asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to conclude his consultations in respect of the future of community health councils.

We have not commenced any such consultations, but we shall be considering the case for retaining community health councils in the longer term.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a good case for retaining community health councils where they are low cost, local and their object is to look after consumer interests? Is my hon. Friend aware of the general view that the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales is nothing more than a great sneeze? Thirdly,—

Order. This is the first question. It is a bad way to begin.

As you have applied the handkerchief, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal only with the first of my hon. Friend's questions. We deliberately decided not to take that view at present. The new locally based district CHCs are settling in. We want to give them time to see what their experience is with the new districts before we look at them further.

Will the Minister consider with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the provision of facilities for a CHC for the 100,000 dependants of soldiers serving in the British Army of the Rhine, who are currently unrepresented as to their needs or desires?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be made aware of what has been said, but I shall pass that suggestion to him.

The Minister said that he would allow adequate time for the CHCs to work with the new district authorities. Does "adequate time" mean one, two or three years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in areas such as Stockport chiropody and physiotherapy posts are left unfilled, and that there is a need for the CHC to argue the consumer's case?

Before I came to this place I knew the meaning of "shortly", "soon" and "at an early stage". All I can say, after some years, is that we have said that we shall look at it "in the future".

Has the Minister seen the statement by the new chairman of the Association of Community Health Councils, that, in his opinion, the Government intend to erode the powers of CHCs? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that that is not the Government's intention? Does the Minister have any doubts that CHCs are an essential part of the National Health Service?

I have seen the statement. Like many other statements, if it is looked at in context it will be realised that it refers to legislation. Had the Government taken such a decision, they would have announced it. We have firmly said that we shall look at the matter in due course. I stick to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider the allocation of non-recurrent earmarked grants to district health authorities to deal with arrears of building maintenance and renovation.

No, Sir. Health authorities are responsible for carrying out their own maintenance programmes from within the resources allocated to them. As local needs vary greatly from district to district, it is sensible for individual health authorities to determine their own priorities.

By setting cash limits that do not accord with the rate of inflation, have not the Government put district health authorities under such severe pressure that they cannot keep up with the necessary repairs and maintenance? Would not an ad hoc grant here and there greatly help?

The allocation of moneys to the National Health Service generally has gone ahead of inflation. A considerable amount of growth money has been allocated to the Trent region, of which the hon. Gentleman's constituency is a part. Within that money it is for local authorities to determine their priorities. I am sure that they will give to building maintenance the priority that it justifies.

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

Between 1978–79 and last year we provided for 5 per cent. growth in NHS services. This year we shall be spending over £12 billion, which represents a further planned increase in real terms, although we are again asking authorities to make a contribution towards service growth through increased efficiency.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Would he care to comment on the report on the front page of The Guardian today that suggests that he is scrapping a circular to health authorities on the privatisation of hospital services?

The report's author is set fair to become one of our leading imaginative writers. We remain committed to more contracting out where that saves the NHS money. That is not a doctrinaire policy; it is common sense.

As even the Minister's wholly inadequate pay offer will take 34 per cent. of the finance away from the RHAs, how does he reconcile the figure that he gave with his pledge that new money will go into the Health Service? Is he not cutting the finance available?

Typically, the hon. Lady has it wrong. The amount of new money going into the Health Service will be reduced, but that is the inevitable consequence of the pay offer, for which she is doing nothing to secure a settlement.

In the sensible and generous funding of the National Health Service, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has set his face against the expensive use of the insurance principle, in view of evidence from the Continent that that would make the service more expensive and less good value?

My first aim is a partnership between the private and public sectors.

As an increase of nearly 1 per cent. a year is required to cope with the ageing population and to keep pace with modern developments, is not the proposal for the next two or three years of a 0·5 per cent. increase a cut in NHS revenue?

We have gone over this matter in the Select Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the figure is subject to review. The 0·5 per cent. planned increase, which comes from increased efficiency, is reasonable and is accepted by the regional chairmen.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the value of grants from his Department for research into tinnitus.

The Department is currently funding an exploratory project into psychological aspects of adjustment to subjective tinnitus and the effectiveness of tailored masking at a cost of about £40,000 over a three-year period.

Does my hon. Friend believe that enough money is being spent on research into this distressing condition?

