asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now estimate the number of people living in poverty.

There is no generally accepted definition of poverty on which such an estimate could be made.

Does the Minister accept that there seems to be no end to the Government's enthusiasm to extend poverty? Not only are they failing to uprate benefits in line with inflation by about 1 to 1·5 per cent., but they are extending the number of people who are having to draw social security because they are unemployed, and in addition they are proposing to put up fuel charges next spring by 5 per cent., which is an extra 2 per cent. on the amount allowed for in the uprating.

The uprating that will take place next Monday is in line with inflation, where it is not in advance of inflation. The uprating in child benefit, unemployment benefit and other benefits is in advance of inflation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the higher we raise supplementary benefits, the more people can claim to be in poverty.

Does my hon. Friend agree that young people without permanent accommodation in London, who, according to recent reports in the press, are receiving over £100 a week in social security benefits, are not living in poverty?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Leaving aside the cheap sneer of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), is the Minister aware that those living on small incomes will be seriously harmed by the proposed increases in gas and electricity prices? Is he further aware that those who do not receive supplementary benefit but are eligible for rent or rate rebates do not receive a penny piece to assist them with their fuel bills in the winter months?

Fuel costs paid as part of supplementary benefits have over the years increased at a rate higher than the increase in the cost of fuel. Those who are not on supplementary benefit receive the pension in the round and are responsible for the expenditure of that money. One cannot adjust 100 different inputs to every expenditure.

That is a disgraceful answer.

When the star chamber reached the decision to raise gas and fuel prices, was the Minister asked to estimate the effect on the budget of a social security beneficiary? If so, what was his estimate? If not, does that not show the contempt in which the aptly named star chamber holds the poor?

I was not present at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and today would be the wrong time to refer to public spending, as a statement will be made on Thursday.

The Minister failed to mention housing benefit in his run round the benefits that may be changed. Is that because this week there will be a further imposition on those receiving housing benefit and that that will increase poverty?

As I said, a statement on public expenditure will be made on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman is present, he will find out what is to happen.

The Minister may not accept that there is a common definition for poverty, but does he accept that everybody else does? The recently released figures from the family expenditure survey show a 40 per cent. increase in the numbers on low incomes. Does the Minister accept that that is a direct result of the Government's policy? If not, who or what is responsible for kicking down towards the bottom end of our society an extra 4·5 million people in the first two years of Tory rule?

In 1976, under the Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the then Minister for Social Security, said:

"Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 255.]

"The Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 766.]

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much have staff numbers in the National Health Service changed since 1978; and if he will make a statement relating this to his Department's current manpower policy.

The number of directly employed staff in the National Health Service in England increased by about 69,000 between September 1978 and September 1982 to a total of 828,000. The increase was predominantly among those directly involved in patient care, particularly doctors, nurses and professional and technical staff. Following talks with regional health authorities I have asked for a reduction of 4,800 posts by March 1984—that is a reduction of 0·5 per cent.

In the light of that spectacular increase in job numbers, will my right hon. Friend accept that the only criticism of him that is perhaps justified is that he has allowed himself to be painted as a butcher when his record on jobs shows that he is more like a Santa Claus? Do not these figures show that the Opposition's argument on jobs reductions is a hollow sham? Does not my right hon. Friend have a duty to the taxpayer to attempt to control the growth of his huge empire?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his discerning description of me. It is probably better to be portrayed as a cutter than as a trimmer. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that resources for the National Health Service have increased substantially under this Government. In our period in office, front-line staff numbers, especially nurses, have increased substantially.

In the light of the spectacular cuts that have been announced by a ministerial butcher who dresses up as a Santa Claus with no beard, will the Secretary of State recognise that the cuts are a gross interference in the rights of health authorities to manage their own affairs? Will he take steps to ensure that deprived districts, such as north Staffordshire, suffer no cuts, because they cannot afford any more?

I do not believe that anyone can reasonably portray a reduction of 4,800 posts—0·5 per cent.—as spectacular. This reduction does not add up to that description. The Government had to intervene because health authorities were planning not to reduce or to stabilise manpower, but to increase numbers by 7,000, predominantly among administrative or ancillary staff, not nurses and doctors. In those circumstances, it was right for the Government to intervene.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saving £64 million in administrative costs by the abolition of the area health authorities, as reported in Hansard yesterday. Does he agree that the 100,000-plus administrators in the Health Service, which works out at one administrator to every seven other staff, is too high, especially in the Trent region, which covers my constituency?

