asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that staffing levels in offices dealing with social security benefits are adequate.

I am satisfied that the national staffing provision matches the national work load though I naturally cannot say that every one of more than 500 local offices has its correct share of those staff at all times.

As there has been a great increase in the work load in these offices, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for increasing the number of staff to ensure that payments to those in need are made efficiently and speedily?

There is always a seasonal increase in the work load. This year there has been an increase in the amount of supplementary benefit work required, especially in inner cities, but that is being offset by reductions in work on the contributory benefit side, especially in the number of claims for sickness benefit, which has fallen dramatically. There is a system for deciding the staffing levels in local offices—a system agreed with the trade unions—which aims to match staffing requirements with work loads. There is no hard evidence to show that the system is not working well.

Will the Minister give the House some information about the raids which occurred in Oxford? Will he confirm that the costs to the Department and to public funds were more than £100,000, but that nothing like that amount was saved as a result of the raids? Does the Minister agree that the real problem at Oxford was lack of staff to supervise the system in the first place, and that, if an adequate number of staff had been employed, there would have been no need for those well publicised raids and the great injustice that resulted from them?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. There is evidence that deliberate fraud was being exercised which is not easily detected by normal processes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the talks on a new structure for the pay of nurses and ancillary staff in the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in the light of the dispute within the National Health Service over pay, he is yet able to bring forward proposals for improving the methods of settling pay within the National Health Service.

I have chaired four meetings so far which have discussed better permanent pay determination arrangements for nurses and midwives. Separate discussions are being held with representatives of the professions covered by the main Whitley Professional and Technical A Council. Some limited progress has been made. As my right hon. Friend reported again to the House last week, we remain prepared to meet the Trades Union Congress health service committee to discuss possible changes in the pay determination arrangements for other groups of National Health Service staff—including ancillary staff—whenever it is ready to call off industrial action and begin talks.

When will the Department stop misleading the country and the House on these matters? Is not the so-called two-year offer worse than the original offer of June, which was rejected overwhelmingly by all the unions and the Royal College of Nursing? Is it not the case that there is no more money on the table and that the Government are asking low-paid workers to accept 4 per cent. in 1983-84, which is disgusting and completely unacceptable?

We do no service to anyone by these quibbles over figures. Plainly, the offer we made involved no reduction whatever on the offer we made previously for more money this year. It also included more money for the second year based on a suggested 4 per cent. increase, which is higher than the pay factor that the Government have decided for the public sector as a whole. All that was paving the way to better long-term arrangements for determining the pay of nurses and midwives. The Government are anxious to move on to such arrangements. I only wish that the trade union movement was equally anxious to do so.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in manufacturing industry the lesson is clear that the closer to the shop floor negotiations take place the more likely one is to achieve a solution satisfactory to every one concerned? Will he therefore try to get some local element into the labyrinthine complexity of National Health Service pay negotiations? Does he not recognise that it is ridiculous to try to work out the last penny in London for catering staff in hospitals throughout the nation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the closer one gets to the shop floor in the Health Service the more one finds impatience over the fact that these matters are dragging on and a desire that union leaders should get back to talking and resolving the issues. The Government are trying to resolve with the trade unions and others the right level of resources for the Health Service as a whole. The Whitley Council machinery, which includes representatives of local management, exists to apportion the money among the various staffs. The refusal of the TUC to go to the Whitley Council is stopping the detailed negotiations that my hon. Friend suggests.

How can it be right for the Government, in seeking to achieve a proper long-term settlement of the dispute, to ask some of the lowest paid people in the country to take a real cut in their pay, as the Minister admitted in the House last Wednesday? Is the Minister aware that he would sweep out the baby with the bath water if one result of his activity was the removal of the no strike rule 12 in the current RCN ballot?

Health Service workers as a whole are not exceptionally low paid compared with the generality of employees. They are asking other employees—for example, local government manual workers—to take part in days of action in their support when those local government manual workers on average earn less than Health Service workers. Everyone this year has accepted pay offers below the level of inflation. The offer to the Health Service workers and the nurses compares favourably with others. The offer we have made for next year compares favourably with the public sector pay factor put forward by the Government.