I agree that it is a distressing condition. One problem is that we are not receiving sufficient suggestions for research. If anyone has a suggestion, we shall see that it is carefully considered for grant purposes.

Is the Minister aware that tinnitus is terrifying for many sufferers?

My hon. Friend should declare his interest.

I declare my interest. Is not £40,000 for research over three years derisory compared with the size of the task? Should not the importance attached to and the funding of the research be greatly increased?

As I said, one problem is that few projects for research come forward. I shall gladly listen to any ideas that the hon. Gentleman might have and put them to my experts.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects the review of the household duties test for housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension to be completed.

The review is almost ready, but I cannot at present give a date for its completion.

Why has the review taken so long, thereby creating frustration for tens of thousands of disabled housewives? Is the Minister aware that the Labour Government made plans to finance an improve-ment and that the National Insurance Advisory Committee put forward proposals over two years' ago?

It does not lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to quote the previous Government's record. They were forced to include married women in non-contributory invalidity pensions. It then took two years before they brought forward regulations to include them, which included the household duties test. They found that the test was being interpreted too widely, and, in four days in the parliamentary recess, they tabled regulations tightening up the test. Their record is disgraceful. The right hon. Gentleman, from his own unhappy experience—he was in charge for part of the time—knows that it is a complex matter.

Will my hon. Friend put in the Library a list of the questions to which he needs answers to formulate the review so that, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, hon. Members who are interested can write to him with such advice as may be within their power and observation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. We intend to publish the results of the review and then to invite consultation.

Is the Minister aware that the household duties test is not only offensive, as it discriminates against married women, but is the most unfair way of deciding a social security benefit, as each applicant has a different disability, every household is different and the equipment is different? Is it not time to abolish the test, especially as so many people are suffering from the results?

I am aware of the many complaints about the test. We are not responsible for it being there. We are trying to grapple with the problem. To abolish the test completely would mean an additional net public expenditure of about £250 million.

Is it not at the very least disquieting that a report presented to the Government in July 1980 still has not been acted upon? Is the Minister aware that present Ministers, when in Opposition, argued as long ago as 1979 that the issue was straightforward and urgent? When will a decision be announced and will there be action in the next Session on the National Insurance Advisory Committee's report?

The 1980 report asked the Government to carry out a review and to examine the position in other countries. We have been doing both those things. It has taken so long because of the nature of the inquiries and the complexity of the matter. As I said, the review is nearly complete and we hope to make an announcement in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the proportion of new money that is being made available to the regional health authorities to enable them to meet the current pay offer to National Health Service staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the pay offer has had on the finances available to health authorities for capital works.

As my hon. and learned Friend indicated on 8 July, health authorities in England will be required to meet £32·2 million or 43 per cent. of the cost of the latest offers from within existing revenue allocations. With the additional money made available in March, the Government have provided a total of £161 million extra for pay, of which health authorities will meet £58 million or 36 per cent. The capital cash limits of regional health authorities will not be revised as a result of the pay offers, but authorities may need to review both their capital and revenue spending plans in order to meet their contribution to the costs of these pay offers, and authorities are able, within agreed limits, to switch funds from capital to revenue and vice versa.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the true cost is probably £59 million and that that will have a disastrous effect on patient care? If and when he gets down to meaningful negotiations on the pay claim, instead of political smears, so that patients do not suffer, will he ensure that it is funded from national resources, not from regional health authority budgets?

I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's comments. The Government are spending more on the National Health Service in real terms than any Government have done in the history of the NHS. On meaningful talks over pay, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have moved not once but twice, while the unions have remained inflexible on a completely unrealistic demand.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not sensible to take resources from capital projects to defray increased salaries? Will he reconsider the position whereby regional health authorities are allowed to use funds in this way? Will he confirm, in particular, that the start on the long-delayed district general hospital in my constituency will not be further delayed as a result of these wage negotiations?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. These are some of the problems that we have sought to set before the public over the past two months.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the North-West Thames region the present growth is 0·03 per cent., and that, when the share of the £34 million extra wage costs goes to that region, there will be a decline, in real terms, in the money that is available? Will he have another look at the idea of switching from one budget head to another? As the year is already one-third of the way through, it will be impossible for district health authorities to do that. How, therefore, will he cope with the overspending which is inevitable in the North-West Thames region?

