asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the proposed closure of 21 beds at the Women's hospital, Liverpool.

We have replied to two parliamentary questions and received three letters from hon. Members and five letters from members of the general public.

Is the Minister aware that at present more than 551 women, many of whom are considered urgent cases, need medical treatment at the Liverpool Women's hospital, and that 226 women have been waiting for more than six months for treatment? Is that not disgraceful? Does the Minister agree that any further ward closures will lead only to misery, pain, suffering and fear among women? Is he aware that further ward or hospital closures in Liverpool will be fiercely opposed and resisted by the Health Service unions and by the Labour movement, both inside and outside Parliament?.

A number of Liverpool hospitals provide services for women. The gynaecological waiting lists in Liverpool as a whole, I am glad to say, are being reduced. Consultations are still taking place on the proposals about the beds at the Women's hospital. I shall not prejudge the matter, but the health authority says that it can provide the same level of service while economising on the number of beds at that hospital.

Is the Minister aware that many people on Merseyside have misgivings about the reductions in the Health Service, bearing in mind that last year the Liverpool area health authority budget was reduced by £1 million? Is he further aware that, despite reduced resources, the incidence of diseases, such as cancer, is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and that the provision for treatment is one of the lowest in the United Kingdom? Will he therefore come and look at the Women's hospital and other facilities on Merseyside?.

The allocation of money to Liverpool is falling a little, and it is due to fall, but it is not falling as quickly as the population. As a result, spending per head in Liverpool will increase. The strategy that has been put forward by the chairman and members of the district health authority is one for congratulation, because it shows the way in which the service must change to meet up-to-date needs, as well as making the best use of the money.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us on Merseyside are perfectly satisfied with the amount of money that is available both in the region and in the districts? Is it not for the area health authority and the region, by dint of better housekeeping, to provide the services that are adequate at present?

I wish it were not a rule of the political game that everyone should feel obliged to claim that his area is under-financed. There are always areas where we can spend more money, and there are many parts of the Health Service where we would get a much better service by continuing to improve management and eliminate waste. Liverpool district health authority has been doing a good job and is providing an excellent service within the resources that have been allocated to it.

Does the Minister realise that this most recent closure of 21 beds appears to be part of a pattern of attacks on the health of women, both as patients and as workers? In addition to Liverpool, for example, we have the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, which seems to be having its philosophy turned round by being unable to have women doctors attending women patients. We have the scandalous closure of the South London hospital, about which we still hope—

Order. The subject is the Women's hospital, Liverpool.

The hon. Lady should not see any conspiracy between district health authorities, which have not consulted each other about their proposals, each of which is sensible in its own right. Liverpool, by improving the throughput at this hospital, can maintain services. Therefore, progress can continue to be made in reducing gynaecological waiting lists.

Order. In fairness, I would rather, that the Minister did not pursue that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he plans to meet the British Medical Association to discuss its inquiry into alternative medicines.

I have no plans to do so at present.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all the main alternative medical professions have declined the BMA's invitation to submit representations to its inquiry because they do not believe that such an inquiry will be impartial? In view of the growing public support and appreciation for the alternative medical professions, will he now embark on a Government inquiry into them?

Ministers have no responsibility for the BMA, and we have not been involved in the arrangements for the inquiry to which my hon. Friend referred. We do not at present see any case for a full-blown Government inquiry, but I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is entirely up to patients to choose the kind of treatment they prefer, although they should make sure, if they can, that they go to reputable practitioners. The Medical Research Council is financing research on behalf of the Government into the treatment of back pain, comparing the results of chiropractic with those of conventional treatments.

If the Minister should set up an inquiry into alternative medicines, may we be assured that it will be wide-ranging? Will he try not to emulate the Health Promotion Research Trust, which is specifically debarred from inquiring into certain diseases — for example, tobacco-related diseases?

That has nothing to do with the main question. However, I have repeatedly said that that trust is producing £11 million which is available for useful research into health education. It would be foolish to turn down the money simply because it is excluded from one subject for entirely understandable reasons. Those who are genuinely interested in preventive medicine and health education would be cutting off their nose to spite their face by not accepting the money.

If my right hon. and learned Friend should consider alternative medicines in the form of parallel imports, will he bear in mind that it has been estimated that such imports would cost the home-producing industries £120 million worth of orders a year and 7,000 jobs, which is alarming for my constituents who work in this industry?

