit are identified and advised.

Will the Minister shed his complacency? One in three pensioners entitled to supplementary benefit do not claim it. By any standards that is a high figure. In addition, the average weekly loss is £3·10 per week. That is a sum that those pensioners can ill afford. Will the Minister do something instead of waffling complacently at the Dispatch Box?

I reject the charge of complacency. Within the past few days I have announced further steps that are designed to help the take-up problem. Having introduced a scheme that will prove of significant help—the housing benefit scheme—we are actively working to build on it and to reduce the problem still further.

The Minister consistently expresses a desire for people to take up their benefits. Is he aware that in my constituency we printed a card, at our expense, to encourage people to claim? The cards had "Freepost" printed on them, but they were rejected by the Department of Health and Social Security. Is it not right and proper to encourage such people to claim?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me about that specific case. We seek to co-operate with local authorities in well-aimed schemes to improve take-up. We are keen to co-operate in that respect. We are worried about blanket operations, because they may raise hopes that cannot be fulfilled and can easily greatly overload the local office.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the proposed increase in the capital limit for supplementary benefit.

I have received a number of responses but to date only one written representation, from the Child Poverty Action Group, which has given a qualified welcome to the proposed increase.

Is not the figure of £2,500 absurdly low and a disincentive to thrift? Should not the figure be nearer £5,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, even if a person has more than £5,000, he should not lose all entitlement to benefit?

I am sympathetic to the general point. However, we have just increased the disregard to £2,500. We shall continue to keep the level under review, but I cannot give any further commitment at this stage.

Does the Secretary of State believe that it is right that terminally ill patients should be asked to surrender their life insurance policies, which are to provide for their dependants after their death, as a condition of receiving supplementary benefit?

When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the supplementary benefit policy inspectorate's report, he will realise that life assurance policies are covered by it. I should welcome the hon. Gentleman's views, and the views of other hon. Members, on that matter.

Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider the possibility of giving added weight to the age factor in the assessment? Is he aware that the present system tends to penalise the elderly, who belong to a generation for whom thrift has always been a characteristic and commendable virtue?

I shall consider that point. Again, I ask my hon. Friend to read the inspectorate's report, which, as an exceptional measure, we are making public and making available in the Library. The report shows that there is no evidence of significant personal hardship, but I shall consider all representations on the matter.

How does the Minister respond to the suggestion by the Child Poverty Action Group that there is no substantial national guideline laid down whereby the treatment of people in one part of Britain is the same as in another?

I have asked for a report on the case that the Child Poverty Action Group put before us. I await the outcome of that report.

In addition to the thrift argument, does my right hon. Friend agree that too rigid an application of the present capital regulation leads to a host of unpleasant circumstances in individual families?

We have made the change to a cut-off. The reintroduction of a tapered system would be a complicated and costly measure, and the inspectorate's report does not make a case for it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the capital limit for a single payment is only £300 and was not raised in the Budget? The report of the Social Security Advisory Committee recommends an increase. What do the Government propose to do about it?

I am conscious of that recommendation. We shall keep the matter under review.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the reinterpretation of regulation 7(2) of the condition of entitlement regulations.

As the hon. Member knows, the Government are reviewing the details of the 21-hour rule in the light of the chief supplementary benefits officer's recent guidance on the interpretation of this regulation. Our aim is to secure that the 21 hours covers classroom instruction only, subject to the introduction of additional safeguards to ensure that people who have withdrawn wholly from the employment field to pursue their studies are not entitled to benefit. The details are still under consideration, but I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

I welcome the first sentence of the Minister's answer. Everyone who has been concerned about the matter will be very grateful for that. In the meantime, before the instruction is changed, will the Minister ensure that no more local DHSS offices send inspectors round to check whether students are doing their homework? Does he accept that, as we have heard today about millions of pensioners not receiving their proper banefits, it is nothing short of a scandal that civil servants' time at local offices has been used in recent months for that purpose?

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I, too, have been glad to make this—admittedly not detailed—statement today. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, if he wishes to let me know of a case, he must do so, because we have not set in hand, nor have we any intention of setting in hand, the sort of investigations that he describes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is widely believed that the regulations count homework as work done at school? Will he take steps to correct that impression, even if it is not his Department that is responsible, but a commentator on radio who is not a spokesman for the Department? It is just as important.

I was especially concerned to say what I have today because there is uncertainty about the position arising from the new guidance issued by the chief supplementary benefits officer. As to the precise position on the rule, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I am in a little difficulty because an appeal case on the point is now before the Social Security Commissioners. We must await the outcome of that, apart from anything else, before deciding what to do.

Will the Minister ensure that all current claims are re-assessed by the DHSS and that not only is homework excluded from consideration, but travelling time?