The hon. Gentleman's premise depends upon how the share is worked out. I hope to make an announcement on the matter during the next few days. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that his fears are not proved.

If some of the hospital staff on the medical side work normally in the first half of next week, will the Secretary of State, together with the regional health authority chairmen, look more favourably at the reallocation of any possible capital funds to those areas in future?

At the moment, most people, including all medical staff, most nurses and many other staff in the Health Service, are working normally, and I pay tribute to their work. They are keeping the Health Service going in the most difficult circumstances. I have nothing further to add on capital resources.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House plainly why ACAS has decided that it has no role to play in talking to the Health Service unions? Is it because the Secretary of State refuses to put any new money on the table and that he is really talking about a direct cut in patient care?

The Government have already put substantial new money on the table. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but the fact is that the Government have moved twice on this matter. The Health Service unions have remained inflexible throughout. They remain committed to an unrealistic claim of 12 per cent., which in fact means 20 per cent.

When did the Secretary of State last speak to the Health Service unions? Is it not true that so far all the talks have been conducted by civil servants who have had a tight brief and have therefore not been able to do the job properly?

The hon. Lady should start to read the newspapers. I spoke to the Health Service unions over two days of meetings about two weeks ago. I have told the unions—and the hon. Lady should take this on board—that if they want to come and talk to me about new arrangements for pay, my door is open and the talks can start immediately. If the hon. Lady is asking for more money, the answer is "No".

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to give his response to the report from the Social Services Committee entitled "University Grants Committee Cuts and Medical Services".

We are urgently considering the recommendations that the Committee made in its report. We hope to lay our response before the House shortly.

Assuming that the Minister has read the report by now, is he aware that the cut in the University Grants Committee resources to medical schools and universities is causing considerable anxiety in the medical schools? About 300 academic posts are frozen, affecting not only teaching but the research and patient care that academic staff carry out in National Health Service hospitals. Will he be able to find the £10 million that is required by the end of 1983–84 to put the matter right?

I have, of course, read the Select Committee's report. With respect, the Committee has drawn some dramatic conclusions from some of the evidence that it received. My inquiries reveal—and we have had a survey—that so far 35 hospital posts with a substantial clinical content have been withdrawn, and that, of those, six have been taken over by the National Health Service. Those figures should be seen against a total of 35,000 hospital doctors throughout the country and an increase of more than 1,500 hospital doctors during the Government's period of office.

Is it not regrettable that the Government imposed cuts on the universities in the first place, and deplorable that those cuts should find their way through to the Health Service? Is it not unfortunate that they will have an impact on the specialist shortages, particularly for the elderly, psycho geriatrics, and so on? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government should now reverse their policy of cutting money for universities and make good the necessary money both for the Health Service and education services in general?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has explained that university spending cannot be exempt from the restraints to which all public spending is subject. Medical education is the most expensive form of higher education, and in the past it has been exempted from all cuts. This time it has not been singled out for special treatment; it is having to bear its share. However, we are concerned about the possible risk that might arise in the shortage specialty services. We have already drawn the matter to the attention of the University Grants Committee and the universities so that they can draw up their own priorities and decide where to make economies.

I agree with much of what my hon. and learned Friend said on this matter. However, does he agree that he should make an early response, because there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the extent of the cuts? Cuts there undoubtedly are, and cuts were expected. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will make the matter plain as soon as possible for the reasons that I have given.

I accept my hon. and learned Friend's advice that it would be as well to make an early response, because it is important to get the impact on the Health Service into perspective. For the reasons that I have given, I think that the impact on patient care is comparatively slight.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest estimate of the numbers caring full-time for elderly and handicapped people in their homes; and how many of these carers are married or cohabiting women.

There is insufficient information available on which to base a reliable estimate.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that carers are saving the country millions of pounds, often at great financial cost and personal sacrifice? Is it not time that his Department turned praise for carers into hard cash? Will he now extend the invalidity care allowance to married and cohabiting women?

I accept that we all owe a debt of gratitude to these people. We should like to extend invalidity care allowance as and when resources are available, but to carry out such an extension would, according to the last estimate—it was pretty rough and ready and was made two years ago—cost about £100 million gross. We think that that is probably an underestimate. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a problem in moving as fast as we should like.

