asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reports he has received about students initiating treatment on behalf of doctors in hospitals.

Under long-standing arrangements agreed with the medical profession and the universities, final-year medical students may assist in hospitals when a house officer is absent on leave. I have received a very brief report from the representatives of junior hospital doctors outlining nine cases of alleged abuse of these arrangements. In only one case is it alleged that a student initiated treatment. I have asked the British Medical Association for further details.

Is this not a scandalous situation? Has the Minister received the letter that I sent to the Secretary of State on 13 April, in which an experienced state registered nurse in my constituency alleges that it is common practice in Lewisham hospital for students to be given the bleeper of the houseman who is meant to be on duty, and in that way final-year students are made responsible for patients who in many cases are very ill? What will the Minister do when he receives the BMA report? Will he stop this practice once and for all?

There are very clear arrangements which closely limit the extent to which final-year medical students take part in treatment. We shall take seriously any allegations that the arrangements are not being followed. At the moment, all that I have received from the junior doctors is a short account which does not give dates or names and which does not identify any units. As soon as we have identified cases that can be investigated we shall of course follow them up arid make sure that the perfectly straightforward and well accepted arrangements are followed in every case.

Is it not a fact that students, under proper control, have always taken care of patients, and that, without that opportunity for students to gain experience, it would not be possible for them to qualify properly as doctors?

That is entirely right. In the practice of medicine it is not possible for someone to be turned overnight from a student who has never had contact with patient care into someone who carries some responsibility as a house officer. That is why final-year medical students are allowed to take over some duties when a house officer is on leave. No one has ever objected to that, and if anyone gives us particulars of the arrangements not being followed or being abused in any way, we shall step in to make sure that the proper arrangements are followed.

Are not nearly 1,500 doctors unemployed in this country? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there should be no occasion on which a student is left in sole control for a day or a night?

With respect, the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary is not relevant to the question.

Yes it is.

There is no incentive to a health authority to adopt any arrangement to use final-year medical students. The financial and staff savings to the health authority are minuscule. We are talking about an arrangement whereby final-year medical students are allowed to cover very restricted duties for a house officer when he is on leave. They remain under the supervision of a consultant. I await any evidence of a case where that practice has not been followed properly, and once we have that evidence we shall step in to make sure that it is followed. The 1,500 unemployed doctors are difficult to find. They tend largely to be in the south-east, and they are not people whose qualifications are relevant to the house officer duties about which we are talking.

Will the Minister examine the instances in which junior and senior house officers who are on holiday are not replaced because the health authorities are faced with extra bills and cuts in their budgets? That is what is happening and that is why students are occasionally left on their own.

The number of doctors employed in the hospital service has greatly increased in the past three years. The hon. Lady is entering into local disputes about whether locum cover ought to be provided for junior doctors, and making from the few incidents that she has encountered and complaints that she has heard a general case that Britain is short of doctors. That is not so.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to revise his Department's "Human Relations in Obstetrics", published in 1961; and if he will make a statement.

The series of reports being prepared by the maternity services advisory committee on good practice in maternity and neonatal care will, when complete, supersede the 1961 memorandum. The committee's first report, on antenatal care, gave prominence to human relations aspects and has been well received by professional and lay bodies. We look forward to receiving its second report, on care during childbirth, later this year and its third, on postnatal and neonatal care, in the course of next year.

I welcome that reply from the Minister, but is he aware that the report is long overdue, since the present report and recommendations on "Human Relations in Obstetrics" is more than 20 years old. When the Minister examines the various reports that he will be compiling with a view to making recommendations, will he give special attention to that part of the present report that encourages women during the process of confinement to have full facilities for smoking, which is now actively discouraged for maternity care?

It is time that the document was updated. I am glad that the hon. Lady was pleased with my progress report. I shall examine carefully what she has said because hon. Members recognise that there is a serious danger in smoking and none more so than when pregnant women smoke. Once the dangers have been pointed out—it is necessary to be careful about that—it is impossible to go further than saying as strongly as possible that it is a foolish and dangerous practice.

