I have considered the content of this Bill with the greatest care. I am of the opinion that it is so drafted as to permit the unrestricted trading on Sundays throughout the year in the area to which it extends. The considerations involved are so much a matter of public policy that the Bill cannot properly proceed as a private Bill and accordingly I cannot propose to the House the Question for its Second Reading.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will next meet the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

My right hon. Friend met Sir Abraham Goldberg in October 1983. Further meetings will be arranged as needed.

Will the Minister make it his business to meet the chairman of the committee and ask him why, when it was reported in August 1983 that the drug Osmosin had been linked with 600 to 650 adverse effects and 20 deaths, no steps were taken by the United Kingdom authorities to withdraw the drug, and it was the West German authorities who approached the drug company to have the drug withdrawn? Is it not a scandal that, although the figures used by the West German authorities came from the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom authorities took no steps in connection with the drug and the Minister made no statement to the House on this serious matter?

Order. I ask for shorter supplementary questions.

No, I do not accept that there was any avoidable delay in this case. The drug was only marketed in this country in December 1982. In July 1983 the Committee on Safety of Medicines was advising doctors of the risks connected with it. Action was then taken in Germany and the drug has now been withdrawn from the market.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the committee's position on the morning-after contraceptive pill? Has the committee said that it is safe if used on its own, that it is safe if used in conjunction with more conventional oral contraceptives, or that it is not safe at all?

The committee has advised that it is safe as an emergency measure only. It should not be contemplated as a normal form of contraception. The committee has advised doctors of the most desirable method of morning-after contraception. Those who think that they may need to take such steps are advised to consult their medical practitioner.

The Minister will be aware that anxiety has been expressed recently about the difficulty which the elderly have in interpreting prescriptions for some of the medicines which are prescribed for them. Will the Government express a view on that?

If the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the recent report by the Royal College of Physicians on overprescribing for the elderly, I must tell him that I welcome that report. Its conclusions are in line with the kind of advice the Department tries to give.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the letter which was sent by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 20 October last year, and the list attached which gave the progestational potency of certain oral contraceptives, was confusing to doctors and patients? Will he arrange for the list to be withdrawn?

No, I do not think that it is confusing because it accompanied a letter from the Committee on Safety of Medicines giving clear advice on those contraceptive pills. The conclusion is that that they are a perfectly desirable and reasonable method of contraception, but that women who finish their present course of pills would be advised to consult their medical practitioner so that he can perhaps consider changing to a different pill for the next course.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans for the fuller implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

The implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is a matter for local authorities. They are in the best position to assess individuals' needs and make arrangements for them.

What was the basis of the Minister's calculation that it would cost £30 million to amend section 1 of the Act in the way proposed in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)? Secondly, is it not shoddy, scandalous and disgraceful of the Government to have presided over a cut of more than 50 per cent. in the provision of telephones for disabled people under section 2 of the Act, thus causing acute problems for authorities such as the Labour-controlled Northumberland county council, which restored the provision of telephones for the disabled in 1981 following the cuts made by the Tory-controlled county council?

The answer to the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question is that the basis of the calculation was that it cost £750,000 to conduct such surveys for 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland. By a simple arithmetical process we calculated roughly what it would cost for the whole of Great Britain.

Does my hon. Friend accept that telephones are vital for elderly people living on their own? I realise that funds are short, but could he tell local authorities, at an early opportunity, to make money available for this valuable service?

I am anxious that local authorities should make appropriate provision. My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of local authorities are studying such schemes as alarm systems which contact a warden or some other person. In many cases that may be more appropriate than a telephone.