On the need for a new system to determine pay in the National Health Service, is it not a fact that the trade unions were originally given to understand that the Government wished to introduce a new system in April 1981? They were then told that the Government wished to introduce it in April 1982, then that it would be April 1983, and now, through the medium of the latest offer, that it will be April 1984. Why is it always jam tomorrow, never jam today?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has given a totally inaccurate account of progress towards the Government's ambition for better long-term arrangements for nurses, midwives and professions supplementary to medicine in the Health Service in particular. The first offer was made by my predecessor. It took a year for the staff side even to answer the letter suggesting that talks should begin. Finally, at our insistence, we got talks started. There has been a lack of progress. I am not satisfied that all those negotiating for the TUC really wish to achieve a successful conclusion, because better long-term arrangements would reduce their bargaining position in the annual bargaining arrangements. The only reason why we suggested 1 April 1984 compared with the last date given was that we were obviously making slow progress in the tripartite arrangements, and we thought it the earliest practical date at which to aim. If people will get down to quick progress on better long-term arrangements, the Government, the Royal College of Nursing and many others who are interested would like to see us get on with it.

In seeking to secure better long-term arrangements for Health Service pay, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is helpful to look forward to a time when inflation has fallen still further? Will he consider the possibility of making fuller use of something like the pay information board, suggested by Megaw, for the whole public sector?

As inflation keeps falling, the unreality of the 12 per cent. claim becomes ever plainer. I cannot for the life of me understand why the TUC has not budged from the 12 per cent. claim. The second point is one of many suggestions now being proposed for public sector pay determination. That and similar matters are among those we are trying to consider in the tripartite discussions with the management and staff side in the Health Service.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of all the replies, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received from regional health authorities about the National Health Service pay negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the regional health authorities to discuss the financial allocation for increases in National Health Service pay.

I have regular meetings, usually every two months, with the chairmen of the regional health authorities and have kept in close touch with them throughout this dispute.

In view of the figures given in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 5 July, is the right hon. Gentleman's statement of 25 May that an increase of 2 per cent. could be achieved any longer valid?

As the hon, Gentleman has given me no notice of either of those points and the replies to which he refers, I shall study them and give him a formal reply.

Would it not be more clear and straightforward for all concerned if financial allocations to regional health authorities for wages and salaries were kept completely separate from financial allocations for other purposes?

Yes. There is something to be said for that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had to ask the regional health authorities this year to make some contribution to the pay awards that have been made. I hope that for the coming round—this point has been made in reply to an earlier question—and the two-year settlement that we propose, this will not be necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm—or deny—that one difficulty that he faces is that the TUC is determined that all the differentials that help nurses should be swept away? This is an important point.

I can confirm that. When the members of the TUC health services committee came to see me, they said that one of the sticking points for them was that they wanted no differential or preferential rate for nurses. The Government believe that nurses deserve a 1½ percent. differential as a reward for their professional training. We shall stick to that position.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, does the Secretary of State agree that it is a waste of money for him to spend £85,000 on press propaganda putting the Government's side when he has the House of Commons, newspapers, radio and television which he could use without spending any taxpayers' money? Why did he waste taxpayers' money in that manner?

As the hon. Gentleman will perhaps recollect, the advertisements were placed when the House of Commons was not sitting. It was August.

The right hon. Gentleman could have made a statement at any time.

We placed the advertisements to counter the thoroughly misleading and mischievous propaganda from the other side.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the revised offer made on 16 September followed detailed negotiations with the trade unions and that the Government had every reason to expect the unions to accept that as the basis for further negotiations? Will he confirm that he remains available to discuss matters further along these lines if only the trade unions are prepared to talk with him?

I confirm my hon. Friend's second point. My door remains open. There is £1,100 million on the table. We have also offered the Health Service unions talks about new long-term arrangements separate from the talks that we are having with the nurses. There is absolutely no question—it has never been seriously denied or challenged—that the proposals made on 16 September were carefully worked out following talks with Mr. Spanswick, the chairman of the health services committee and Mr. Jacques, the secretary. That makes it all the more indefensible that the trade unions are not even prepared to come to the negotiating table to talk.