Is not the purpose of the invalidity care allowance to compensate those who cannot work, while relieving the State of burdens? If so, while accepting the financial constraints, may I ask whether there is any reason why it should not be extended to people regardless of sex, whether they be cohabiting women or not, who relieve the State of the same burdens?

I accept that there is strong argument for moving in that direction. However, like all Ministers in the Department, I have the problem of where to find the resources.

The Minister was a member of the Committee that passed the ICA and HNCIP in the hope that the weak in our society would be cared for. That applies to women and men equally. Why do we have we got the household duties test?

The hon. Gentleman is surely referring to the HNCIP in mentioning the household duties test, whereas the main thrust of questions has rightly been concerned with the invalid care allowance. That was formerly confined to relatives. We have now extended it to non-relatives. We should like to extend it further, but we are not able to do so at this precise moment.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny that, in an attempt to buy off the revolt in the House later this afternoon, he said that the refusal to make good the 5 per cent. shortfall would be diverted to that end? Does he regard that, as I do, as wholly unacceptable both to the unemployed and to those who are caring for sick relatives?

I have not said that, nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to whom the hon. Gentleman may be referring. No one can make decisions about social security matters on any one front without recognising that there must be decisions on priorities. Money that is spent in one area literally cannot be spent in another.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make an estimate of the current cost benefit to the Health Service of the existence of private practice.

In 1981–82, income for the National Health Service from private patients treated in NHS hospitals in England was about £52 ½ million. Substantially more than that is spent on health care within the independent sector. The main benefit of private health care is that it adds to the total resources available and offers patients a wider range of choice.

Does the Minister agree that the increasing complexity and cost of hospital treatment, and the substantial increase in percentage of elderly people in the population, make it difficult for any Government to find the resources to maintain a universal free service? In those circumstances, will the Minister do all in his power to encourage organisations such as BUPA, so that resources can be directed into the Health Service and existing strains upon it reduced?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. We must achieve a partnership between the provision of private health care and the National Health Service. That is the aim of Government policy and could lead to good results for the public.

Will the Minister set against that £52·5 million the costs arising from private patients? Can he quantify the cost of the use by consultants of National Health Service facilities for private purposes? Can he also quantify the cost of the training, using National Health Service facilities, of the people who enter the private sector, which provides no training whatever?

The contributions are made by the private health service direct to the regions involved. To repeat what I said earlier, in addition to our private health policy we are increasing our pro vision to the public Health Service.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who make use of private health facilities in Britain have already contributed through the Exchequer to any share of health services that they enjoy?

That is right. I believe that it is the overwhelming view of hon. Members that the public should have a right to pay insurance for their health care.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question? If he is claiming a revenue of £52½million for the National Health Service, what is the cost of providing those services?

There is no neat answer to that. [Interruption.] There are costs involved. Money goes direct to the regions and is in addition to the regional funds.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is taking further action to ensure full enforcement of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will be taking any action in the light of the seminar held on 20 May by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation on the results of the project to achieve full enforcement of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

The implementation of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is a matter for the local authority in any particular case, but if I am provided with evidence that a local authority may not be performing its statutory duty I am ready to make inquiries about the position, as I have done in several cases, with gratifying results. No report of the RADAR seminar has been received by my Department and I am not aware of any firm conclusions reached.

Has the Minister seen the reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of 8 June, which said that hospitalisation in Britain is costing about £26,000 per year per person? The disabled persons' entitlement under the 1970 Act does not remotely approach that figure. Therefore, is it not in the interests of Britain, and certainly in the interests of the disabled, that the Minister should ensure that the full benefits of the 1970 Act are applied? Is it not inhumane that he has not done so?

As I have already said, whenever cases of breach of statutory duty are brought to my attention they are fully investigated. There have been several such cases investigated with gratifying results. Of course, rehabilita-tion rather than perpetual residence in hospital, and trying to move the mentally handicapped out of institutions, are desirable objectives which we are attempting continually to achieve.

Will the Minister explain why his Department was not represented at the conference held by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation on 20 May? Does he not think that that absence was scandalous and that it highlights the Government's complete indifference?

As far as I am aware, no invitation was received to attend the seminar. We received the report that preceded the seminar and that was debated in an Adjournment debate in the House on 26 April, when I gave the Government's reactions to it.