I cannot insist on the re-assessment of claims that fall to be judged under the current guidance as to the interpretation of the rules. I am sure that the House will understand that it is not up to Ministers in this Department to overrule the advice of the independent adjudicating authorities. It is up to us to decide whether, if the meaning of the regulations turns out to be unsatisfactory, we should change those regulations. That is what we are considering at the moment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be much gratitude for the speed with which he has recognised the foolishness of the judgment on this matter? Will he ensure that, when he is drafting the new regulations, his officers in the various local offices encourage young people who have been genuinely unemployed for some time, but who could benefit immensely from either remedial or craft courses, to take those up, because there has been widespread disparity in the way that the rule has been operated by local DHSS offices?

We are keen to do nothing to inhibit unemployed youngsters from using their time usefully. I take my hon. Friend's point. I thank him and other hon. Members who have played an important part by making representations to us in the past few weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a statement about the level of the death grant.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement to the House on 30 March 1982.

Bearing in mind that the current maximum grant of £30 would pay for only about 10 per cent. of the costs of a simple funeral, is it any wonder that the Government's consultative document is seen as an absolute sell-out? Instead of introducing a means-tested grant and applying it to a much reduced number of people, why not have a general uprating of the grant to at least the original 1949 level, which would be about £200 in today's money—or is it now official Tory Government policy to increase the cost of dying as well as the cost of living?

If we were to increase the death grant to its 1949 value universally, to about £200 per death, it would cost us £115 million, and the resources are not available for that. If I had that sort of money, I would have better uses for it than to pay a large death grant to each family.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is essential to give benefits where they are needed and not where they are not needed?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. That is entirely the policy behind the consultative document.

When it was leaked that the Government were to introduce a substantial increase in the death grant and claw back such money from those who had means, the House generally welcomed the idea. What has gone wrong and why is it now so complicated?

I am not responsible for the leaks and I do not know their source, but they are obviously inaccurate.

May I remind the Minister of the reply that he gave me yesterday to a written question? I asked what would be the necessary increase in the national insurance contribution to raise the death grant to £200. His reply was that if the increase were borne totally by the employer it would cost the employee about 15p a week. Why has that not been included as one option available to the Government during the consultation process?

Clearly, the matter is on the table. We must await the results of the consultation document. However, we must be careful before we make any increases in national insurance contributions, because they are not popular.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future financing of the National Health Service.

In 1982–83 we shall be spending over £12 billion on the NHS, which, with savings through increased efficiency, is planned to provide growth of over 6 per cent. since 1978–79. The provisional plans for 1983–84 and 1984–85 were included in the expenditure White Paper published on 9 March.

Is the Minister aware that that is not an answer to the question on the Order Paper? Is he aware of a working party document that has been in his possession for months that deals with alternative ways of financing the National Health Service, including the principle of private individual insurance? Will he assure the House that, he will publish that document and, secondly, will he tell us now that he has abandoned all intentions of financing the Health Service by that means?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the reply that I gave was the exact reply to the question that he asked and shows the priority that the Government are giving to the National Health Service. With regard to alternative finance, the hon. Gentleman is right. A review has been set up. It is based on the premise that adequate standards of health care will be provided for all, regardless of means. That has not yet been considered by Ministers. I cannot make any statement.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain spends a smaller percentage of its gross national product on national health than most other countries in the West, but that at the same time this country is highly taxed and it would be wrong for any further sums to come from general taxation? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider encouraging all forms of private investment in the National Health Service so that provision can be improved from which everyone, whether rich or poor, can benefit?

The Government are committed to there being a private sector inside the National Health Service. That remains our commitment. The Government are also committed to making the National Health Service work at maximum efficiency. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the Government have provided the finances that have made employment available for 34,000 extra nurses and midwives and 2,000 extra doctors.

Will the Minister find a way of explaining to the regional health authorities how they are to find the money for the increases in pay that he is still supposed to be talking about with the staff side?

I have talked with regional health authorities on that matter. They need no instructions or advice from me.

As the Government have an excellent record in making more money available to the National Health Service in real terms, will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage the growing contribution from the independent sector, which is helping to relieve pressure on the National Health Service and making more money available for health care as a whole?

We are entirely committed to the private sector in health. It makes a substantial contribution to health care. We shall continue to stand by that commitment.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the new district health authorities to discuss their budgets.

A date has yet to be fixed for my first meeting with district health authority chairmen. As far as allocations to DHAs are concerned, this is primarily the task of regional health authorities.

Will the Minister bear in mind under-funded district health authorities such as Warrington, which is £3 million down, when the budgets are being prepared? If he finds that those authorities are under-funded, will he make available extra cash to them?

I accept that Warrington has been under-funded. I am glad to say that it has had the lion's share of growth in health service resources in that area over the last few years. Spending in Warrington has gone up by 9·6 per cent. over the last three years, whereas the Government have increased expenditure nationally by 3·5 per cent. in real terms. The new regional health authorities are planning to increase resources for Warrington by 2 per cent. each year as long as their planned growth is provided for.