Is it not true that the regional health authorities will have to find 34 per cent. of this totally inadequate offer now? Will the Secretary of State, next time he meets the RHA chairmen, explain that he is not even giving a guarantee to fund this offer next year? That will mean an even greater cut in patient care.

The hon. Lady refers to the knock-on effect into next year. What she says about this year is true. We made this clear at the time. In regard to the knock-on effect on the Contingency Reserve next year and whether the Treasury picks up the bill, I shall have to ask the hon. Lady to wait for a few weeks, when all will be made clear, even to her.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will alter the rules on ownership of capital in relation to the granting of supplementary benefit so as to remove the disincentive to saving.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are increasing from this November the amount of capital that a claimant can have while remaining eligible for supplementary benefit. The amount disregarded is to be increased by 25 per cent. to £2,500. That will fully restore the value that it had when the present arrangements were introduced in November 1980. The Government will continue to keep the operation of the capital rule under review.

I welcome that improvement, but is it not wrong that the surrender value of a life policy should be taken into account in assessing whether a person owns capital equal to £2,500? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the surrender value of a life policy has no monetary value unless the policy is cancelled? Is he encouraging people to do that?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend. The review that was carried out for the Supplementary Benefit Policy Inspectorate showed that only 8 per cent. of claimants reviewed had assurance policies and that most were for only a few hundred pounds. Therefore, that made no material difference. I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying, and the Government will continue to keep that aspect under review.

While the Secretary of State is expending his limited stock of sympathy, will he also look at redundancy payments? Is it not disgraceful that people should be debarred from having supplementary benefit because of the redundancy payments that they have received as casualties of the Government's industrial policy? Will the Secretary of State also look at the ridiculous bar for single payments of £300 of capital, which was not raised this year? That figure is unrealistic, and great hardship is caused to many people.

The inspectorate's report showed that there was not a major problem, which many people thought there was, with regard to redundancy payments. If the hon. Gentleman wants to check that, the report is in the Library. The single payment capital disregard was set in November 1980. I am conscious of the need to keep that under review as well.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties arising from the capital resource regulations for smallholders who own 2 or 3 acres of land surrounding their family homestead? That is prevalent in the slate quarrying and some of the coal mining areas in Wales. They cannot sell that land without selling their home, yet it has a value of over £2,500, which debars supplementary benefit. Will the Secretary of State consider that matter in comparison with croft owners in Scotland, whose land does not qualify as a capital resource for these purposes?

I give an assurance that I shall consider that matter.

Will my right hon. Friend look into the case of Mr. York of Northampton? He is due for compensation for something that happened to him in the past, which depressed his living standard. If he receives that compensation, he will have to spend it before he is entitled to supplementary benefit. His living standard was depressed in the past. Can he not make up for that depression in his living standard before he is deemed to have capital that disqualifies him?

That comes into the general review that I have already mentioned. [Interruption.] I thought that Opposition Members would be pleased that we were having a general review. I intend to continue with it. I shall also consider my hon. Friend's point.

Further to the original answer to the question, are we to take it that the Secretary of State feels that 8 per cent. of humanity is too insignificant a sum to mention? Does he realise that that is one person in 12?

Of course I realise that. That is one of the reasons why I have already said that the Government are continuing to keep that aspect under review. I hope that the House, knowing the form that the review takes, will contain its impatience.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, following his consultations on the death grant, if he will now make a statement on the grant's future.

A total of 597 letters commenting on the proposals put forward in the consultative document have been received, of which 55 per cent. rejected all of the options put forward, 30 per cent. supported one or more of the options and 15 per cent. covered other suggestions. There were four petitions rejecting the proposals. The Government are considering what, if any, action should now be taken in the light of the public response to their proposals.

Will my hon. Friend confirm his opposition to any means test at the time of death? Will he redouble his efforts to see whether it is possible to find a clawback from estates that could repay any death grants that were given?