I congratulate the Minister on the excellent work that he has done for the disabled. Would he be good enough to draw the attention of those local authorities which are not carrying out their duties effectively to the excellent work done by other local authorities and thus, by precept, give them an incentive to improve their work?

I believe that local authorities are aware of what is and what is not being done. The matter must be considered in the light of the report to which I have just referred. Tens of thousands of people are helped under the Act every year by local authorities. RADAR identified about 1,000 cases of those tens of thousands which it felt required investigation, and of those 1,000, 13 were referred to my Department for investigation.

Is not the truth of the matter that the Government have deprived local authorities of sufficient money to carry out the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to the extent that they would like? Does he recall the recent answer to the parliamentary question which showed that the number of telephones going to old and disabled people under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act had dropped from 16,000 to 8,000 since the Government came into power? If the Government want to do something about it they should give authorities the money.

Since the Government came into office there has been growth in real terms in expenditure on personal social services.

Will the Minister make a statement to the House about the leak in The Guardian last Thursday on the report of the expenditure steering group for personal social services to the effect that local authorities now face a cut of a further 28,000 jobs in their social services departments? How can the Minister possibly justify depriving 70,000 elderly and disabled people of their home helps? May the House now have a full statement instead of newspaper leaks?

It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not see the rejoinder the next day by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who made it plain that the report was totally inaccurate.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that the number of home helps available is adequate to meet the future needs of long-term sick and disabled people.

Responsibility for ensuring that the number of home helps available is adequate to meet the needs of a particular area rests with the local social services committee.

Does the Minister accept that cuts in the rate support grant make it impossible for the great bulk of local authorities to comply with the Government's guidelines for home help provision? Is it not deplorable and hypocritical that the Government set down fictitious guidelines and deliberately go out of their way to make sure that local authorities cannot comply with them?

The hon. Gentleman's question enables me to underline the gap between hypothetical guesses based on the sort of reports that have been referred to and what is happening on the ground. It is not true that there has been a reduction in home help services. There has been a steady increase in the services under this Government and latest figures show that there is still a steady increase in the number of hours of home help provided.

In considering any changes in the structure of social service workers, will my hon. and learned Friend have regard to the pre-Seebohm system, under which visitors gave the sick and disabled specialist advice, rather than a general provision of services, as is given by social service workers at present? Will my hon. and learned Friend consider returning to the system under which health visitors and home helps give that specialist advice?

I can see difficulties in trying to go back to the pre-Seebohm organisation, but these matters need review from time to time and I will look at my hon. Friend's ideas.

Can the Minister explain why, as he announced earlier this year, the Government have ceased to collect home help statistics?

Because the Government collect far too many useless statistics on one thing and another.

Useless?

In this case, perfectly adequate figures are collected by CIPFA. They show that the number of hours of home help provided is increasing. I am not guessing; I am merely not collecting two sets of figures to prove the same good news.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to expedite the provision of a community hospital in the new town of Peterlee.

This is a matter for the Northern regional health authority to decide in the light of local priorities and available resources.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a great deal of talk but no action on this matter for several years? Is he further aware that the excellent site for the hospital which has been reserved by Peterlee new town development corporation may not be kept for much longer? As the overwhelming case for the hospital was accepted a long time ago, will the Minister stop giving bland answers and exert his power on the Durham health authority and the regional health authority to get an early priority for the hospital so that building can start soon?

I hope that my answer was not too bland. The regional health authority has to do the difficult job of deciding its priorities in the region, within the available resources. It has to decide how early in the queue it can put the Peterlee community hospital, which, I accept, everyone has been planning on for some years. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman's constituency is being served, because the second phase of the Hartlepool district general hospital, which serves his constituents, will be completed next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has given further consideration to the issuing of a discussion document on the establishment of a disablement cost allowance.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue such a discussion document at present.

Why did the Government in 1979 give massive tax handouts to the wealthiest 5 per cent. of the population while immediately breaking up the DHSS team that had been working on the establishment of the new benefit with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? Is the Minister aware of the growing anger of the disabled and their organisations throughout the country at the indolence of the Government and the cynical neglect of the needs of the disabled?