What is the Minister doing about Tory-controlled county councils such as Kent, whose social workers appear to be going with a begging bowl to charitable organisations to provide adaptations for the disabled when that should be the local authority's responsibility.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's language. We are strongly in favour of developing partnership and co-operation between statutory and voluntary services. That is important for disabled people, and I am pleased to say that it appears to be growing faster in Kent than elsewhere.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far more progress has been made during the past 10 years in integrating disabled and able-bodied people into the community by the dedicated hard work of a vast range of voluntary bodies than could ever be achieved by legislation or local authority activity? Does my hon. Friend accept that the right course of action is to promote and pay tribute to that work? Should not local authorities set their priorities? If they give priority to the disabled, the money is available for that.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will agree with me that both the statutory and voluntary sectors have an important role to play. The key is that they should work together.

Will the Minister seek to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to increase the grant-related expenditure targets, to enable local authorities to provide services under the Act? If the Minister does not do that, I fear that his work will be hampered and many of his words will sound hypocritical to local authorities.

I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's words are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a modest amendment to the terms and conditions of the rate support grant in connection with joint finance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if local authorities such as Derbyshire county council did not spend daft amounts of money on such items as a free newspaper — which is costing £100,000 a year in my local authority — and the advertising of school meals, when the take up is already 87 per cent., they would have sufficient money to implement the Act?

I am not sure that I wish to intrude too much into the domestic politics of Derbyshire. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that many local authorities could spend their money more wisely.

What is the Minister's attitude to charging severely disabled people who are on supplementary benefit for their home helps? Is it right or wrong to do so?

Both I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health have said that we would prefer local authorities not to charge those on supplementary benefit, or on incomes below that level, for home helps.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether child benefit has increased in real terms between April 1979 and November 1983.

Yes, Sir. Child benefit is now paid at £6·50 a week, compared with £4 a week in April 1979. The value of child benefit is now higher in real terms than it has ever been.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which obviously conflicts with the widespread impression on the Opposition Benches. What is the current position of the additional benefit for one-parent families?

That benefit rate was increased to £4·05 last November. It has more than doubled during a period when prices rose by less than 70 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising child benefit by more than the amount shown in the Autumn Statement will be the most cost-effective way of helping those suffering from the poverty trap? Will he use his best endeavours to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote what resources are available in this year's Budget to raising child benefit, in preference to a cut in income tax?

There is obviously a strong case for raising child benefit. I shall pass my hon. Friend's comments on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will the Minister obtain a video recording of the "World in Action" programme last week, which showed the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) living for a week on £26·80 and having to shop with the unemployed in Newcastle? Did not the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West say openly at the end of that week that child benefit for the unemployed was not sufficiently high and that there should be a shift of child benefit away from the rich and towards the unemployed?

I shall certainly take up the hon. Gentleman's first suggestion. I understand that he is advocating a differential child benefit. We shall certainly consider that suggestion, but I had not realised that it was favoured by the Opposition.

Given the crucial importance of child benefit in increasing the freedom and control which families have over their lives, I congratulate the Government on their record. However, before Ministers become too complacent, may I remind the House that the last Labour Government injected an additional £1,500 million into the child benefit scheme? When will this Government begin to match that record?

What we shall seek to do—and I do not think there is any difference between us on this—is to increase child benefit in line with what the economy, the nation, can afford. I do not think that there is any difference between us on the importance of child benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about resources for open-heart surgery at Wythenshawe hospital, Manchester.

I have answered two parliamentary questions from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I have received two letters, including one of 12 January 1983, from the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Minister accept that even with recent announcements of increased resources for open-heart surgery at Wythenshawe hospital, the resources are grossly inadequate for the need? Is he aware that the chairman of the district health authority is on record as saying that

"the evidence is that"

"the waiting list will continue to grow and as the Senior Cardiothoracic Surgeon has said premature deaths will continue to occur."