Both those matters were implicit in the proposals in the consultative document. First, there was a limit with regard to the amount of the estate, and that worked as a clawback. Secondly, by passporting we felt that we avoided a means test at the time of death.

Is the Minister aware that the death grant has been under review for about 14 years? Does he accept that the representations that he has received reflect the opinions of millions of people who are concerned about the issue? Is he aware that the delay in coming to a decision about the future of the death grant, coupled with the £300 cut-off for single payments that was mentioned earlier, is causing great hardship and concern to millions of old-age pensioners? Will he ensure that the matter is no longer under review and that it is brought forward to the House early in the new Session?

I am aware of the concern that has been expressed on that matter. I am also aware that for 14 years no Government uprated the death grant—neither the previous Administration nor the present one. At least we have made an attempt to resolve the problem by diverting resources to where they are most needed. I repeat what I said when the consultative document was introduced to the House, that resources are not available for a substantial across-the-board uplift in the death grant.

I appreciate the public expenditure constraints on my hon. Friend, but presumably he agrees that £30 is a fraction of the cost to the surviving relative after there is a death in the family. Now that the consultations appear to have been concluded, may we expect a comment or a statement shortly?

I accept that the £30 death grant represents a small proportion of the average cost of a funeral today. That is one reason why the Government embarked on the exercise. We are now consulting colleagues about further steps to be taken as a result of the response. At this stage I cannot tell my hon. Friend when the consultations will be concluded.

Surely the Minister is aware that more than 500,00() people have died since he introduced his consultative document. In some cases, surviving relatives have received less than £30—either £15 or no death grant. Is it not about time that we were told when the House will be given a statement about the future of the death grant?

The fact that sometimes no death grant is received after people die is due to the contributory principle. What we have suggested in our consultative document departs from the contributory principle. The majority of those who replied to us said that they did not want that principle to be breached. That is our problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of those of working age now receiving supplementary benefit; and what were the figures for May 1979, and the change in percentage terms.

About 1,160,000 in May 1979 and about 2,190,000 in May 1982—an increase of 89 per cent.

The figures speak for themselves. Does the Minister recognise the immense personal hardship that has faced so many families since the Government took office? Is he aware of the widespread dissatisfaction over the fact that staffing levels have not been increased in DHSS offices—in some cases the levels have decreased—leading to difficulties, delays and frustration for those who, in many cases, have to wait some lime, or for more time than they should, to receive supplementary benefit after they have been made redundant?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, as well as an increase in supplementary benefit work, there has been a substantial decrease in other parts of the Department's work—for example, on sick pay since the introduction of self-certification. The existing system tries to match work Load with complement across the nation and to distribute that fairly between local offices. We have made it clear, in the context of present anxieties, that we are prepared to re-examine that system. Meanwhile, we ate satisfied that the system as a whole matches work load as a whole.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has just announced could equally be said to show that the safety net that hon. Members on both sides of the House support is working fully and properly for those who need support at a difficult time?

Against the background of unemployment, which is much higher than any of us like, I should be disturbed if benefit were not reaching a larger number of people.

What is the estimate of the increase in the numbers of those who will be forced on to the supplementary benefit means test, bearing in mind that after 22 October, when benefits change, a man earning £107 a week, with a wife and two children, who loses his job and remains out of work until the next tax year in March will receive 44 per cent. less income during those weeks because of changes introduced by the Government?

l cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure. We estimate that of the increase that I mentioned—about 1 million—approximately 750,000 people have run out of or were never entitled to unemployment benefit. I cannot be sure exactly how many people are covered by the hon. Gentleman's point, but certainly fewer than the remaining 250,000

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will compile a register of clinics dealing with infertility, together with their charges.

I am not aware of the need for such a register.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the geographical maldistribution of these facilities means that unless a couple have a very sympathetic doctor they are unlikely to know where they can get advice about fertility? Is he aware that many people are pressing for some centralisation of such facilities so that obtaining knowledge of them is not left to the whim of their doctors?