In answer to question No. 4 my hon. and learned Friend announced welcome cuts in staffing costs and numbers. Will he ensure that new district health authorities continue to show substantial reductions in numbers of administrative staff?

The Mersey regional health authority and the Warrington district health authority will be given express targets for reductions in mangement costs. The money that they save in that way can be added to the growth money that we are proposing for the improvement of health care and facilities for patients.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect he expects the rise in optical charges to have on the numbers of people using the optical services.

On past experience, I would expect there to be a small initial drop in the number of sight tests and dispensings, followed by a resumption in the underlying upward trend.

Does the Minister accept that he is driving people away from a service that is concerned with optical health in relation to total health and towards a service that is related purely to market considerations?

No, Sir. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, even with the new charges, the contribution from charges will be less than one-third of the total costs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that he could do something to help in the matter of increased optical charges if he removed the present monopoly from the optical profession?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Office of Fair Trading is investigating certain commercial aspects of that matter. We hope to have its report by the end of the year, when we shall consider it.

When will the Government do something to publicise the circumstances in which people can claim exemption from optical charges?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, each year we publish a helpful leaflet. Already about 1·2 million people are either exempt from those charges or have partial rebates. We shall consider whether we can do something better.

Is the Minister satisfied that people are getting a fair deal in respect of optical services?

As someone who had a new pair of glasses two weeks ago on the National Health Service, yes.

asked the Prime Minister if any new proposals for additional investment funding have bee n made to Her Majesty's Government by British Leyland.

rose——

Resign.

The Government have not received from BL any proposals for funding in addition to those contained in the company's 1982 corporate plan. The Government announced their approval of that plan on 22 December 1981.

Ought not the Public Accounts Committee to have access to British Leyland's books.

I am grateful to the hon Gentleman for having had the courtesy to write to me in detail about his problem over the Bathgate plant and for indicating to me the nature of the supplementary question that he might ask. The Government's view is this. The PAC has access to all those papers to which Government Deparments have access and for which Ministers are responsible to Parliament. It is our present view that if the PAC were able to call for all papers in respect of public enterprises in regard to commercial contracts or commercial details, that would make it difficult to make those commercial decisions. It would also be extremely difficult to get anyone to run those undertakings.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that successive Governments have insisted that British Leyland must generate internal funding to match that which it asks taxpayers to provide? Does she agree that if it fails to do so, that sum cannot be made up out of the taxpayers' pocket instead?

It is certainly true that eventually British Leyland is expected to have enough money from internal sources both for working capital and for expenditure on new capital requirements. At the moment the Government have provided £970 million of taxpayers' money to British Leyland.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that before any further tranches of taxpayers' money go to British Leyland, it should raise what money it can by selling any parts of the group that people are prepared to buy?

There is a view that the company should continue some of its policy of selling assets in order to provide capital from internal sources.

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the progress of Her Majesty's Government's arrangements for the visit to the United Kingdom of President Reagan.

President Reagan is to be the guest of Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor Castle. As was announced on 25 March, he is to be invited to address Members of both Houses of Parliament in the Royal Gallery. The programme is still under discussion and further details will be announced when it has been approved.

Does the Prime Minister accept that her attempt to use the visit of President Reagan to chore up her failing position is widely regarded as an abuse of the House? Has she noted that even President Reagan has called for a peaceful solution to the Falkland Islands crisis, without bloodshed? Does she not accept that, as she is responsible in the final analysis for the conduct of her Government, she should consider an early resignation and allow someone else to meet President Reagan on his visit?

We shall welcome President Reagan as the President of our senior NATO ally, the most powerful defender of liberty in the West and throughout the world. I understand that President Reagan, like most of us, would wish a peaceful solution to the crisis in the Falkland Islands. We shall be happy if anyone is able to secure the withdrawal of the Argentinines from the Falkland Islands, the restoration of British sovereignty and the respecting of the wishes of the people to live under British sovereignty without a drop of blood being shed. If anyone can do that, we shall warmly welcome his cooperation. With regard to resignation—no. Now is the time for strength and resolution.

Whole warmly welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, the personal charge that she is taking over these affairs and all that President Reagan can do to help bring about restoration of British sovereignty in the Falkland Islands, may I ask whether she—and all of us—should not keep in mind in this difficult matter the prayer by Sir Francis Drake that she and many of us heard yesterday in Westminster Abbey?

I think that the prayer to which my hon. Friend must be referring is:

"There must be a beginning of any matter, but the continuing unto the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory."