Open-heart surgery is one of those areas where great medical advance has been made, so that we can now treat successfully patients who a few years ago would have died, but it is no good describing that kind of situation as though it were some sudden area of deprivation. It is a sudden improvement in the Health Service, where resources are now following medical advance, providing more operations, and last year at this hospital 666 operations, more than ever before, were carried out. As the hon. Gentleman said, finance is now available to open an extra bed for this purpose in the intensive care unit. The region is now looking at proposals to expand the unit to 1,000 patients treated per year from next year. However, this must be judged alongside all the other increases in claims for health care, and we must remember the pressing claims of renal dialysis and many other areas when considering the allocation of funds in the acute sector.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have written to him on this subject this year and that he has received a reply from the regional health authority chairman. Is he aware that one of the main problems is that the Wythenshawe hospital unit is a victim of its own success? It has been enormously successfull with this new form of surgery and, because of that, waiting lists have grown. It is true that every effort is being made by the hospital to tackle those waiting lists, and my right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to learn that I have received a letter only today from a constituent saying how grateful she is for the open-heart surgery that she has just had at Wythenshawe hospital.

I confirm all that my hon. Friend said, including the fact of his representations on the subject. This is an area where funds have just been increased so that the unit can go up from nine to 10 beds. We are treating more patients successfully, making this one of those successes of the Health Service with which those who administer it try to catch up as rapidly as possible.

How many people are on the hospital's waiting list for heart surgery, and what is the average waiting time? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that six patients on the waiting list died within a fortnight just before Christmas? Is he also aware that two people a week have been dying because, it is said, of inadequate staffing? Is it not deplorable that there have been deaths that could have been prevented, at a time when many thousands of nurses are on the dole?

The waiting list is a little over 300. It is, sadly, of the nature of a waiting list of this kind that patients will die while waiting for heart treatment. Indeed, some patients who have the operation die afterwards. What we have is a new source of demand because of the medical success of the people in this unit, which has been getting more money and staff as we attempt to cope with that increased demand. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the recent increase in staffing and funding of the unit, as he will welcome the fact that the region is looking at plans for further expansion.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the alleged case of discrimination against a disabled person, details of which were sent to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby.

I have written to the hon. Member about both the cases that he referred to me.

I note the Minister's reply. Does he now share the delight of so many organisations representative of disabled people that my Bill has received a Second Reading in the other place? Will he now justify his title as Minister with responsibility for the disabled by undertaking that should the Bill receive a Third Reading in the other place he will receive it into this House in a constructive and helpful way, rather than in the destructive manner in which he dealt with it previously?

I have already told the hon. Gentleman and others of my reservations about whether his Bill would achieve what he claims it would do. Indeed, I believe that the positive steps which the Government are taking in a whole range of spheres — employment, education, training and transport—are doing far more for disabled people than any legislation of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest position regarding the allocation of financial resources to the Leicestershire health authority.

Regional health authorities have been informed of their revenue and capital allocations for 1984–85. In continuation of our policy of distributing health resources more fairly throughout the country, the Trent region will receive real growth of 1·6 per cent. as against the national average of 1 per cent. It is for the Trent regional health authority to decide on the allocation of these resources to its district health authorities, including Leicestershire.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that although Leicestershire will probably have an extremely welcome increase of about 2 per cent. in real terms in the next financial year, it is still stuck on 93 per cent. of national resources for its funding? Will he continue to press ahead with the RAWP formula to redistribute resources to under-funded areas such as Leicestershire?

Both my hon. Friend's statements are correct. As he said, his district is stuck at 7 per cent. below the RAWP target. It was 17 per cent. below that target when the Labour party handed over the NHS to this Government's care. We shall continue our policy of improving the distribution of resources.

Does the Minister accept that in the current year the Leicestershire district health authority has had to make cuts of more than £1 million in its intended expenditure? What does he think the allocation is likely to do for the almost 7,000 on hospital waiting lists in the Leicestershire district?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the July adjustment and ignoring the fact that Leicestershire was given growth money before that and that it has continued to have growth money throughout the Government's period of office. The effect of that has been to bring it nearer to the national target. The manpower targets exercise gave Leicestershire an increase in staff of 102, and the authority is well on course to opening the new Glenfield hospital this year. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to take Leicestershire as an example in his completely misleading campaign about so-called Health Service cuts, he has chosen an especially bad example.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to improve facilities for the treatment of tinnitus.