I am not aware of the hon. Lady's latter point. There is no evidence of it in my Department. In 1979, 18,000 women and 700 men received NHS inpatient treatment for infertility in NHS hospitals. In 1978, 5,500 women and 300 men were treated. The number treated is clearly increasing. At the moment, therefore, I see no need for the centralisation that the hon. Lady mentions.

Does the Minster recognise the unevenness of the NHS service, which should be available to all? Will he therefore make a special study, through all the regional health authorities, and present the House with some figures to show that no matter where one lives the NHS is available to all?

I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's point. From the information at my disposal I understand that treatment is available at a substantial number of NHS centres.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people on supplementary benefit were given an extra fuel allowance for the winter of 1981–82.

In December 1981 some 2·3 million supplementary benefit claimants were receiving extra weekly payments for heating costs. In addition, last winter some 300,000 lump sum payments were made to help claimants with their increased fuel bills due to the exceptionally severe weather.

Will the Minister confirm that, on the basis of the Government's own figures, hundreds of millions of pounds of benefit will not be taken up this year? Does he agree that the Oxford police raid confirmed that the Government are devoting more public resources to saving a few million pounds than to helping children and old people who will suffer from the cold this year because of the non-take-up of benefits?

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is rubbish from beginning to end. From this November the Government will be spending about £300 million a year on helping people, especially those with the more difficult families—the under-fives, the over-seventies and the severely disabled—with regular weekly payments towards their fuel costs. That should be compared with expenditure of not much more than £100 million when the Government came to office. That is a significant strengthening of the benefit system. I welcome it.

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the help that is being given through heating allowances. Nevertheless, does he agree that the present circumstance needs completely new thinking to help with a comprehensive fuel policy for those receiving supplementary pension and supplementary benefit? Does he agree that the system is in a mess? Will he set up a working party with the Department of Energy to examine the problem?

I shall not promise a working party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have a review".] It seems that Opposition Members would like a review. We are anxious to do what we can to improve further the already considerable help that we give towards heating costs. My hon. Friend will know that I have been in close touch with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy all summer. I am glad that they were recently able to make some announcements about helping with standing charges when people have small bills. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Is it rubbish to say that under present regulations for fuel costs help, many needy families are left without help? If it is not, when does the Minister propose to introduce a national fuel scheme that is based on the difficulty experienced by some people in paying fuel bills?

I hope that I made it clear in my original reply that we have already dramatically improved the quantity of help with heating costs. We shall continue to search for improvements. We must also find the money to be able to do that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be better public relations on the matter? Does he agree that many elderly people are not aware of what they are entitled to and that they are worried about the limit on savings that they may have before they can claim? Does he also agree that standing charges are an important concern? Does he further agree that the Department should make it clear to old-age pensioners that they will be the main beneficiaries of such a scheme?

Substantial additions, ranging as high as £250 a year, go automatically to families on supplementary benefit with under-fives and over-seventies. The higher addition of £250 goes to the severely disabled. I agree that we could improve on last winter's publicity with regard to single payments. We are endeavouring to do that, should the same problem arise this winter.

Will the Minister confirm that only 6 per cent. of all supplementary beneficiaries who were entitled to extra fuel allowance took it up? Will he comment further upon the crazy delay in his Department, which allowed the Government to protect wildfowl from the cold weather before helping supplementary beneficiaries?

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I agree that there were difficulties in the operation of single payments for fuel bills last winter. It was the first time that the regulation had been used and it was the first time since the winter of 1962 that there had been such a problem. We are attempting to learn from last winter's experience, in case a similar problem arises this winter. I hope that it does not.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give additional support to reduce physical and mental handicap at birth.

We attach very considerable importance to the improvement of maternity and neonatal services to achieve further reductions in both baby deaths and handicaps. We do not earmark the growth money we give to health authorities for specific purposes, but I am sure that authorities are well aware of the importance of maternal and neonatal services.

Is the Minister aware that a handicapped child can cost society about £500,000 in its life? That, however, is not the real point. Is he aware that positive discrimination with expenditure in this area can reduce handicap and suffering for families and individuals concerned?