My hon. Friend, who has long experience in the Health Service and as a health authority chairman, is correct. I hope that health authorities will have noted that the Government would like the reduction in posts to be geared more towards the administrative tail of the Health Service than to nurses and doctors.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that these manpower cuts are manifestly arbitrary and damaging to clinical care when there are already more than 3,000 doctors and 8,000 nurses and midwives on the dole? Will he tell the House what legal powers he has to enforce these cuts where health authorities are not breaking their cash limits? Is it not shameful that many authorities should be required to dismiss regular nursing staff and then be allowed to take on the same number of agency nurses the next day?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as Opposition spokesman on social services. All his statements are factually incorrect. First, there is no evidence of doctor or nurse redundancies. Secondly, there is evidence that the regional chairmen have accepted the targets and will work towards them. Therefore, there is no question of their being forced to break their cash limits. Thirdly, the reductions are not arbitrary. They have been carefully worked out to reduce manpower by 0·5 per cent. after careful talks with every regional health authority.

rose——

Order. I appeal for shorter supplementary questions and answers.

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

The latest estimate available shows that about 70 per cent. of those who stand to gain by claiming one-parent benefit are receiving it.

This figure represents a considerable improvement since the Government came into office, but it is still not completely satisfactory. Has my hon. Friend any plans for further steps to improve the take-up of one-parent benefit?

I accept that the number is not as high as we would like, and we are continuing to look for ways to increase it. Recently, we introduced a new poster for display in each of the relevant areas. This year we are experimenting with different ways of promoting take-up in different parts of the country—television, radio and magazines—with a view to assessing the most effective way of making further progress.

Will the Minister consider making an early statement on the outstanding recommendations of the Finer committee in a report that was produced almost 10 years ago?

A large number of the recommendations in the Finer report were for Departments other than the DHSS. I note the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to encourage management recognition of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel for industrial relations purposes.

Individual health authorities are free to recognise the association locally, and I have encouraged several to do so. We have also authorised a number of authorities, where the association has a significant membership to grant the facility under which members' contributions to the association are deducted at source.

In the light of my hon. and learned Friend's advice to health authorities to recognise the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel and Lancashire's refusal to do so, even though more than 50 per cent. of ambulance personnel are members of APAP, what will he do to rectify this disgraceful anomaly in Lancashire?

I have given the advice to the district chairmen. The chairman in question is one of those to whom I have written. I hope that he will reflect on the fact that the Government's view is that the ambulance men should determine by which union or association they wish to be represented. We expect health authorities to recognise the associations that plainly have the support of their employees.

Does the Minister recognise that legitimate trade unions in my area are fighting against cuts in ambulance services? The Secretary of State has talked about 0·5 per cent. cuts. In view of those cuts, will the Minister examine the proposals of the Northumbria ambulance service where there are proposed cuts of 20 per cent.? Such cuts will leave patients in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends——

Order. The question is about recognition, not cuts.

Does the Minister recognise that legitimate trade unions are reducing the emergency cover for my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), but I will not allow the people I represent to suffer — [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout as much as they like.

Order. I think that is sufficient.

We have asked health authorities to cut spending only on unnecessary services, to release resources for priority patient care. We expect local health authorities to recognise those unions and associations chosen by the employees to represent them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he now proposes to encourage those responsible for pension schemes to improve the equity of benefits between participants in their schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is proposing to ease the problems for early leavers in occupational pension schemes.

Following the report of the Occupational Pensions Board on the problems of the early leaver from pension schemes, I consulted closely all major interests and in September held a one-day conference on this subject. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on identifying the problems in this area and on the initiatives that he took to promote discussion. Does he agree that the early leaver is only part of the issue and that we should seek to provide portability of pensions, which would carry many substantial benefits?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Action on early leavers does not in any way preclude action being taken on personal portable pensions. There is a great attraction in principle in personal portable pensions, and I shall have something further to say about that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem has a severe effect on employees and does not help flexibility of employment or the economy? I know that he has made progress, but will he redouble his efforts to further this cause which is so important to employees?