The level of facilities for tinnitus sufferers is for health authorities to decide, taking account of other claims on the resources available. The use of tinnitus maskers has been studied in a recent research project commissioned by the Department. We hope that the results, when they are available, will assist authorities in planning their services.

Is the Minister aware of the great depth of feeling among tinnitus sufferers because of the under-provision of resources for the research and treatment of the malady and the derisory sums that are being made available? Does he agree that a cut of almost 83 per cent. between 1980–81 and 1983–84 is a cause for concern and anxiety among tinnitus sufferers? When the results of the research are made known, will he ensure that further finance is made available? Will he explain the results of the recent pollution of north-west water by chlorine and phenol and the consequent effect on tinnitus sufferers and others in the north-west? Will he take steps to ensure that that does not happen again?

I need more notice of the last of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions if I am to be enabled to answer it. The Medical Research Council has undertaken six separate individual projects in conducting research into tinnitus. My Department has funded three individual projects and the results of that research will be available in the spring. We shall then assess the results of the research, which is of concern to tinnitus sufferers. At that stage we shall reconsider our guidance to district health authorities on the provision of treatment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his dilemma in having to distinguish between an established service and research projects, especially at University College hospital, is well understood, and that the continued funding which he is giving to the project at UCH will be very much appreciated, not least by the 1·2 million sufferers in Britain?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words of thanks. I am grateful to him and others in the House, including the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who is not in his place, for their kind words of help and advice. There is good news for tinnitus sufferers. We continue to get good news from the Health Service. The advances in tinnitus treatment form one of those pieces of good news.

While I welcome the reprieve of UCH, especially in the case of maskers, will the Department call for a multi-discipline report on all the projects upon which the Medical Research Council has embarked so that not only audiology, otology and psychology, but neurology can be examined? When the Under-Secretary has these reports, will he place a copy in the Library?

We shall be reviewing all the research projects—those funded by the MRC and those funded by my Department. Maskers are not the sole treatment for tinnitus. There are also forms of treatment that are related to drug therapy, counselling and psychological advice of various kinds.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to have figures for the perinatal mortality rate for 1983; and if he will make a statement.

The 1983 figure for England will be available in May this year. Provisional data for the first three quarters of 1983 suggest a fall in the perinatal mortality rate, continuing the encouraging trend seen over the past four years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be pleased to hear those encouraging figures? Will he confirm that if certain improvements in perinatal care are made, fewer handicapped babies will be born? What steps is he taking to achieve those necessary improvements?

There is an association between the perinatal mortality rate and the coincidence of congenital malformations. A great deal of research, including research by the Medical Research Council, is being undertaken. I emphasise the substantial improvement generally in this area, especially in 1980 and 1981.

Although the overall position may have improved and the national figure has been reduced, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some regions there has been a dramatic increase in the perinatal mortality level and that the Select Committee will examine that aspect to ascertain a reason for the change?

That is a worrying trend. In one or two regions that is the position, but it is a fact also that perinatal mortality levels have dropped in four years by 25 per cent. That is a substantial improvement.

I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if the Government implemented the recommendations of the Select Committee, which produced a full report on perinatal and neonatal mortality, the improved level of the past two years would be increased, to the benefit of parents and children.

The Government welcomed the report of the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was a member. We shall continue to urge health authorities to implement those recommendations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to improve the distribution in the care of low-weight pre-term babies?

That is one of the most important areas, and we shall seek to do just that.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that babies who are born deformed in any way will be given the treatment and the food that they need in a desire to prolong their lives for as long as possible?

I know of no evidence to suggest that that does not occur at present. If my hon. Friend has any such examples that she wants to bring to my attention, I shall examine them.

Do not those statistics show that the poorest families are those most affected? Is not the maternity grant in the United Kingdom the lowest of such grants in the EEC countries?

There are considerable variations throughout Europe. What the hon. Gentleman said about low income families is, regrettably, the case and one of the areas that we must improve.