In any revision, will the Minister comment on obstetrics services to prospective surrogate mothers? Will he ask representatives of obstetricians and midwives to use every power they have to oppose the development of surrogate motherhood? Will he further ensure that the Government introduce every possible legal obstructive mechanism to prevent the development of this practice within the United Kingdom?

I shall draw the attention of the Warnock committee to what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that the Government set up the committee to examine this and other associated questions. However, the point he has made is one that the committee should look at.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the booklet "Health Care and its Costs" takes account of the demographic factors when assessing growth.

Yes, Sir. "Health Care and its Costs" describes fully the impact on the Health Service of the rising proportion of old and very old people in the population between 1971–72 and 1981–82; and of changes in the birth rate. During that period the number of people aged 65 and over rose by 16 per cent., and the number of people in their mid-70s and beyond rose by about 25 per cent. The birth rate fell considerably to 1977, rose somewhat in the next three years, and dropped slightly in 1981. The document explains how hospital and community health services were expanded to meet the needs of the growing numbers of old people, and how maternity services have responded to the birth rate change.

Is this not a political document that is designed to make the Government's performance on health finance more acceptable? Would not any demographer inside or outside the Chamber consider some of these statistics slightly spurious? If it is a political document, as many people think, why has it been paid for by the Government, and not by Conservative Central Office?

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the document to which he refers covers the period from 1971 to 1981. It may have slipped his memory that during that period a Labour Government were in power. It is true that I cannot avoid uncomfortable facts for the hon. Gentleman, such as the Labour Government's cut in capital spending in the mid-1970s. The document is an objective description of what has taken place inside the Health Service and should be treated in that way.

In view of the answer that the Department of Health and Social Security gave me that statistics available in terms of projections give a far more accurate assessment of the population in growth areas than the out-of-date statistics currently used in RAWP calculations, will my right hon. Friend move towards these more accurate figures?

That subject is kept constantly under review. I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about his area, and clearly there are other similar areas. However, the Government will keep that under review.

Why do the figures stop with the year 1981–82? Why was it not possible to bring them up to date to take account of the changes up to 1982–83?

Because the 1981 figures are the last full figures that the Government have.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases applicants for benefit have been required to surrender insurance policies.

Since no one can be required to surrender an insruance policy, I assume the hon. Member has in mind the number of people who may have decided to do so in order to qualify for benefit subsequently. We have no information on this, but the indications are that very few people have been excluded from benefit by virtue of holding insurance policies.

Is the Minister aware that the risk of substantial loss resulting from the virtually compulsory surrender of insurance policies has led to widespread anxiety? Does the Minister agree that the concessions that have recently been announced, because an election may be approaching, have not been sufficient either to relieve anxiety or to reduce the penalty for thrift or misfortune?

The hon. Gentleman is slightly overstating his case. Only people with an insurance policy whose surrender value was above the capital limit, which is at present more than £2,500, would have to surrender it, as distinct from running down the rest of their capital. The figure from next November will be £4,500. That is a useful, sensible and balanced improvement.

Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister keeps telling the House how much thrift should be encouraged, and does not this legislation do exactly the opposite and discourage thrift?

Any capital rule can be said to discourage thrift. Many insurance policies are used as a form of saving, which is not as readily distinguishable from other forms of saving as some hon. Members suggest. The £1,500 special exemption figure is a reasonable balance to draw.

The Minister knows that we welcome the concession in the Budget, but he could have eliminated the problem completely at very little cost, yet failed to do so. What will the Minister do about redundancy payments? The Government have got rid of the earnings-related supplement and are now taxing benefits. However, does he agree that something should be done about redundancy payments? Do not the unemployed suffer sufficiently without this type of indignity?

By next November the capital cut-off figure will have risen by 50 per cent. in only 12 months. That is a significant help to those with redundancy payments. The difficulty of distinguishing between redundancy payments and savings, except at the instant when the payment is made, would be insuperable.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects the Government's cut in the real value of invalidity benefit to be restored; and if he will make a statement.

As has been stated consistently, the abatement will be restored when invalidity benefit comes into tax. As an earnest of this intention we restored the abatement of the invalidity allowances in November 1981.