Order. That supplementary question was very wide of the main question. However, does the Minister wish to comment on it?

Perhaps I can stay in order, Mr. Speaker, by remarking that a common thread running through all the questions is the fact that the Government's only interest is to protect the safety and well-being of patients.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that the nurse staffing levels of the Queen Elizabeth and the General hospital in Birmingham are improved.

Nurse staffing levels at the Queen Elizabeth and General hospitals, Birmingham, are the day-to-day responsibility of the health authorities concerned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the nurse staffing levels at both hospitals, which are teaching hospitals for acutely ill patients, are at the bottom of the national league for staffing levels and that they have been described by consultants working there as dangerous? Is he aware, for example, that fledgling nurses, with the ink hardly dry on their qualifications, are sometimes looking after a whole ward at night? Can he imagine the consternation at the statement by the chairman of the relevant health authority that the £100,000 available for extra nurses would be spread over just a few nurses throughout the whole are and would not benefit the Queen Elizabeth and General hospitals?

I am aware of some of the problems to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, and I shall look at them. It is significant that the district health authority has injected an extra £100,000 into nurse staffing levels, and doubtless it has the situation under control.

Will the Minister stop being complacent and acknowlege that large parts of Birmingham are underprivileged compared with the region and country as a whole? Furthermore, does he accept that it is a question not merely of quantity—important though that is—but of the quality of the staff? As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has pointed out, there are large numbers of wards in which patients are being left irresponsibly in unqualified or semi-gualified hands? What does the Minister propose to do about that?

The Department of Health and Social Security is not complacent about anything. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is lamentably ill-informed about the situation in his own area. During 1984–85 the West Midlands regional health authority will receive gross money disproportionate to that received by other regions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations have now been received by his inquiry into personal portable pensions.

By 21 March we had received nearly 1,700 written submissions specifically about portable pensions and a number of more general ones which also dealt with this subject. In addition, I have held four public sessions and heard evidence from 14 organisations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although most of the principal representations on this subject have been made by vested interests, one exception is the National Consumer Council, which has called for more choice in pension provision? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when the inquiry is concluded, there will be more choice for pension scheme members?

Yes, Sir. In principle, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. We want to improve conditions so that if someone moves from one employer to another there is an early-leaver provision, which would be fairer. Too many people are adversely affected by the present situation.

Is it not time that we ended the inequity whereby the full occupational pensions of the few are financed by the contributions of many who have long since left their jobs? Is it not reasonable that every employee should have the option of a portable pension if he wishes?

That is precisely the point that the inquiry is considering. We have received much evidence about it, and it will be discussed in our final report.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many of the representations that he has received stress the concern felt by many who are anxious to see the results of the inquiry? Unless there is proper protection for pensioners, there is a danger that the insurance companies rather than individuals will benefit most from the scheme. Is there not a real risk that that will happen unless clear and well-drafted provision is made?

Clearly, there is a conflict in the evidence. We do not want to do anything which will affect the growth of occupational pension schemes, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) has pointed put, we must look at the position of the many people who are either not covered by occupational schemes or whose rights could be improved. We must find a reasonable compromise between the interests of the schemes and of individuals.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with trade union representatives of National Health Service employees; and if he will make a statement.

On the last two occasions I have met the NHS trade union representatives I have discussed the question of resources for the National Health Service.

Will the Secretary of State confirm reports circulating at the weekend about a confidential Government document proposing a miserable 3 per cent. wage increase for our nurses and midwives and arguing that their wage levels should be determined by free market forces? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that such an offer will provoke a very angry reaction, as it amounts to a wage reduction in real terms and the exploitation of dedicated workers in our National Health Service, no part of which should ever be governed by doctrinaire adherence to free market forces?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the level of pay must be determined by what the Health Service and the country can afford. The hon. Gentleman is referring to evidence that has been given to the new nurses and midwives review body, which, in due course, will make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the level of pay for nurses. That has not yet been done. When it has been, my right hon. Friend will make a statement.

Did the trade union representatives raise with my right hon. Friend the increasing number of consultants who are not fulfilling their full schedule with the NHS? Does he have that problem under review?

They did not raise that subject with me. If my hon. Friend has such evidence, I am willing to examine and investigate it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a delegation of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs recently went to the Minister for Health about the pay of hospital pharmacists, who are expected to go into work at the weekend and get virtually nothing for it? Will he do something to curb the immense profits being made by drug manufacturers so that people, such as hospital pharmacists, can have higher wages?