I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the satisfactory figures that he reported for the first nine months of last year. Will he give fresh consideration to the introduction of enforceable minimum standards of antenatal and neonatal care as recommended by all the leading professional bodies in this subject and as backed up by a large number of voluntary organisations?

We prefer that the health authorities act upon the guidance that we have given them, but I shall keep in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the mortality rates in the first year of life of children of unskilled manual workers are four to five times greater than of children of professional and managerial parents? Is he aware that that and other key criteria of class inequality in health care were pinpointed three years ago by the Black report as an area for immediate Government action? Is it the case, therefore, that the Government's complete ignoring of that report during the whole of the past three years is one of the most deplorable aspects of their inadequate health record?

As always, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is over-reacting in a thoroughly intemperate way. I have already said that I accept the first point——

What about the Black report?

We have instituted a whole range of the proposals in that report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that a drop of 25 per cent. in perinatal mortality in the past four years is an all-time record which anyone with common sense should welcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will introduce measures to enable unemployed and disabled people to be included on local appeal tribunal panels; and if he will make a statement.

There is no bar to unemployed or disabled people becoming members of tribunal panels if they are nominated. As the hon. Member will be aware, clause 9 of the Health and Social Security Bill is intended to increase the range of representation on tribunal panels.

Does the Minister admit that when the panels were first set up just after the war, at a time of relatively full employment, they consisted mainly of people from the employers' side, a minority from the trade union side and good representation for the lawyers? Given that under the Tory Government we are destined to have about 4 million people unable to find work and that there are more than 2 million disabled people, does he agree that it would make far more sense to put some unemployed people on the panels, as the unemployed are the main applicants for supplementary benefit, to include disabled people as of right on local appeal tribunals, and perhaps even to go a stage further and have representation for pensioners as well? Does he agree that that is far more sensible than the proposal in the Health and Social Security Bill?

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that I rather agree with him. [Interruption.] I thought that that might cause a bit of a stir. We are proposing the changes because the system whereby trade unions have had virtually 50 per cent. of the nomination rights since the war has produced precisely the unsatisfactory situation which the hon. Gentleman wants us to change.

In considering the role of local tribunals, will my hon. Friend take account of the recommendation in the Oglesby report that mobility allowance appeals should be referred to local tribunals rather than, as at present, to the very slow and cumbersome medical tribunals?

As my hon. Friend will know from various controversies in the past week or so, the Oglesby recommendations about improving the administration and adjudication of mobility and attendance allowance cases are a subject to which we attach considerable importance and on which we are currently conducting extensive consultation.

Does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that many of the tribunals meet in premises completely inaccessible to disabled people? What is he doing to ensure that the tribunals meet only at venues fully accessible to people with disabilities?

There is a real problem there, and also with some of our social security offices. I have taken this up in various ways with the Property Services Agency, as I agree that everything possible needs to be done to overcome such problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the new severe disablement allowance.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from organisations and individuals.

Is it not a disgrace that the Minister cannot say how many people, apart from married women, will be disadvantaged by the abolition of the non-contributory invalidity pension? Will he confirm that he has received representations from RADAR, the Disability Alliance and the Child Poverty Action Group but has not yet replied? Would it not be better if he dropped clause 4 of the Health and Social Security Bill and went back to talk to those who really understand about people with disabilities?

Taking those questions in reverse order, if we withdrew clause 4 of the Health and Social Security Bill we would be left with the disgraceful household duties test invented in 1976 by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), which everyone regards as quite wrong. On the second point about the letter from RADAR, it has, indeed, written to my right hon. Friend, and he will be replying shortly. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a discussion with RADAR.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements are made by his Department to record the number of child abuse victims in England and Wales each year.

The Department maintains no central records of the number of child abuse victims. The responsibility for the protection of children from abuse lies with local authorities, and the Department has issued guidance on the records that should be kept locally. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend, however, that the Department's child abuse group has now started work on a review of our guidance in this field to revise, improve and consolidate it. We also hope shortly to consult on new guidance about the handling of child abuse inquiries.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall that, way back in 1976, the NSPCC suggested a national register, and events since that date have made it seem a very sensible suggestion? Is there not a clear lack of co-ordination at present?