Surely the Minister must accept that this is the unkindest cut of all by the Government. Is he aware that because of the cut—at the latest date for which figures are available — a married man on invalidity benefit, with three children, lost no less than £286 a year from a Government who promised to single them out for special help? Is that not utterly disgraceful treatment of long-term sick and disabled people?

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has grossly exaggerated the position and so distorted the truth. Virtually all the recipients of this benefit would have been worse off in the past financial year if the unabated benefit had been brought into taxation. The cost of restoring the abatement would have been £60 million, whereas the tax forgone was £90 million.

How long must disabled housewives wait before the end of the discriminatory household duties test? If the Government are able to give a response within one hour to the proposal to abolish lead in petrol, why are housewives still waiting for action on the report by the advisory committee in 1980 saying that the test should be abolished?

We are not yet in a position to make a statement, but we shall do so as soon as possible.

When will the taxation scheme come into being? The Minister knows full well that many of those who suffer from the 5 per cent. abatement in invalidity benefit would not have been eligible for taxation.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. If the benefit had been unabated, virtually all of the recipients would have been above the tax threshold last year. That is the position. However, the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has further plans to develop a partnership between the state and the private sector in health care.

We are continuing to encourage health authorities to co-operate with the private sector. We recently discussed with regional health authority chairmen the scope for a closer partnership between the two sectors and hope shortly to continue that discussion with district health authority chairmen.

Does my right hon. Friend know that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) called, in a recent speech in my constituency, for the requisition of private clinics? Would not such action completely destroy the fundamental partnership between the private and public sectors? Is it not in the interests of medicine in the widest sense of the word and of about 300,000 trade unionists that the private sector should flourish, encouraged by the Government of the day?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The private sector adds to total health care, and it must be the right of any individual to use his money for private health insurance schemes. The Labour party's official pledges and those of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) can be seen as acts of vandalism against the Health Service.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is not combining private and public health care, but is hiving off sectors of public care to the private sector? That is what he is doing in Halifax. He has asked Calderdale health authority, which is unanimous in wanting a new laundry in Halifax under state supervision, to transfer laundry care to private operators. That is wholly against the wishes of the staff and of Calderdale health authority.

Calderdale health authority saw my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and is examining the figures that have been put forward. The policy decision rests with the authority. Clearly, we do not intend to destroy the partnership that we want to develop between the private sector and the NHS. That is entirely the Labour party's policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private sector is also of great benefit to ordinary NHS patients, who would be infinitely further down the queue if a substantial number of people did not choose to spend their money, on which they have paid taxes, on their health care? In addition to speaking to the health authorities, will my right hon. Friend have a talk with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about giving positive help to people who wish to employ their money in insurance for health care?

As my hon. Friend recognises, that is a question for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that private health care adds to the sum total of health care. The 4 million people insured by private health insurance schemes include many trade unionists. The Opposition should bear that in mind.

What is the Secretary of State's view of the large private hospitals, such as the one that has recently opened in London, which have many obstetric and paediatric beds and which take paediatricians from the NHS? Is he aware that paediatricians are in short supply, as are the specially trained nurses who care for ill neonates? They are almost unobtainable in NHS units. Indeed, consultants in NHS units are having to turn babies away because they cannot get trained nurses to staff their beds. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that? It is not partnership, but robbery.

I am quite prepared to look at any case that the hon. Lady puts to me. However, our policy is to encourage partnership between the private sector and the NHS. If the hon. Lady wants a good example of that partnership and of the role that the private sector plays in training, she should visit the Nuffield hospital in Wolverhampton, near her constituency, where she will see the post-registration training that is organised there by the private sector.

If my right hon. Friend has not already done so, will he evaluate the costs of similar services in the private and public sectors? Will he ensure that where it is cheaper—as it sometimes certainly is—to achieve the same provision in the private sector, that provision is used for the full benefit of NHS patients?

I quite agree that there is a danger in having a monopoly in any service, or in any area. One of the very positive things that the private sector does is to show that things can be organised differently and, at times, better.