I am familiar with that estimate. It comes from a Select Committee report. I am not sure how accurate it is. I agree that money is not the main point. We should try to reduce the amount of neonatal death and handicap birth in Britain. That is why we are giving such high priority to the subject. That is why we set up the Maternity Services Advisory Committee, which has just produced its first report. That is why we shall back up health authorities in an attempt to give the matter the right priority.

Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee report showed that improved facilities for women before, during and immediately after childbirth could produce savings of £153 million in 10 years by reducing child handicap? Does he agree that it is self-defeating not to move faster on this?

I am not sure that the report showed that, because the figures were, one might say, arguable. However, that is not the point. The Government do not need to be persuaded to give priority to maternal and neonatal services. That is why we are producing the draft minimum standards and that is why we have the Maternity Services Advisory Committee. Results are beginning to show, as there is now a very fast rate of reduction in neonatal death in this country, which I hope is matched by a corresponding fall in the number of births of handicapped children.

Will the Minister consider urging greater honesty on the part of the National Health Service, such as would have prevented my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Bushell, from having to wait four months to learn from a coroner's jury that the death of their baby was caused by medical neglect?

The whole House would urge honesty on the Health Service. The vexed matter of the investigation of complaints, and particularly of serious ones, is being considered at the moment. I shall look at the case cited by the hon. Gentleman and if there is serious cause for complaint I shall take it up.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many families are now receiving child benefit weekly and monthly; and how many families who were receiving it monthly have now been able to receive it weekly.

At 28 September 1982 child benefit was in payment to 6·94 million families, of whom 4·58 million or 65 per cent., were receiving payment weekly and 2·36 million, or 35 per cent., were receiving payment four-weekly.

Does the Minister agree that it was a particularly harsh cut for the Government to insist that new claimants for child benefit should receive it four weeks in arrears? Would is not be better to trust individuals to decide what is better for them rather than insist that they receive their benefit four weeks late?

I think that the balance of the policy is about right, following the changes made in response to representations in the House and elsewhere during the run-up period. It should be remembered that those on supplementary benefit or FIS who are lone parents or can show hardship continue to be able to have weekly payments.

Will my hon. Friend consider conducting a sample survey before the November deadline to see whether families on four-weekly benefit realise that they have a choice?

I am not sure that a further survey would be justified. [Interruption.] I got the impression that the Opposition were not so keen on reviews, surveys and working parties. I am concerned that we should make the system work as well as possible and that we draw people's attention to the options available. We are continuing to do that.

Will the Minister confirm that the change is part of the Government's public expenditure cuts? Will he remind the House and the country how much less child benefit will go to mothers in this year of the changeover?

I cannot give that figure off the cuff, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. The change to try to streamline the administration of child benefit was, of course, part of an attempt to make some economies. I stick firmly to the belief that the less we spend on administering the social security system, the more we can spend on benefits.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has concluded his review of the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

The operation of these regulations is an area of policy that is kept under constant review. [Interruption.] The Opposition seem very ambivalent about what they want in these matters. As the hon. Member knows from my reply to him on 13 July, this is also an area in which the Social Security Advisory Committee is taking a particular interest this year, as part of its monitoring of the supplementary benefit scheme. I await its conclusions with interest. After consultation with the committee, a number of specific changes were made to the single payment regulations earlier this year. I hope to have the report of the Social Security Policy Inspectorate on single payments within the next month or so. Revised guidance on the interpretation of regulations 9 and 10, dealing with grants for furniture, was issued by the chief supplementary benefit officer in August this year.

Is it not ludicrous that the elimination of discretion to local officers pursuant to the 1980 changes in the regulations has come at a time when the Government have deliberately kept the scale rates of benefit low? Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely wrong that a young unemployed man claiming supplementary benefit should be refused payment for a pair of trousers when the zip has broken, on the ground that that is normal wear and tear and the Government will not allow local officers to give grants for normal wear and tear?