I should not want to endorse that specific suggestion at this stage, but I have had a number of useful talks with Dr. Gilmour and others from the NSPCC, and we shall certainly take account of its views and ideas in the course of the review.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet studied the report of survey, December 1983 produced by the Association of Directors of Social Services; and if he will make a statement.

The survey had only a two thirds response, and on some aspects Government statistics are more complete and up-to-date. Nevertheless, the survey provides helpful indications of local authorities' past record of protecting vulnerable people, and of their positive response to our community care policies.

Is the Minister aware that the Association of Directors of Social Services has issued a press release today announcing that it anticipates a spending cut of 12 per cent. because of ratecapping? To illustrate that, it means approximately 50,000 home help cuts for elderly people, 50,000 fewer meals-on-wheels for elderly people and 7,000 fewer places in old peoples' homes. Is it not criminal, wicked and evil that our old people are paying for Tory Government policies?

I was not aware of the press release to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The last time the association issued a press release it suggested that the growth in revenue experienced by social service departments in this country in 1983–84 would be 1·75 per cent. That was wrong. It has been about 2·5 per cent., so I would need to look very carefully at the basis of the figures before putting too much weight on them at this time.

Is the Minister aware that the report of the Association of Directors of Social Services said that 4 per cent. real growth is necessary each year simply to maintain existing standards of community care because of the greater numbers of elderly people? His Department has said that the absolute minimum is 2 per cent., yet the Government's published plans for this next year propose only 1 per cent. Does not this big cutback expose the Government's talk of community care for the charade that it is, which is dumping old people on the community, often with nobody to look after them?

There have been no cutbacks of the sort that the hon. Gentleman suggests. He would do well also to address his mind to the critically important issue in the personal social services of getting social services which are effective and efficient, and which deliver good value for money. He needs to address his mind to comparing the unit costs of the provision of social services around the country, which vary greatly. Those are the questions that need to be asked.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are dependent on portable oxygen equipment being regularly supplied to their own homes.

We have no information centrally on the number of people supplied with oxygen equipment which can easily be carried by the user. I understand that it is comparatively rare for such units to be supplied through the National Health Service.

I am surprised that the Minister does not have the numbers. A very large number of people under the DHSS have had canisters delivered for years. They are very ill, and many of them are quite old. The new equipment, which they are all glad to have, now has to be plugged in, and results in their electricity bills rising on average £2 per week. Will he be kind enough to look into this and see that something is done to help them, because they are paying out new money which hitherto they did not have to pay.

We estimate that between 35,000 and 40,000 people are using such equipment in their homes, and most of them need rather large canisters and supplies. We are exploring the use of oxygen concentrators, which are now being examined by the Department. We hope that when a cost evaluation has been done we shall be able to make a further policy statement on this important matter.

Given the number of people involved in the revelations in the past few weeks about the BOC contract with the National Health Service, would it not be wiser for the contract to be widened beyond the BOC stake to include all BOC's competitors? Is it not wrong that work carried out by BOC, which was sponsored by the DHSS, should have been made available only to that company and not to the many people interested in it?

That question has nothing to do with the supply of domiciliary gases for use in people's homes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with a delegation from the Scottish TUC. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

If the economy is improving in the way that the Prime Minister claims, why do the Government still feel it necessary to cut the housing benefit of about 1·5 million old-age pensioners?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the amount spent on housing benefit by about 80 per cent. in real terms since the Labour Government were in office. We are already spending about £3·7 billion on it, and that should be sufficient to cater for all those who are truly in need.

Has the hardship experienced by many badly-off families during the recent spell of severe weather caused the Prime Minister to change her mind about imposing unsolicited and unnecessary increases in electricity charges?

The increases in electricity charges are the first for two years. They amount to some 2 per cent. over two years, which should be contrasted with a 2 per cent. increase every six weeks under Labour.