Since the Secretary of State is so committed to private practice, will he recognise that there is a fundamental flaw in it? Doctors engage in it to make money. As that is their motive, they have a financial incentive to undertake treatment that need not be given and to cut corners at the risk of a patient. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the partnership of which he boasts between private practice and the NHS means that the NHS often has to repair the damage done by private doctors such as Dr. Dutta of the Harley Street Diagnostic Clinic? Does not the Secretary of State accept that that is injurious to the patient and a burden on the NHS?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the ability of consultants to work within the private sector has existed since the inception of the NHS, and under successive Labour Governments. The only policy or alternative that the hon. Gentleman can put forward on behalf of his party is the abolition of pay beds and the banning of private sector medicine. The public will choose, and they will decide against the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent steps he has taken to promote the full implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will be taking any action to raise the general standard of provision by local authorities under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act up to that of the existing best.

Local authorities are aware of their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and implementation is a matter for them.

Will the Minister confirm that although the very rich have become richer under this Government, the number of telephones available to the disabled, for example, has more than halved because of the Government's failure to implement in full the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a telephone can be a lifeline to a disabled person? What will he do about that?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, contrary to his implication, expenditure on personal social services by local authorities has risen by 6 per cent. in real terms over the past three years and that they have budgeted for a further increase of about 2 per cent. this year. There has been a drop in the number of new telephone installations, but not in the total provision or in expenditure, which has, indeed, increased again.

How can the Minister tolerate the tremendous differences between the provision made by one local authority and another? Will he set minimum standards that local authorities will have to maintain and at the same time make sure that local authorities have the resources to ensure that the Act is fully implemented, as Parliament intended?

The advice that I have received on minimum standards is that disability and the need that it occasions varies so much from individual to individual that the laying down of norms or standards of universal application would simply introduce a self-defeating inflexibility.

Does not the uneven progress under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act show how wrong it is for the House to pass desirable legislation, raise the expectations of the disabled and then leave it to others —principally county councils—to raise the necessary funds to implement it?

It is not an easy Act to administer, but, overall, its effects have been beneficial. Nevertheless, it has created many problems in its implementation.

With regard to the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and the need to strengthen them, what is the position on the order that the Government intend to introduce, as part of the building regulations, to improve the standards of access for disabled people into buildings?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Is the Minister aware that one county council is threatening to take a severely disabled woman to court because she cannot pay for her home help out of her supplementary benefit and owes the council £30? What is the Minister's policy on that issue? What action is he taking over Liverpool's failure, as reported to him by RADAR last week, to honour the undertaking it gave him to provide telephones in cases where need had been accepted? Will the Minister now use his full powers in the case of Liverpool?

With regard to the first case, if the right hon. Gentleman will send me the details I shall certainly look into the matter in the usual way. With regard to Liverpool, I have received a letter from RADAR. I am having inquiries made immediately and I am waiting for the reply. The action to be taken will depend on the reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many district health authorities the amount deducted from their 1983–84 budget for efficiency savings exceeds the amount determined to be growth money for the same period.

The information requested is not available centrally because regional health authorities are responsible for allocating resources to and agreeing the targets for efficiency savings with district authorities.

Is the Minister aware that we shall not be surprised that he read that wholly devious answer extremely quickly? Is he also aware that the level of statistical performance of the Government is on a par with that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who told me that the Government had produced 4,000 doctors, which he repeated in a party political broadcast last week? The number turns out to be 3,500 doctors, rounded up to 4,000 by his officials. The truth is that there is hardly a health authority in the country whose allocated growth money exceeds the efficiency savings that have been made. It is part of the fabric of lies—

Order. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing the Front Bench of lying?

Merely the Government, Mr. Speaker.

Order. That is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman must not lower our standards to that extent. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw any charge of lying.

The Government's statistical record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]—could be described as one of terminological inexactitude.

Order. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw the charge of lying.

If you were to impute, Mr. Speaker—

There is no need for argument. All the hon. Gentleman has to do is to say that he withdraws the charge of lying. I apply the same rules to all hon. Members and they must apply to the hon. Gentleman. We must try to maintain our standards.

If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, I must of course, out of respect to you, withdraw that charge.

I am very much obliged.