The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The previous Administration made no public statement that they intended to issue a Green Paper on provision for the disabled, as has been hinted from time to time. In addition, no financial provision for further assistance to the disabled had been made in the public expenditure White Paper that this Government inherited.

I thought that the Government were committed to the principle of a cost allowance. If the Minister is not prepared to give us even a discussion document, will he tell us when the allowance will appear?

We have made it clear that our first priority is to strengthen the economy. I regret that until that has been achieved no progress can be made towards our objective of a coherent system of benefits for disabled people, which will cost thousands of millions of pounds. Despite the restraints on public expenditure, we have made limited improvements in benefits, notably in the mobility allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the Health Service workers' dispute.

Since my statement to the House on 23 June announcing the Government's final decisions on the resources available for this year's pay round, detailed offers have been made by the management sides of several Whitley councils, including the nurses and midwives and the ancillary staffs council. On average the offers range between 6 and 7·5 per cent. and are in line with what several million people in both the public and private sectors have already accepted. The Health Service unions should now return to the negotiating table. There can be no justification for the industrial action, which is damaging the Health Service and harming patients.

What reply has the right hon. Gentleman sent to the doctors in the Medical Practitioners Union who fully support the 12 per cent. claim and state that any risk to patients as a result of next week's three-day strike will clearly be the fault of the Secretary of State? In view of the billions of pounds of military expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government place more emphasis on the manufacture of weapons of death than on ensuring a decent living wage for people who are concerned with the saving of life?

The organisation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned does not represent the great body of the medical profession. The hon. Gentleman would do himself, his party and the country much more good if he would condemn industrial action in the NHS, which harms patients.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am presiding at a dinner for the Prime Minister of Singapore.

Amid the dying embers of the Falklands euphoria, will the Prime Minister spare a moment to look around at the real state of Britain today under her Administration? Two major industries are disrupted and there are rumblings in several others. Between 3 million and 4 million people are unemployed. Is the Prime Minister aware that production is stagnant and that investment is largely going overseas? Is it not time that the Government introduced some bridge building to try to bring all sections of the community together? Does she agree that the best means of doing that would be to put people back to work?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned two industries that are on strike. I hope that he will condemn those strikes, so that the train drivers will go back and the railways may become modern and efficient, which they can do only if British Rail's proposals are accepted. Secondly, I hope that the Opposition will condemn the strike in the NHS, because it is causing harm to patients, who are suffering.

While I appreciate the independent mind that Assistant Commissioner Dellow will bring to the inquiry that he has been asked to undertake into the grave state of Buckingham Palace security, will my right hon. Friend consider the establishment of a long-term inquiry by a few people, comprising a detective, a representative of the Army and perhaps a representative of the police, to take a deep and long look into the security of the Palace, the person of the Queen and other Royal establishments and personages?

I hope that we shall receive the Dellow report next week and that it will give a thorough review of the security matters surrounding the Queen and other members of the Royal Family. There are clearly at least two major points to be inquired into: first, whether the systems themselves were adequate for protection; and, secondly, whether those systems were properly operated by the people at the time. I hope and believe that the inquiry will be very thorough. When we have received the report we shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's proposal.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what advice the Secretary of State for Transport gave to the chairman of British Rail at their meeting yesterday?

It is not customary to publicise any advice which may or may not have been given. May I make it perfectly clear that we stand behind the British Railways Board in its efforts to achieve a modern and efficient railway service.

With regard to the question that my right hon. Friend has just answered, has she noted that the Leader of the Opposition has yet again put the interests of a small, Luddite union in front of the interests of commuters and the national interest? Is she aware that there is one thing, and one thing only, that commuters in particular will never forgive, and that is a return to peace on the railways without real productivity gains?

Yes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Other industries in this country, including nationalised industries, have made strenuous efforts to increase productivity, even though it has meant a number of redundancies, realising that we must live in this decade if we are to raise sufficient income for all our people. I noted the Leader of the Opposition's support for ASLEF. Indeed, he seems to have become the strikers' friend.

I am a friend of a peaceful settlement in the railway industry, as in others. With regard to the railway strike, which has great dangers for the railway industry and the community at large, will the right hon. Lady or one of her Ministers at last make an effort to try to achieve a settlement? Has she had a chance to compare the proposals that were made by the British Railways Board on 25 June with the proposals that were available and were ready to be accepted by ASLEF on 3 July? Having looked at them, does she not agree that those proposals are very close and that therefore if only the Government would make an effort, a settlement could be reached? When will the Government do their duty in that respect?

No. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We want a settlement on terms and conditions that will produce a modern, efficient railway. Nothing less will do for Britain, nor for those many commuters and workers who rely on the services that the railway can provide. I disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that offer. It is an offer to call yet another conference. That is not sufficient.

The right hon. Lady has apparently been misinformed on this most important subject. If she is in favour of achieving a settlement on reasonable terms, does she not agree that reasonable terms were offered by the British Railways Board on 25 June, that it was a pity they were not accepted then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, a pity that they were not accepted then; but when they were accepted 10 days later, surely the Government and the Railways Board should now be prepared to stand by the offer that they originally made? Surely that is the way to achieve peace. I urge the right hon. Lady once again not merely to stand on what she said but to get one of her Ministers occupied on the business of achieving a genuine settlement of the dispute.

I do want a genuine settlement. I believe that that is what the British Railways Board wants and is going for. I am more in agreement with Mr. Sidney Weighell than with the right hon. Gentleman, when Mr. Weighell said:

"No amount of smokescreens can hide the fact that the train drivers have refused to accept a decision on flexible rostering, which my union is operating. This is a narrow, stupid, sectional dispute and it is causing untold damage to the railways."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be interesting to know whether the Leader of the Opposition first consulted Mr. Sidney Weighell before he plumped in support of ASLEF?

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Mr. Sidney Weighell on another occasion, when referring to the leader of the Labour Party, said that what he had been saying was what he expected the leader of the Labour Party to say.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that what I plumped for was the settlement proposed by Mr. Len Murray, which her Government and the British Railways Board are now apparently rejecting? I urge the right hon. Lady once again to examine the proposals for a settlement, which are still available, and which are the basis on which a real solution could be secured?

No, they are not. The right hon. Gentleman has become, and remains, the strikers' friend.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that, because of strike action and picketing by NUPE members at St. Thomas's hospital, six wards, including a children's ward, have had to be closed and the number of operations per day has been reduced from 120 to 30? Does my right hon. Friend really believe the unions claim that their action is not affecting the sick?

I understand that the facts given by my hon. Friend are correct, that about 1,000 operations have been postponed. That means that the unions are damaging patient care.

You are!

I do not believe that that is what trade unionism stands for. What has been offered is a final offer. It is the percentage that has been accepted by the Armed Forces, the Civil Service, the doctors and the teachers and should now be accepted by the National Health Service workers.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency—

The Prime Minister is the workers' enemy.

I hope that my hon. Friend will let me have a go. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Goodyear tyre plant in my constituency, which is the largest employer, has recently declared further massive redundancies of about 560 workers? Is she further aware that that is in a town where there is 17 per cent. unemployment, and in a country where there are more than 3 million unemployed, a million of whom have been out of work for more than a year? What does the Prime Minister intend to do to restore the prosperity of the West Midlands region, which was one of the most prosperous regions in the country before her Government came to office?

We shall restore the prosperity of the West Midlands and every other region only if our companies and their work forces are competitive in the goods that they produce. There is no other way. Only by that means shall we be able to get a larger share of world trade. The hon. Lady will perhaps have noted that the number of imports, particularly in semi-manufactures, rose last month, which means that we are still not yet competitive and have a long way to go.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition is not merely the strikers' friend, but, in addition, by his support of ASLEF, is putting at risk the jobs of thousands?

Yes. I believe that that is precisely what is happening, particularly in some of the heavy and chemical industries, which rely on the railways for moving their products.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that during the last 12 months, 349,000 homes in the United Kingdom were broken into, and that in my area of Liverpool, one home is broken into every 20 minutes? Will the right hon. Lady explain what action she intends to take to increase the paltry sum of £23,000 made available to the national victims' support scheme each year? Will she also agree to provide intruder alarms for all people of pensionable age?

I cannot agree to provide intruder alarms for everyone. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have done everything possible to bring the police forces up to establishment, to pay them exactly what the Edmund-Davies committee stated and to see that they are properly equipped. We also rely on the standards of ordinary citizens to see that crime is prevented by doing as much as they can to keep the police informed and to help them and support them in their difficult duty.