Such matters are all part of this year's negotiations. There is money on offer. I think that it would be sensible to wait until the negotiations have been concluded.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the trade union representatives that, although we are all anxious that there should be fair and competitive rates of pay for all National Health Service employees, any increase in their rates of pay over and above the 3 per cent. indicator can be achieved only at the expense of other resources for patient care throughout the service?

As I said earlier, there must be consequences of that. Pay must relate to what the service can afford. That is a sensible point for anyone negotiating in the current pay round to remember.

When speaking to trade union representatives in the NHS, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the natural anxiety that they feel about his Department's circular on privatising or tendering contracts for ancillary services, especially as the Government's stated aim of cost-effectiveness cannot be measured in purely financial terms? Patient well-being and the working conditions of people in the Health Service must also be taken into account.

I was not aware that the alliance has hitherto favoured competitive tendering. Money saved by competitive tendering is available for health care. That is what we are trying to pursue.

When the Secretary of State sees representatives of the trade unions, will he explain why he always talks about economies and wage cutting when, at the same time, he is such a soft touch on the private sector? Will he also explain why he has given the British Oxygen Company a monopoly in the supply of oxygen to the NHS at a 20 per cent. profit and why he has allowed drug companies a 21 per cent. profit when the Committee of Public Accounts has said that it should be no more than 15 per cent.? Why has he given Kneels of Exeter, a private cleaning company—

Order. It is very unusual for right hon. and hon. Members to go so wide of the mark in social services questions, but that question is very wide of the mark.

May I say to you, Mr. Speaker—

No.

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is very unfair if we do not stick to the question. This question relates to meetings with trade union representatives in the National Health Service.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about wage-cutting, which affects trade unionists, while increased profits are being given to the private sector?

That is a typically absurd series of questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer. My interest is the welfare of patients in the Health Service. I am not interested in vested interests, which the hon. Gentleman persists in representing in the House. If money can be saved by competitive tendering, that money can be diverted to direct patient care. That is a sensible policy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has made a long and detailed statement about the laundry service in Cornwall. That was an entirely sensible statement to make. I deeply deplore the hon. Gentleman's absurd assumption that no economies can be made in the Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received following his recent statement on increased health and prescription charges.

I have received 29 letters from hon. Members, 46 letters from members of the public and five letters from professional bodies and other organisations about the charges announced on 8 March.

What possible justification can there have been for the increase of 700 per cent. in prescription charges since the Tories came into office and in maximum dental charges from £30 to £110? When will the Secretary of State — a member of the Cabinet — have enough gumption and courage to stand up to the constant demands of the Treasury over these matters?

Because we believe that those who can afford to pay, and only those who can afford to pay, are prepared to make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of this treatment. If one does not raise a reasonable contribution, one gives up revenue which could be well spent within the NHS. The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman reflect the fact that, for electoral reasons, the then Labour Government depressed the charges in the run-up to the general election. In fact, the proportion of total NHS spending now found out of charges is considerably less than was usual in the 1960s under successive Governments.

Is it not a fact that those in need do not have to pay for prescriptions, and that 70 per cent. of all prescriptions are dispensed at no cost?

Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that elementary point. The Government have no intention of changing the present exemptions from prescription charges. The figure quoted by my hon. Friend shows how completely we protect those who might otherwise have difficulty in paying.

Is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that, by raising the cost of pre-payment season tickets to £24 a year, he is taking £10 million from those who are permanently sick and whose illnesses are most acute? If he needs his pound of flesh, will he at least accept that it is an outrage that females who have had a breast amputated and, therefore, will be on chemotherapy for 20 years, will probably be paying £24 a year?

Season ticket charges are paid only by those patients who are able to pay. We are protecting exactly the same exemptions as those protected by the Labour Government. We have not changed the policy on exemptions. We are raising not a pound of flesh, but a sensible contribution towards the growing amount of expenditure that the Government are sanctioning on the NHS.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, even where prescription charges are payable, they barely cover a quarter of the true costs of the drugs prescribed?

Yes, indeed I can.