In reply to the question, in so far as I remember it, I do not know how much money the hon. Gentleman wants us to spend on collecting these damn-fool statistics, which, when he gets them, he tries to misuse. We have 192 district health authorities and we could, if we wanted, collect centrally the details from all of them of the growth money that they have been allocated by their regional health authorities and the efficiency savings that they have been asked to make. If it is the specific concern of the hon. Gentleman, we could collect figures for any one district health authority, but there is no point in someone at the Elephant and Castle collecting the details from 192 authorities. The hon. Gentleman wants the figures to demonstrate that, somehow, we are not increasing growth in the Health Service. Spending on the Health Service has gone up 16 per cent. ahead of the RPI since the Government came to office and, making allowance for pay and price increases and the extra cost of the Health Service, growth stands at 7·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is trying to prove the impossible. If he gets the answer from all the district health authorities, which he can do by going around to them all, he will not be able to prove his preposterous thesis.

The Minister is aware, because I have written to him recently about the problem, that in the Kirkstall area of Leeds, because of present allocations, the long-awaited building of the clinic has had to be postponed, not because of the capital costs — the authority was ready to go out to tender—but because the insignificant sum of £27,000 per year could not be found for revenue costs. Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that the clinic goes ahead and that the expectations of the people of Kirkstall are realised as quickly as possible?

The hon. Gentleman has already had a word with me about the problem in Kirkstall and I shall, of course, look into it for him. As I understand it, that district health authority is having to make a choice between competing priorities in its district. That has always been a feature of the Health Service and will always be, whatever happens, but across the country as a whole the Government have exempted the Health Service from any cuts in public spending. In fact, we are greatly increasing the resources going to the Health Service for obvious and perfectly understandable reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to improve health services in the Trent regional health authority area.

Yes, we shall continue to do so. This year we have given the region an additional £17 million growth money and this should help it to continue to improve and expand its services.

Does the Minister realise that this is not a question of allocating money to the regions? Is he aware that the report of the Resource Allocations Working Party recommended that the policy should also carry through to the areas where services are provided? Will he bear in mind that Montagu hospital is still under duress? Will he ensure that anything allocated to the Trent region and to the other three authorities involved is passed through to the Montagu hospital? Will the Minister visit the Montagu hospital and the surrounding catchment area to ensure that what we have always said about patients coming first is carried out fairly and justly by the Government?

The RAWP formula that we use demonstrates that the Trent region needs growth money. That is why it has £17 million extra this year, which represents 2·4 per cent. real growth in services for the region as a whole. That money has to make its way through to priorities in each of the districts. The Montagu hospital has been the subject of controversy in the past. The hon. Gentleman has made frequent representations that it should be kept and improved as an acute hospital. The present position is that the Doncaster health authority is consulting about the future of the Montagu hospital. The documents are out and views are now forthcoming. We are pledged to continue its use as an acute hospital. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit it, but that might be more appropriate when the consultation process has gone a little further.

Has the Minister considered the case, about which I wrote recently to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, of one of my constituents who moved last year from Scotland to the Doncaster area, which is in the Trent health region, and found that the level of care that she had experienced in Scotland was not available to her in Doncaster? Will he take steps to remove such regional disparity and ensure that our National Health Service is truly national?

I visited that hospital in Doncaster in the summer of last year. I have no doubt that the quality of care that patients receive in Doncaster is of the highest standard. There are certainly differences between different parts of the country. That is why we have this so-called RAWP formula, which we use when distributing the growth money so that some parts of the country get more growth than others. That is the background to the disputes that we sometimes have in southern England, where well funded districts find it difficult to accept the need to rationalise and to change their services, and are encouraged in their resistance by the arguments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and others who try to pretend that the background is always that of national cuts. The Government are trying to rationalise and to improve the efficiency of the service and to release resources to go to places such as Doncaster and other parts of the country that need more money.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the total amount received in payment of health services by overseas visitors under the 1982 arrangements at the Central Middlesex, Wembley and Northwick Park hospitals, together with the total number of patients questioned about their entitlement to free National Health Service services at these hospitals.