I have no doubt that many staff feel strongly about this problem. Voluntary action has not been sufficient, and I believe that the Government have a duty to remedy this injustice.

When can we expect a Government response to the Select Committee report on equality of retirement age for men and women, as it will have an effect on the future of occupational pensions?

It will plainly have some effect. I am not sure that it arises from this question, but there w ill be a response shortly.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the only proper answer to the problem of the early leaver is full indexation of a frozen pension, which should not be at the expense of cutting other members' benefits? If that cannot be done, does it not illustrate that private occupational pension schemes, as opposed to the state scheme, suffer from the overwhelming defect that they cannot cope properly during a period of inflation?

I shall shortly be making a statement on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman felt so strongly about this subject, I am surprised that he did not do something about it when he was a Minister at the DHSS.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals in the London area have been closed during the last four years; and how many are currently under threat of closure.

Since May 1979, 29 hospitals in Greater London have been approved for closure. Formal closure proposals have been made, but not yet approved, in respect of a further 14. These figures do not include temporary closures.

Is the Minister aware that his recent decision to close the south London hospital for women is bitterly resented in my constituency and adjoining areas? Is not the only conclusion to be drawn from the answer that he has just given that there will be further hospital closures in London and that we may well be left with only one teaching hospital in each London district health authority area?

I accept that the south London hospital for women decision was difficult because of the unique service being provided there by women to women patients. The closure will release £5 million, which will pave the way for the next phase of the new St. George's teaching hospital, Tooting. In the short-term, it will allow much needed improvements to be made in the care of the mentally ill in that district, particularly at the Springfield hospital.

Where greatly valued local community hospitals are under threat, such as those at Teddington and Twickenham in my constituency, following the recommendations in the Griffiths report, if a district health authority owns valuable under-used tracts of land, could they not be sold or leased to raise funds so that closures could be reconsidered?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is important that we release surplus land at the proper value because it can provide money for health authorities to devote to patient services. We believe that the new management will give high priority to the disposal of surplus land and the better management of estates in use.

How many temporarily closed hospitals are there in London in addition to the closures that the Minister has mentioned? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that none of the temporary closures will prejudice the ultimate decision as to whether the hospitals remain open?

I require notice to give an exact figure of how many hospitals are temporarily closed. Temporary closure means just that. If people wish to make permanent decisions, they have to go through the consultation procedure. If there is any controversy, they then come to Ministers for decisions. Ministers will approve closures only where they are satisfied that they are in the interests of the authority and patient services and are the best way to make necessary economies to provide better health services elsewhere.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that those who represent districts which are underfunded on the RAWP formula and in regions which are overfunded, including parts of London, believe that a fairer distribution of resources is important?

No doubt my right hon. Friend's constituents and many others in areas surrounding London regard some of the campaigns going on in London to try to preserve surplus out-of-date hospitals as contrary to the interests of patients in areas such as his, which are underprovided, because the population has increased or because they are historically deprived.

Does the Minister realise that the south London hospital for women occupies a special place in London and is not rundown and outdated? Does he recognise that women throughout London are enraged at the proposal to close the hospital? They see it as a reduction in their right to be treated in that hospital which, as has been pointed out, is run by women for women.

The south London hospital for women was potentially surplus because it is in an already well provided area which is to have a new teaching hospital at Tooting. Some of those campaigning for the south London hospital for women put it to me that the logical alternative was not to proceed with the next phase of St. George's. That would be unpopular in Tooting, Clapham and Wandsworth, which are the areas affected. We have received an assurance from the authority that women patients who wish to have treatment from other women will, in all cases where it is possible, be offered such treatment, particularly in gynaecology, obstetrics and so on, about which many women feel strongly.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the North-East Thames regional health authority concerning manpower cuts.

The North-East Thames regional health authority wrote to the Department on 31 August setting out its response to the indicative figures issued at the end of July. I met the chairman of the authority on 27 September to discuss the final target for the region.

Will the Minister confirm that in the Dagenham health district the cuts amount to more than three times 0·5 per cent.? Will he also confirm that the district health authority could have met his financial targets without the imposed manpower cuts? Is he aware that the imposed cuts will mean closed wards, fewer nurses, the impossibility of pursuing specialist subjects in Oldchurch hospital and a lower level of patient care?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. The responsibility for the distribution of manpower targets within the North-East Thames regional health authority is a matter for that health authority. There is no evidence that patient services will suffer as a result of the manpower indicative figures that have been given.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the implementation of the Griffiths proposals, coupled with the contracting out of services, will make it relatively easy for that authority to comply with the manpower targets?