I am sure that the Prime Minister and I could hold a very interesting discussion about the past, but those people are cold, not in the past, but now. They will be further disadvantaged by the price increases which the Prime Minister and her Government are directly imposing on them. May I appeal to the Prime Minister to put herself in the position of a young mother with children at home who cannot afford properly to heat her home? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to restore to the poor the £70 million obtained from the higher electricity prices which she is levying, and so help them with their fuel bills?

The Government have an excellent record of helping the poor with their fuel bills. We are now spending £350 million on that special help.

When my right hon. Friend tomorrow meets the leaders of the Civil Service unions on the question of GCHQ, will she explain that they have no one but themselves to blame for the Government's decision, because several years ago those union leaders decided to try to involve the staff at GCHQ and to use them as a weapon in bargaining against the Government?

The decision to bring GCHQ into line with the rules applying to other intelligence agencies was right. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that in the Civil Service disputes between 1979 and 1981 the general Civil Service unions called out people in areas which they thought were particularly sensitive, including GCHQ. In one of the campaign reports of the Council of Civil Service Unions it states:

"48 hours walkouts have severely hit secret monitoring stations belonging to the Composite Signals Organisation. The Government is clearly worried and will be subject to huge pressure from NATO allies. The latest walkouts are at two stations"—

"Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which revenue collection is upset, defence readiness hampered, and trading relations disrupted by this and future action."

Is the Prime Minister aware that it does the Government's reputation no good for the idea to be put about that the people working at Cheltenham are somehow unreliable? Is she not aware that that report contrasts strongly with the message sent to them after the Falklands operation by Sir John Nott when he said:

"I would go so far as to say that we could not have done without you."

No, it does not. We have special rules under all Governments for people working in intelligence agencies. The overwhelming majority of people who work there loyally observe those rules and often do more than is necessary, because sometimes they have to cover for other people who are on strike. The accounts that I read out were from the campaign report for the Council of Civil Service Unions during the time when it was deliberately selecting where it could take the most damaging action.

In the course of her extremely busy day will my right hon. Friend give some thought to getting a message through, by whatever means possible, to the President of the European Commission suggesting that his officials spend their time dealing with their real duties rather than dreaming up ways in which they can get back from the United Kingdom money which is not really owed to them?

I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the reports about disallowing moneys due to this country by virtue of the activities of the milk marketing boards. We would regard it as absolutely intolerable if the Commission were to try to disallow this expenditure. It would be without precedent and would not be justified in any way. The Commission has authorised the milk marketing boards under the rules laid down and has not attempted to withdraw that authorisation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister say what legislation exists which forbids membership of a trade union? At tomorrow's meeting with the trade union leaders, will she bear in mind that one of the most important rights in a democracy is the right to belong to a trade union and to be represented by it? Is the right hon. Lady aware that trade unionists at GCHQ or anywhere else need no lessons in loyalty from some of the people who were featured in last night's "Panorama" programme and who seemed to have far more in common with Fascism that with parliamentary democracy?

I reject utterly what the hon. Member said in the last part of his question. With regard to the first part, the certificates issued under the employment protection legislation simply say that the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provisions relating to trade union membership and activities no longer apply. However, it can be a condition of service that staff should belong only to a staff association approved by the director of GCHQ. Staff who wish to remain members of their existing trade unions may seek to transfer to another branch of the Civil Service.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the decision of the Nissan car company to open a car manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom in 1985? To what does she attribute the decision of Nissan to come to the United Kingdom? Does she agree that the plant would best be sited in south Humberside, more properly known as north Lincolnshire?

I must disappoint my hon. Friend. So far no announcement to that effect has been made. I hope that there will be an announcement shortly, within a few days.

In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) last night, the Foreign Secretary gave a list of industrial disputes to which the Prime Minister has already referred. In the quoted briefing today it is stated that those disputes could have had serious consequences for national security. Two of the disputes on the list refer to events in the Falklands before and after invasion day. Did those disputes in any way affect operational capacity vis-a-vis national security in the Falklands?