All new patients at each hospital are questioned. At the Central Middlesex hospital 3,154 patients were questioned between October last year and February 1983 and charges amounting to £5,934 levied. At Wembley hospital 4,100 patients have been questioned since October 1982 and no charges levied. At Northwick Park charges of £2,367 have been levied but information about the number of patients questioned is not available. In view of the problems in the NHS at the time the scheme came into operation, and of the fact that they refer to the winter months, when tourism is at its lowest, I should not be inclined to attach too much importance to the figures at this stage.

Is the Minister aware that these figures reveal, as do the national figures, that this is one of the biggest nonsenses perpetrated on the National Health Service? Thousands of people have been questioned and my estimate of income throughout the country is about £300,000 — not the £6 million referred to by the Minister. Does the Minister recall the case of the Royal Free hospital where, of the 8,000 people interviewed, eight had to pay and a total of £167 was forthcoming? Will the Minister now consult the Commission for Racial Equality on the effects of this policy on race relations in areas such as Brent?

I notice that, in company with his colleagues, the hon. Gentelman denigrates any attempt to get extra money for the Health Service. There have been no allegations whatever of racial intolerance in this matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of overseas visitors who come to this country and have to pay is acceptable to the vast majority of British people because of the additional funds thereby made available to the National Health Service, so ensuring that those who live here—whether their views are racial or otherwise—may enjoy the benefits of the NHS, which the Government have made better than any previous Government?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Any sensible person who is not covered by reciprocal arrangements would, before coming to this country, take out insurance.

Is it not obvious that the Minister has created this enormous machinery simply to support some minor political point? Are we not spending far more in administrative costs in trying to get back smaller amounts than can ever be justified by any real attempt to raise money for the NHS?

I could attempt to utter some words of wisdom to the hon. Lady. She had better wait until we get the full figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to announce the savings he expects in the part-year 1983–84 as a result of the changeover to the historic system of measuring inflation for the purpose of uprating benefits.

I do not anticipate there will be any such savings.

That is unbelievable. Does the Minister seriously believe that he can hide the clawback by the deception of changing the system? Is he aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answered my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on 11 April by saying that the clawback from pensioners would be £210 million? When will the Government allow the pensioners a real increase in their standard of living, instead of making them eke out a living on the poverty line?

There is no clawback—

There is. It is a deception.

There is no adjustment. Pensioners keep the pension rate that they have been paid since last November and they will receive a further increase next November based on price rises between last May and this May. On any likely assumption, the pensioners will be a lot better off when this Parliament ends than when it began.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill becomes the Labour party — which changed the system to make savings and failed to pay the pensioners their Christmas bonus—to make such comments?

I have consistently sought not to dwell too much on the embarrassment on the Labour Benches. It remains the fact, however, that in 1976 they changed the system to save what would now be £1 billion at the expense of the pensioners.

Does the Minister agree that if inflation is running at 6 per cent. next November, as opposed to an anticipated 4 per cent. in May, the Government will ensure that nobody loses as a result of this changeover?

The Government had made it clear that they intended to proceed originally on the basis of forecast with adjustment. The change to a historic method means that pensioners will have a larger uprating than they would otherwise have had.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when construction of phases 1, 2 and 3 of the capital building programme at the Queen's Park hospital, Blackburn, will begin.

The North-Western regional health authority is currently reviewing the capital projects to be started during the next 10 years or so, and is likely to determine its programme in May. I cannot anticipate the start dates of developments at Queen's Park hospital, but I am assured that the authority continues to regard the improvement of services in Blackburn as a high priority.

Is the Minister aware that three years ago the chairman of the regional health authority promised that the building of a paediatric unit would begin last month and that the previous Minister for Health promised that the building of a maternity unit would begin in 1984–85? As a result of cuts in the capital programmes of the regional health authority, these desperately needed facilities have been delayed yet again. As these facilities are so urgently needed, will the Minister say today that the paediatric unit will go ahead?

The delay has not been due in any way to financial difficulties. That assurance has been given to me by the authorities. The capital allocation to the region has gone up in real terms by 10·6 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1983–84.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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 shall be attending the CBI annual dinner.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the remarks of Mr. Terence Duffy, of the engineering union,. who has declared that the Leader of the Opposition has his defence policies totally wrong? Will she commend Mr. Duffy's remarks to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition Benches, especially his robust declaration that the only path to genuine peace is multilateral disarmament?