My hon. Friend is correct. We want health authorities to address themselves first and foremost to tackling difficult manpower problems rather than turning, as is all too easy, to cutting services, slackening estate maintenance and not re-ordering new equipment as they should.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why seasonal workers who cannot obtain employment in their off-season are not entitled to supplementary benefit.

A seasonal worker is not specifically barred from receiving supplementary benefit during his off-season, but the level of his earnings in the on-season, if they are sufficiently high, may exclude him from supplementary benefit in the off-season.

Is my hon. Friend aware that seasonal workers who are paid only during the season are unable to obtain unemployment benefit when they sign on? They also receive inadequate supplementary benefit. When a seasonal worker applies for supplementary benefit, why is he unable to receive adequate financial resources to give him a living wage?

If in the on-season the worker is allowed to earn two and a half times the level of supplementary benefit or three times that of the single householder, that figure is not taken into account when assessing his off-season entitlement. Anything above that figure is carried forward and then divided by the number of weeks in the off-season, including the £4 that the claimant is allowed to earn. I am sure that my hon. Friend follows my argument. Provided that the claimant has not earned a lot of money in the on-season, he will be entitled to supplementary benefit in the off-season.

Why does the definition of off-season vary from area to area?

The definition varies from area to area because it depends upon whether, for example, agricultural fisheries or tourist workers are involved. The season is different for each.

Does the Minister accept that some of those affected work for Government agencies?

I am not sure what the hon. Member means. If he will write to me, my Department will check the details.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has held with interested parties on the implementation of the recommendations proposed in the Griffiths report.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific steps he is planning to take to implement the recommendations of the Griffiths report.

As I told the House on 25 October, I am committed to improving management in the NHS and I believe that the Griffiths report has made important proposals to achieve this. I am about to consult health authorities, professional staff and other bodies on the report. In the meantime, I intend to take action within the Department to implement the report's proposals.

Is the Secretary of State confident that interested parties will accept the implementation of the Griffiths report, thus releasing funds patient care, which is what the NHS is all about?

The objectives of the Griffiths report have been widely accepted, not only in the National Health Service but outside. The aim of the consultation period is to get the exact views of the NHS on how the proposals should be implemented.

Although my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his positive response to the Griffiths report, does he accept that the establishment of management and supervisory bodies will not, by themselves, improve the quality of management within the NHS? Has my right hon. Friend any further proposals to establish management by objective, individual management responsibilities and personnel appraisement policies in the near future? To what time scale is he working? Is he prepared to develop the ideas as soon as possible?

We are prepared to develop as quickly as possible all ideas that improve the management of the NHS. We wish to establish the supervisory board and the management board within the Department. At the same time, we intend appointing general managers at regional, district and unit levels. The other points raised by my hon. Friend must also be considered.

I can tell those hon. Members who have not read the Griffiths report that it is a good blueprint for running a grocery chain, but not the marvellous network of hospitals within the NHS. I understand that the Secretary of State intends consulting the medical profession about the Griffiths report. Does he intend giving the House an opportunity to express its views on the report?

The last matter raised by the hon. Lady was fair, and I shall consider it. Her first point has no validity whatsoever. The differences between running a business and the NHS are great, but there are also great similarities. Above all, both are trying to provide the best possible service to the public at the least cost. I should have thought that the hon. Lady, who is committed to the NHS, would welcome a report that aims at better management of the service.

I welcome the move from consensus management to the introduction of managers in the health authorities, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the continuing importance of consultation by managers with the specialists involved in the Health Service, be they medical specialists or those in more junior posts?

There is no question about that. At all levels, that will be the case.

Given the deep concern exemplified by the NHS and by the response that Mr. Griffiths received recently from the Royal College of Nursing, will the Secretary of State, before proceeding with the recommendations in the report, reconsider the possibility of regional pilot schemes to examine whether the recommendations will work at a practical level?

There are some pilot schemes concerned with management budgets. I shall give the hon. Gentleman details about them. The case for going forward and seeking a better management structure in the Health Service without undergoing the extensive reorganisation that has taken place in the past is, however, overwhelming.