The Government have increased supplementary benefit rates in line with inflation and the rates include an allowance for clothing. I believe that it is entirely sensible that normal wear and tear should be deemed to be covered by those rates.

asked the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to public funds of the military presence and civil units in the Falkland Islands since the cessation of hostilities.

The records do not distinguish between costs arising before the cessation of hostilities and those arising subsequently. The extra cost to the defence budget of the operation to repossess the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and Southern Thule, including the maintenance of our forces up to the end of September and the replacement of lost equipment, is estimated to be about £700 million. Some extra costs, of much smaller dimensions, have fallen on the votes of civil Departments, and £10 million has so far been allocated to rehabilitation, of which £8·6 million has been committed.

In saying that the Falklands crisis came out of the blue, does the Prime Minister mean that she had no warning of invasion before Wednesday 31 March?

I have already made it clear in my speeches during the debate on the Falklands campaign that that was so, so far as the Falkland Islands were concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what we have heard from the Opposition, the vast majority of the British public greatly admire her strong stand on the whole Falklands situation and that, with regard to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in Mr. Attlee's words, a period of silence on his part would be welcomed?

I believe that the whole House is glad that the people of the Falkland Islands have been restored to freedom and justice as a result of the bravery and valour of our Armed Forces.

Will the right hon. Lady now say whether her notion of a "fortress Falkland" into the distant future is now sustained in her mind? As the Argentines and South Americans are far closer to those islands than we shall ever be, and as the cost of sustaining a powerful military presence will be an economic drain in the future, is it not sensible to think that, with a new regime and democratic developments in Argentina, this notion on her part will be blown away and that there must eventually be a South American involvement in the administration of those islands?

The people of the Falkland Islands, being a democratic and free people, have that right to determine their own future. We have the right here, and because of it the hon. Gentleman is elected to this House. I may not agree with that decision, but I defend the right of the people concerned to make their own decisions.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

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.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new trade union has been launched today to safeguard the interests of nursery nurses and that that new trade union is pledged not to strike? Will she compare that responsible attitude with some of the actions of the trade unions involved in the National Health Service dispute?

No-strike rules in rule books are to be welcomed, and the new organisation is to be congratulated on the stance that it has taken. It follows the example of a similar union for professional teachers, which has stated that it will not strike. It is refreshing to find people who put the requirements of their job and their duty to children before their own selfish needs.

In view of the terrifying problems of the steel industry, will the right hon. Lady explain why she refused to receive a deputation from Scotland dealing with the steel industry this morning? Will she give us a clear assurance that, now that the matter is being dealt with by the Government, there will be no closure at Ravenscraig or any of the other main plants that are being threatened? Will she now go back on the statement that she made last Thursday about not wishing to introduce import controls to deal with this problem, and a similar problem in the motor industry?

The petition was handed in to No. 10 this morning by people working in the steel industry, and was received there. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to give undertakings about the future of particular plants. Yes, there is a serious problem in the steel industry here, in Europe and the world over. That problem is being reviewed by the British Steel Corporation. Any decisions about any major plants will be taken not by the British Steel Corporation alone but with the Government. We prefer to look at the figures and the proposals placed before us before reaching a decision.

Will the Prime Minister say when some action will be taken to stop the flood of imports which threaten the future of the whole of British Steel and of other sections of industry, such as the motor industry? On the question of the major plants, does the right hon. Lady know that Mr. MacGregor has already said that the future of Ravenscraig and the other plants rests with the Government? When will the Government make a statement to the effect that these plants will be sustained in the interests of British industry as a whole?

I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that arrangements for the import of steel into the Community are made through the Community by way of voluntary restraint arrangements, and we are urging the Community to tighten those arrangements. Total import penetration of the United Kingdom steel market remains significantly lower than in a number of our European competitors. It is, nevertheless, very serious. However, action must be taken through the Community.

Despite her busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend's attention yet been drawn to the discovery in Argentina, in unmarked graves, of hundreds of victims of the Argentine junta? Is she aware that some 15,000 people at least disappeared from 1976 onwards? Is she taking any steps to ascertain whether, among these people, there have yet been found any bodies of the British subjects who disappeared during that time?