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 April.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Does my right hon. Friend accept, with regard to her action over the Falkland Islands issue, that she has the overwhelming support of the House and the nation? Can she confirm that our mission is to destroy the Argentine invasion fleet? If my right hon. Friend cannot confirm that, will she say whether she believes it either possible or desirable in the long term security interests of the Falkland Islands, and to protect the exposed southern flank of NATO, that a NATO base should be established in the Falkland Islands?

Our mission is to restore British sovereignty to the islands and to give the people what they want—the right to live under British rule and to owe allegiance to the British Crown. That is our task. I do not think that the idea of a NATO base in the Falkland Islands would be well received, because the islands are far out of the NATO area.

Has the right hon. Lady been able to study this morning the reports in many newspapers, such as The Daily Telegraph and The Times, that the information about the attack was known in London 10 days before the invasion? Is the right hon. Lady aware that this is claimed to be on unimpeachable sources and that, if that was true, it would have been possible for action of interception to have been taken? Will the right hon. Lady say whether that information is correct and, if it was received, what action was taken by the Government?

There are two points that need to be made. I told the House on Saturday that even if action had been taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Will the House let me answer the question in my own way, giving information that I am certain is accurate, as I try to do and try to check these matters?

Will the right hon, Lady now answer the immediate point that I put to her? Questions of British intelligence are concerned in these matters and the House has the right to judge whether British intelligence was operating properly and if so what action was taken. Can the right hon. Lady now tell us whether the information stated in these reports was received? Whenever she may have been informed, surely she has had the chance to look at such accusations today and can tell the House and the country whether such information as this was received at the time stated.

I have tried to help the right hon. Gentleman. I think that, if he looks at the report on the front page of The Times he will find that it says that there were ships in the area but their intent was not known. [Hon. Members:"Oh".] That is what I understand The Times to say. We knew there were problems and of course we were dealing with them on South Georgia. The precise time that we had information that it was an invasion fleet and that it was on its way was Wednesday evening. We took action then. [Interruption.] I am trying to give the right hon. Gentleman accurate information. Previously, because of the situation in South Georgia, we had also made certain other dispositions.

If the right hon. Lady cannot give us and the country an accurate answer on the matter now, will she study the matter further and make another statement to the House tomorrow, as many of her Ministers have had to do before?

Come clean.

I have given the accurate information—[Interruption.]—that I myself know and the action that I myself took at the time when I received it.

Is not my right hon. Friend encouraged by the support that the country has received at the United Nations and throughout the free world for the stand that her Government have taken on the Falkland Islands?

Yes. There was a forceful resolution moved at the United Nations Security Council calling upon the Argentines to withdraw and we received support in the vote that was passed from the United States, France, Ireland, Japan, Zaire, Togo, Uganda, Guyana and Jordan. Those were the countries that voted for us. The Soviet Union, China, Poland and Spain abstained and Panama voted against.

Did the Prime Minister hear the interview at the weekend with the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) before he resigned as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office? In that he said quite clearly—and I heard the interview—that the Government had no warning of any attack or threat to the Falkland Islands until about a fortnight ago. A fortnight is a great difference from 48 hours or 24 hours. Will the right hon. Lady try to clear this matter up?

As I have been trying to indicate, there were problems, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, on South Georgia. The problems there were that if HMS "Endurance" proceeded to take off the 10 Argentines who had landed at Leith and who refused to leave although they did not have proper immigration papers—[Interruption.] We were in touch with Buenos Aires and we said that the men must go or get the proper clearance to be on our territory. We knew that there was a threat that if we took them off by force HMS "Endurance" might well have been stopped, and that there were ships about that could do the stopping.

As the United Nations Security Council resolution on the Falkland Islands is mandatory and the Argentine Government have not complied with it, will my right hon. Friend consider tabling a further resolution enforcing economic sanctions against the Argentine Government?

I think that if we were to table a further resolution about economic sanctions we should not have quite such a successful conclusion as we had to the resolution that we have already tabled.

Will the Prime Minister consider the consequences of the Government's mishandling of the Falklands crisis for quite a number of my constituents? Is she aware that 50 per cent. of the trade with Argentina goes through Liverpool docks, and that that trade is likely to stop as a result of military action or sanctions., which I would support? If that trade is stopped, will the right hon. Lady make sure that Merseyside docks, which are already in a state of crisis, receive Government assistance to compensate, so that unemployment does not increase as a result of the mishandling of the Falklands crisis by this Government?

The extent of our exports to Argentina is, and has been, comparatively small in relation to our total exports. Therefore, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he seeks. However, I can tell him, as a matter of information, that we have decided to impose an embargo on the imports of all goods from Argentina from midnight tonight.

rose——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the exceptional circumstances of a national crisis, as this undoubtedly is, may I ask you to give careful consideration to extending Prime Ministers Question Time, because it is the only way that hon. Members have——

Order. I do not decide the length of Prime Minister's Question Time.