Are not the Griffiths proposals aimed not at improving efficiency but at facilitating further cuts in the Health Service? Is not that the reason why the Government changed their earlier view that the chief executive idea would be incompatible with the professional independence of hospital staff? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the outrageous decision to exclude the chief nursing officer from the advisory board, as nurses constitute half of the staff employed in the NHS?

No final decision has been made about the last matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, unlike his predecessor, will accept that the Griffiths report, like Mr. Roy Griffiths himself, is entirely dedicated to trying to improve the NHS. I urge the Opposition to try to aim for a modern Health Service, which is what the Government are trying to achieve.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of private hospital beds in 1979, in comparison with the last available figures for 1983.

I regret that no information is available for 1979. There are approximately 34,500 beds in the independent sector now, more than three quarters of which are in nursing homes.

To what extent are those private beds subsidised by the taxpayer? Is it not a moral outrage that, at a time when Leeds eastern and Leeds western health districts are being forced to cut jobs and services, the proposed private hospital at Methley near Leeds should be subsidised by the Government's business expansion scheme?

No subsidy is paid by the taxpayer to support private medicine. The funding of one of the two new hospitals in Leeds to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in private beds reflect the fact that many more people are joining health insurance schemes and that a further contributory factor is the fact that many trade unionists are joining private health schemes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure he will agree that we wish to see throughout the country more examples of co-operation between health authorities in the private sector in providing joint developments for the benefit of patients in both schemes.

Bearing in mind the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), is the Minister aware that private hospitals are used to carry out operations and patients are then transferred to NHS hospitals for post-operative care? Is not that an area in which the NHS is subsidising private medicine?

No—far from it. More than £50 million comes to the NHS through that system.

Now that private hospitals and private health insurance companies are finding it difficult to make profits, will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer resist the importuning and bleating of the private sector for more subsidies from the taxpayer, in addition to the tax concessions that it has already received, the business start-up scheme that it has exploited, the changes in consultants' contracts, the way in which private hospitals are parasites on neighbouring NHS hospitals and the scandalous changes introduced by the Government in the disposal of surplus NHS land to private hospitals?

There seem to be about seven separate questions there. In the past four years there has been an increase of some 3,000 beds in the private sector and a further 800 are being built. Those beds increase the availability of health care in this country. They do not decrease it. We welcome the co-operation between the public and private sectors in this context.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many new hospital beds are currently unused.

The information requested is not collected routinely but a special inquiry in March 1982 identified 934 beds awaiting opening at seven hospitals through lack of funds. The latest available information, in April 1983, shows that the number of unopened beds has been reduced to 791 at six of those hospitals.

Is it not a disgrace that so many beds in new wards remain unused when hundreds of thousands of patients are waiting in distress and dying in agony on the waiting list? Would it not be more sensible to take action to match those new beds with the unemployed nurses and doctors to reduce the waiting list and the waiting time rather than increasing them by imposing further cuts on the Health Service as the Government propose?

Some of the problems result from bad decisions on capital and revenue planning. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was determined to put that right so that those problems would no longer arise. The hon. Gentleman should consider the triumphant way in which the NHS in recent years has increased its productivity by treating 500,000 more patients per year in roughly the same number of beds. The waiting lists would be much shorter if there had not been industrial action in 1982.

Does the Minister accept that there was nothing wrong with the planning of the Glenfield district hospital in my constituency, but that everything wrong with the Government's policy, which is preventing that hospital from opening and resulting in a great deal of expenditure on mothballing? When will that hospital open? How long must my constituents wait for the hospital beds they so desperately need?

That is a matter for the regional health authority, but waiting lists throughout the country are becoming shorter and it will not be long before they return to the level before last year's industrial action.

Is the Minister aware that thousands of middle-aged and elderly people with detached retinas are waiting to use those hospital beds? Why will he not allow them to do so?

The disposition of resources for the treatment of individual specialties such as the optical matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are matters for the regional health authorities and their constituent district health authorities.

Is the Minister aware that in some district general hospitals, including those in Leeds, different wards are closed from week to week, thus obscuring the real number of unused beds? Will he draw attention to that in his next statement?