Yes, like my hon. Friend I saw those most excellent remarks, which, so far as I remember, were to the effect that if we really wish to keep our freedom we must have the capacity, will and courage to defend it, and if we wish to reduce the amount we spend on armaments we must do it by seeing that both sides reduce their armaments in an equal and balanced way.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister give a few minutes today to consider the fall-off of 17 per cent in the output of manufacturing industry since her Government took power, and the much larger fall-off in the west midlands? Will she accept that the marginal improvement in the figures recently is no significant sign of economic recovery and that the appointment of a Minister does not go anywhere to solve the west midlands' problems?

The output of manufacturing industry has indeed fallen, here and elsewhere. But the ironic thing is that in the first quarter of this year we achieved an all-time record for car sales, with retail sales in the first quarter being 4·5 per cent. up. If our industries had really good design and competitive pricing, a greater proportion of that would have gone into British jobs.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time in her busy day to note recent press comment on the south Atlantic fund, much of which has been inaccurate and unfair and no doubt disturbs those who gave to the fund? Does she agree that the fund is administered by trustees in the best long-term interests of the widows, children and others who suffered loss, and that those most deeply concerned are grateful for the way in which they have been helped and their interests safeguarded?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I have seen a number of comments about the south Atlantic fund in the past few days. It is a charitable fund, and subject to the laws of charities, unlike the Penlee fund, which was a disaster fund and was not so subject. It is vital that the trustees also have regard to the long-term interests of those who have been disabled and wounded, and some of their needs may not emerge for a long time. In the meantime, the trust has disbursed some £6 million and I believe that it is properly acting as trustee and looking after the interests of those who are the true beneficiaries of the fund.

If the right hon. Lady is in a mood for clearing up inaccuracies, can she tell us whether she was correctly reported at the weekend when she claimed that hers will be the first Government to go to the country with a lower inflation rate than they inherited? Does she not recall that she inherited a lower inflation rate from the Labour Government than the one with which she left us when she was a member of the last Conservative Government?

Assuming that the forecasts on inflation are reasonable — I know that our inflation forecasts have been wrong for a long time—even if inflation were to go up a bit in the coming months, and even if prices were to increase a little in the year — [Interruption.]

Cut and run.

The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election, is he? Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Could not take it? Cannot stand it? If I were going to cut and run, I should have gone after the Falklands. Frightened! Right now inflation is lower than it has been for 13 years—a record which the right hon. Gentleman could not begin to touch.

If the right hon. Lady is now to join the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of the cut-and-run election that will make excellent news throughout the country, because we are certainly happy to have it whenever they wish. [Interruption.] I just want, if I can, to ask the right hon. Lady—whether or not she goes for the election; even if she decides to stick it out and face the figures and the facts—to try to give the correct figures to the country. Will she acknowledge that she inherited from the Labour Government a much lower inflation figure than the one she left us when she was a member of the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? I know that she never likes to defend anything that she did in that Government, but she had better do so now.

Our performance on inflation is far better— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question".] Our performance on inflation is far better than the right hon. Gentleman's best, and our performance on the upper level is not nearly as bad as the right hon. Gentleman's worst. He cannot get away from that.

Does not the right hon. Lady's reply mean that the inflation figures that she gave to the country at the weekend were false?

I do not recollect giving any specific figures at the weekend. Can the right hon. Gentleman quote them? I did not give any specific figures to the country at the weekend on inflation, but I shall now repeat what I said. Inflation is lower than it has been for some 12 or 13 years, and that has happened under this Government.

Very good, Michael. Game, set and match.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend reflect today upon the wide welcome that has been given both inside and outside the House to the Government's statement yesterday on lead, in particular on lead in petrol? Does she recognise that many people are gratified that the Government kept an open mind on this important issue, in spite of the Lawther committee's conclusions over two years ago? Will she assure the House that the Government will take the initiative with our EC partners in seeing that vehicles running on lead-free petrol are on our roads as soon as is practicably possible and, I hope, well before the end of this decade?