I tried partially to answer the right hon. Gentleman or one of his right hon. or hon. Friends the other day. If one loses a great deal of time in continuous surveillance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am trying to answer but Opposition Members will not listen. If 10,000 working days are lost in an agency which is concerned with continuous surveillance it is not possible to know what information has been lost or what its relevance may have been, but one will not have had it continuously. The right hon. Gentleman referred the other day to a question which John Nott, as he then was, answered. He was referring only to military operations. GCHQ did not come under his then Department and does not now.

As my right hon. Friend is to visit Hungary, will she ensure that she stresses that it is imperative and vital that visits between the people of Great Britain and Hungary occur as often as possible, as that is the way in which to ensure peace and prosperity in Europe and the rest of the world?

The hon. Gentleman is a wetzki.

I am looking forward to my visit to Hungary. It would be of great advantage in the atmosphere between East and West if we were able to look forward to more visits from people who live in iron curtain countries to the Western world. We hope that that will happen. We also hope that the full agreement which was signed in Helsinki will be honoured in that regard.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time to explain how it is right to spend £7 million building 54 houses in the Falklands when my borough council, which has an enormous housing problem, has had its capital housing allocation limited by the Government to £6 million?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the need to replace in the Falklands some houses which were damaged and to build new ones. All of the necessary equipment must be taken from Britain. A substantial part of the cost is taken up by transportation and erection and preparation of the site. Labour is short in the Falklands so we must send people from Britain to do that work. I do not think that many people will begrudge the Falkland Islanders those houses, although I understand that Opposition Members do.

Is there not something inherently unsatisfactory about a system under which the staff at GCHQ have been represented in negotiations on their grievances by national officers of unions who have a lower level of security clearance than the staff?

My right hon. Friend has put his finger on an extremely important point. It is vital in future negotiations with the staff at GCHQ to negotiate entirely local agreements with people who work there. A staff association would achieve that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that workers are occupying the Henry Robb shipyard because they are determined to fight for their jobs, for shipbuilding at Leith and because there is a widespread belief throughout that community that the yard should and could be saved with the help of a public sector contract which is in the pipeline and well suited to Leith? Will the Prime Minster give an assurance that the Secretary of State will receive an all-party deputation from Edinburgh to discuss what practical measures might be taken to save the yard?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given notice that he would raise this matter. I recognise that he is disappointed that some orders recently went to other yards. I understand that the reason given was that none of the yards being closed had prospects of winning new work on acceptable terms. I recognise the disappointment, but one of the orders went to an Aberdeen yard and another went to a yard in north Humberside. It is customary to receive deputations if there is a closure in a constituency.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the CBI survey, which was quoted in The Standard today? It shows that we have the highest orders for seven years. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the impact that those orders will have on unemployment, industry and the nation?

I saw, and welcome, the CBI survey today. It shows a picture of rising demand and activity levels spreading more widely through the economy, and rising investment. Those trends are welcome, but we cannot expect sudden great improvements in the labour market. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, in an excellent speech, our GDP is about the same as it was in 1979—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We are producing, by virtue of not having overmanning and by improved technology — [Interruption.]

Order. Opposition Members expect to be able to ask their questions in silence. The Prime Minister should be allowed silence in which to reply.

By improved technology and increased efficiency we are producing the same output, with 1·7 million fewer people in the work force. None the less, there is good news in the fact that there were more that 210,000 new jobs in the service sector in the first three quarters of 1983.

rose——

Order. We must move on to the statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been several interruptions during Prime Minister's Question Time, which began later than usual today. In view of that, I wonder whether you will invite the Prime Minister to answer the question on the Oman deal, put to her yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the shadow Leader of the House? I am sure that she would like to answer it.

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from the clock that Prime Minister's Question Time began at 3.16 pm and ended at 3.31 pm. Therefore, the time allowed for questions is accurate.