The hon. Gentleman should consider more closely the performance indicators that we are developing to examine those problems. Some ward closures represent sensible planning by the hospital authorities in the interests of conserving resources and increasing the throughput of patients in the very beds that we wish to see used to best effect.

How can the Minister say that the closing of hospitals and reductions in the number of beds have no effect when a constituent of mine in her seventies has to wait more than two years for orthopaedic surgery? Is that how safe the Health Service is in the hands of the Government?

We are treating more patients this year than ever before—[HON. MEMBERS: "You make more people sick."] I cannot answer the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman as I do not know the circumstances of his constituent or the clinical judgment of the consultant involved, but we are treating more, not fewer, patients.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why 78 per cent. of the total manpower cuts for England are expected of district and special health authorities in Greater London.

The manpower targets reflect the revenue position and individual circumstances of each region. London's health services remain funded at well above the national average level of spending. The lower manpower target for London reflects the general policy of making economies in better provided parts of London to provide extra resources for less well provided areas of the country.

Does the Minister agree that the figures propounded by the Government for job losses in London due to Government measures are only a quarter or a fifth of the true figures? Does he accept that in the Greenwich district, in which the Government estimate is 145 job losses, the actual figure is likely to be 600 and that in Haringey, for which the official figure is 53, the actual figure is likely to be 298?

The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the figures. Our target figures reflect a balance between the jobs which are, and always will be, required for new developments to improve the service and the number of posts that can be saved through more efficient use of manpower. The hon. Gentleman takes only one side of the equation. If the savings are made, the health authorities will release resources which would otherwise be wasted on unnecessary staffing and thus be able to improve their services. There has already been a growth of expenditure in London since the Government came to power. That area will therefore be able to press on with worthwhile developments despite the redistribution of growth money throughout the whole country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 November.

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, including one with the high commissioner for Papua New Guinea.

In welcoming my right hon. Friend's announcement that she will be going to Hungary, may I ask whether she is aware that she will find there a fiercely proud nation, a nation deprived of self-determination in which protest at its subjugation is forbidden but which yearns to maintain contact with western Europe? Will she do all that she can to let the people there know that we appreciate their difficulties and are concerned about their future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the time is now right to make strenuous efforts to have a sensible dialogue between East and West to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. The Deputy Prime Minister of Hungary paid a very successful visit to this country earlier this year. I hope to make a return visit shortly.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that all the cruise missiles have now arrived at Greenham common? Will she now tell us in what circumstances she would be prepared, if President Reagan bothered to ask her, to sanction the use of those missiles?

Cruise missiles will be coming in over quite a long period. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence promised to inform the House when the first ones arrived and he has done so. As for the right hon. Gentleman's second question, it would clearly be of the greatest possible use to the Soviet Union to know the precise circumstances or details of the arrangements. One does not normally help a potential aggressor in that way. The Labour Government never did so and I do not intend to have a worse record than theirs.

In the light of recent events, why is the Prime Minister still prepared to accept an utterly inferior status in what we thought was an alliance,? Can she not tell the difference between dependence and alliance, between the status of a partner in NATO and a lackey to the Americans?

Of course I can. I also know the difference between unilateral disarmament, which the right hon. Gentleman espouses, and multilateral disarmament, which we support.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that although there were times in the past when we could accept her credentials on multilateral disarmament, in the light of recent events those are now past and we do not believe that she is genuine?

The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. Arrangements with regard to American nuclear weapons on our soil remain precisely the same as those that existed during the time of the Labour Government. They satisfied all Labour Prime Ministers. Those arrangements have been applied to cruise missiles. As President Reagan said, there will be a joint decision before they are ever used. He also said that that is tantamount to a British veto on their use.

rose——

rose——

Order. It is normal to allow the Front Bench some latitude. I shall allow the Leader of the Opposition one more question.

I do not want to abuse your kindness, Mr. Speaker. These questions are so fundamental that they demand to be asked. I shall make this my last question. Is the right hon. Lady aware that nobody, be it President Reagan, his chiefs of staff, the Opposition or the British people, believes that there is joint determination over cruise missiles?

There is joint determination. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has doubts, but Labour Prime Ministers have been prepared to rest upon what I have described. I notice that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor his colleagues were forthright or forward in their protest against the constant stationing of SS20s by the Soviet Union throughout the disarmament talks.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the private Member's Bill dealing with the disabled, which is to be debated later this week? Will she take this opportunity to remind the House of the Government's outstanding record on helping the disabled?