I should point out that before the decision that was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the Government had taken the decision substantially to reduce the level of lead in petrol in all cars. That was the fastest way of reducing lead that we could possibly have chosen. In addition, we are now prepared to go to new car models, which will have no lead whatever in their petrol. As my right hon. Friend said, we must do that in conjunction with Europe and we shall be among the first to see that we try to act together to secure the appropriate directive. Altogether, the Government will have done more to reduce lead in the human body than any other Government.

Is the Prime Minister aware that her refusal to meet a deputation from the March for Jobs which starts in Glasgow on Saturday will be seen as indifference on her part to the plight of millions of British people who are today refused the opportunity of earning their living? Does the right hon. Lady believe that mass unemployment and all the misery, poverty and insecurity that accompanies it are part of the Victorian values that she admires so much?

I shall not be meeting that march to London for jobs. I do not believe that marches will in any way help to procure the jobs of the future. What the Government are doing by pursuing sound financial policies, by giving help to small businesses and, in particular, by giving help to new products, will do far more to secure the jobs of the future than any number of marches.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the nation that it remains the paramount aim of Her Majesty's Government to reduce inflation? Will she accept the congratulations of the House, because that is the greatest blessing that can come to the sick, the poor, the disabled, the pensioners and the unemployed?

It is indeed our foremost aim to reduce inflation further. We must continue with our policies. Some of our competitors already have a lower rate of inflation than we do. To pursue any other policy would be actively to plunder the savings of pensioners.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the recent leaders in the Sunday Standard and The Scotsman, which point out that the continued uncertainty over Ravenscraig and the sell-out of Anderson Strathclyde show the Secretary of State for Scotland to be both inpotent and imcompetent? When will the Prime Minister recognise what the newspapers and the people of Scotland have recognised for a long time and bring in someone who is prepared to defend Scottish interests?

Ravenscraig's problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to get more orders for steel in a world that has a great overcapacity of steel—

Rubbish.

The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish". How does he think that any company will succeed unless it can procure orders and fulfil them at good prices and with delivery on time? That is the way to try to get more orders for Ravenscraig and that is the way in which the chairman of the BSC board is proceeding.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the recently published document by the Department of Industry entitled "How to make your business grow", which is a practical guide on Government assistance to small firms? I acknowledge and welcome what the Government have done, but does my right hon. Friend agree that business in Britain is over-regulated? As we erode one regulation we usually impose yet another. Therefore, will she consider including in the Conservative manifesto a commitment to deregulate Britain and to remove some of the regulatory shackles that are presently stifling free enterprise?

I know that my hon. Friend recognises that the Government have done more to encourage small businesses to start and expand than any other Government. That is generally recognised by those who are concerned to create the new wealth in Britain. We have tried to help small businesses by altering some sections of the Employment Protection Act 1975, by substantially reducing the number of forms and by increasing the levels for VAT registration. We shall continue to do the best that we can to ensure that they can operate as smoothly and effectively as possible.

In some quiet moment will the Prime Minister think back to what she said prior to the last general election? At some time will she relate to us all the promises that she made that she has not fulfilled? When she talks about inflation, will she also consider unemployment as one of the issues on which she has failed the nation? When will she do something about reducing the number of unemployed in Britain to bring us back on to an even keel?

I have already said that we have a superlative record on inflation. Unemployment is a worldwide problem. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Labour Government more than doubled the level of unemployment with which they began.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

In view of the growing number of allegations of murder and mayhem in Matabeleland. will my right hon. Friend support the calls for Commonwealth observers to be sent to Zimbabwe? Will she give an assurance to the House that if the present military situation there deteriorates into straight tribal warfare, the strong British Army training team will be instantly withdrawn?

We are of course concerned, as I think a number of people are, about the reports of what has been happening in Zimbabwe. We have let our views be known to the Government there. The British military training team is at present doing a superb job. I believe that its presence is reassuring to many people who are deeply concerned about what is happening there. I think that it should stay there for the time being. With regard to what my hon. Friend said about Commonwealth observers, if there were a call for them from Zimbabwe or from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, we would most earnestly consider it, but at present there is not.