As I believe my hon. Friend knows, we have been in touch, for a number of years, with the Argentine Government, asking about the fate of certain British subjects. We are only too painfully aware of the human rights record of the Argentine Government, which is why, I believe, neither our country nor the House hesitated to free our own people in the Falklands from this tyranny.

If British industry is now becoming so much more streamlined and competitive, as the Prime Minister claims, why are we now more vulnerable to imports than ever before?

British industry has become very much more competitive over the past year, but one year's improvement does not catch up with the many years of enormous increases in pay over production of the kind that took place when the right hon. Gentleman was in office.

Has the right hon. Lady noticed that those consequences of the Northern Ireland Act that were feared and predicted by those who, like herself, were opposed to it, have not been slow to appear? What are now her intentions?

The Act was a Government measure. The people having been elected under its provisions, the Assembly must be set up.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a further statement on the future of Gibraltar.

No new date has yet been set for implementing the Lisbon agreement. Future economic prospects in the light of continued Spanish restrictions and the closure of the naval dockyard were discussed by my noble Friend Lord Belstead, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when he visited Gibraltar from 21 to 23 July and again between my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and the Chief Minister on 24 September. We remain in close touch with Gibraltar on all aspects of her affairs.

Can my right hon. Friend say when the Government are proposing to announce the five-year capital aid programme for Gibraltar, which is already 18 months overdue? Will she ensure that it is devoted to specific capital projects and not a general grant-in-aid?

A development programme was submitted about 18 months ago. Decisions on that were changed when the question of the dockyard arose, and a revised programme was submitted last month. That is being urgently considered and we shall make decisions upon it as quickly as is humanly possible. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend knows, some £4 million was allocated to Gibraltar for urgent projects last December.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to deny reports—

Order. This is a closed question.

Bearing in mind the comments that my right hon. Friend has made about £4 million of capital aid, is she aware that only £2 million of that has so far been given to Gibraltar? Can she say when the further £2 million will be allocated to the territory?

I understand that the money was allocated to urgent projects. If there is a need for the other £2 million quickly, perhaps my hon. Friend will get in touch about the project for which it is needed.

At the conclusion of the Spanish general election, will the Prime Minister be making contact with the new Government about Gibraltar? Will she tell us whether that contact will be through the Foreign Secretary or through her new adviser at No. 10 Downing Street?

Following the Spanish general election we shall t e in touch with the new Government as is normal. No new adviser has been appointed to No. 10.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

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

During the course of my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she have the opportunity to see reports to the effect that 800 social workers employed by the Conservative-controlled Birmingham city council are on strike against the council's determination to get better value for money for the Birmingham ratepayer? Is this not disgraceful, and will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to urge these strikers to return to work forthwith?

I deplore the action taken by the council staff. It is in the interests of all ratepayers to get the best value for money and to have as efficient a working operation as it is possible to achieve, which includes considering the possibility of putting out certain services to private contractors.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to deny the reports currently circulating to the effect that the Secretary of State for the Environment is planning a further increase in council house rents of £2 per week, and that he is deliberately delaying a decision until after the by-elections at Northfield and Peckham?

Public expenditure decisions for next year have not yet been made.

During the course of my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she consider the position in Birmingham, where the city council's treasurer's department is refusing to pay money owed by it to small business men, suppliers and contractors? Will she comment on that matter, which is putting many small businesses at grave risk and undoubtedly increasing the danger of further unemployment?

Prompt payment should be the usual rule. It is especially important to ensure that it is adhered to in the case of small businesses. I join my hon. Friend in making an appeal for payment to be made immediately.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) asked the Prime Minister why she did not meet representatives of the triple alliance—which represents hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland—this morning, she failed to give the House an answer. Why did she not meet them?

That is not a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given only brief notice of a point of order about the rights of the House, on which I seek your guidance—

Order. I have received notice from another hon. Member that he intends to raise the same point of order. I propose to deal with it following an application under Standing Order No. 9, which is the usual time to deal with such matters.