The Bill has been published and the Government's view will be given on the appropriate day. As my hon. Friend said, the Government's record on helping the disabled is outstanding. The mobility allowance is 90 per cent. higher than it was during the Labour Government and it is now tax-free. Expenditure on the long-term invalidity and disability benefits is 21 per cent. above the level of increase in inflation. We deliver the goods and the Opposition do the talking.

Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who are in favour of the dual key for cruise missiles will not allow it to become a source of anti-Americanism? Is she further aware that we shall also not allow advocacy of that argument to undermine the bargaining position of NATO in its attempt to achieve a reduction of SS20s? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that negotiations will continue until the end of December and that the Government will consult the United States about reducing the number of Pershings that are to be deployed? Does she agree that one way in which to show restraint in the deployment of cruise missiles would be to recognise the strength of Soviet feeling about Pershing?

I understand that negotiations in Geneva continued this morning. We hope that they will continue and that, if satisfactory agreement is not reached by the end of December, they will continue into next year. There are many proposals on the table that require serious consideration. With regard to some of the proposals on the proportion to be struck between cruise and Pershing, should the total number of nuclear missiles be diminished because we have reached agreement on a lower number, the same proportion between Pershing and cruise will be retained.

Will the Prime Minister—who will have been grieved by the most recent murders of full-time and part-time members of the security forces in Northern Ireland — recognise how much the morale of those security forces has been sustained by her firm refusal to engage in or condone any attempts to weaken the constitutional status of Northern Ireland? Will she do all that is within her power to ensure that the security forces are not hampered in any way by inappropriate economic measures or considerations?

None of us can speak too highly of the bravery and courage of the police, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the armed forces in Northern Ireland. They do a great job trying to protect the weak and to uphold the law in a part of the United Kingdom. It will remain part of the United Kingdom unless the people there wish otherwise. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have protected the forces of law and order and increased expenditure on them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the delays to traffic over the Severn bridge, which results from the complacency and lethargic attitude of her Secretary of State for Transport? Will she ensure that the Welsh economy's lifeline is protected and compel her Minister to make a statement to the House before the end of the week?

The hon. Gentleman knows of the exchanges about the Severn bridge that have taken place in the House and that the Minister is awaiting a report before reaching a final decision on how best to cope with the problem. We are fully aware of the importance of that road bridge as an efficient means of transport to south Wales. We are also aware of its importance to present and future investment in that area.

May I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to another matter? Will she today consult her Secretary of State for Energy and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the cost of energy? How can she explain the proposed increases in the price of electricity and gas for next year — [Interruption.] Would the Opposition shut up?

Order. I think that I am the person who should say that.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. Will my right hon. Friend explain how she justifies these proposed price increases in the light of the huge profits that the gas and electricity industries have announced? Is she aware that those price increases will make British industry less competitive? Will she veto them?

Our policy is to set energy prices that relate to the trends and costs, and the costs of investment, in the industries concerned. With regard to electricity, the return on capital—the "huge profits" as my hon. Friend called them—is 1·5 per cent. I doubt whether many people would like to invest their savings for a return of 1·5 per cent. when the expected return on new investment is 5 per cent.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.

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

Notwithstanding the reduction in the level of home improvement grants, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real level of spending on such grants is much higher than it was under Labour?

The Government's record on home improvement grants is outstanding. The Labour Government spent £90 million a year on home improvement grants. That expenditure is expected to reach about £650 million this year. That is an excellent record.

Why has crime increased so much since the right hon. Lady came to office?

For the answer to that, the hon. Gentleman should go to the many reports that have been written. In fact, crime has increased in all countries of the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "No']—and as the reports show, it is not directly related to unemployment. Crime increased during periods when unemployment was decreasing.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports in the newspapers today of the suppression and outlawing of all peace movements in the satellite countries that attempt to object to the deployment of Russian missiles in their nations? Will she notice that in this country, where that does not happen, three forces are now aiming at the same purpose—the Labour party, CND, and the Communist party? All are attempting to achieve the same aim as Soviet Russia?

I understand what my hon. and learned Friend is saying. Many brave and courageous lives have been lost defending the right of those people to say what they do. I wish that more people realised that.