Is the Minister aware that on 28 April 1979, the Prime Minister said that Labour claims that the Tory Government would increase prescription charges were a lie? Will he therefore explain how prescription charges have now been increased by 800 per cent. —[HON. MEMBERS: "700."]—since this Government came to power? Is not this latest increase—three times greater than the rate of inflation— a fundamental tax on the sick? Is it not indicative of the Government's values that in one week the Chancellor gives away £360 million to the very rich through the abolition of the investment income surcharge and in the next week the Secretary of State increases prescription charges to the sick by £37 million?

The hon. Gentleman has a marvellous way with figures, but I have never known them go up quite so quickly as that, even in his presentation of the case. In 1979, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged that we would not introduce any new form of charge. The Labour party was then claiming that we would introduce charges for going to the doctor as well as hotel charges for hospitals. My right hon. Friend denied that, gave a promise, and we have stuck to it. We are applying a sensible policy which will raise valuable revenue for an improved NHS.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what value the Government attach to the work of local community hospitals.

We value highly the important contribution made by community hospitals to the National Health Service. Their place in the pattern of district services is primarily a matter for health authorities to decide in consultation with others concerned at local level.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the feeling of relief in Teddington, where next Sunday a thanksgiving service is to be held following the strong recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Teddington memorial hospital should be saved? Is he also aware that that feeling contrasts deeply with the feeling in Twickenham, only a mile to the north, about the future of St. John's hospital which, like every community hospital, gives valuable service? Will my hon. Friend listen carefully to the strong representations that will be made about that

It is not often that we have church services held for us. We are grateful for that and for my hon. Friend's kind words. No one could have worked harder or more effectively for his constituents, and for the interests of the Teddington memorial hospital. The other matter is one for the future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the use and value of these hospitals is reflected in what communities do to support them, as well as in the way communities use them?

My hon. Friend is right. It is important to remember that community hospitals — those with 50 beds or fewer—form about 20 per cent. of hospitals in the country, and many of those are greatly helped by leagues of friends, voluntary organisations and individuals.

Does the Minister appreciate that the feeling of thanksgiving would also spread to Bradford if he made an announcement that Thornton view hospital, which has been occupied since last August, will be saved? When will he make a statement and can he tell us the substance of that statement?

The Thornton view hospital is not commonly thought of as a community hospital. The matter is under consideration and an announcement will be made in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisified with the operation of the Mental Health Act 1982; and if he will make a statement.

The Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 was consolidated with the 1959 Act into the Mental Health Act 1983, almost all of which was implemented satisfactorily on 30 September last year. I am very pleased with the bringing into operation of the provisions of the legislation so far.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the speed with which mental health review tribunal hearings are taking place?

I am glad to say that I am, and, in particular, section 2 applications are being dealt with within the statutory time limit that was laid down.

Has the Minister received any representation regarding the use of electro-convulsive therapy under the Act, and is he directing the mental health commissioners to have regard to the strict validity of the detention of a patient without informed consent when receiving such therapy?

When the Act was considered by Parliament last year, a number of forms of treatment were made subject to the second opinion of an independent doctor. The commission is now arranging those second opinions, and I am glad to say that that part of the Act is working very well in practice. We have no intention of redrawing the lines laid down in recent legislation covering different forms of treatment, although we shall consider the advice of the commission on all these matters in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress on health authority recognition for negotiating purposes of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel.

Local recognition is in the first instance a matter for the health authorities concerned, but in my view they should recognise trades unions whose membership comprise a significant proportion of the relevant group of staff, and I have written to several chairmen of these lines. To date only one authority has recognised this association, but I expect others to do so. I am glad to say that 14 authorities in England have now granted the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel the facility for trades union subscriptions to be deducted at source.

Is it not a disgrace that this association is being rejected by the Preston district health authority, acting on behalf of the Lancashire health authorities, and that trade unions such as the National Union of Public Employees, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union are refusing to sit down and discuss this problem? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that these organisations are refusing to acknowledge the existence of the APAP and will boycott it and take industrial action if it is recognised? What is his department going to do about this?

As I understand it, APAP is now the largest single union in the Lancashire ambulance service and I made it clear to the chairmen of the health authorities that I expected the union to be given recognition if it holds the confidence of the staff. It is up to the staff to decide which organisations it wishes to represent them, and that should be the deciding factor in all this.

Does the Minister agree that there is a sufficient number of unions on the Whitley council and that the recognition of other organisations will add to the problems of the collective bargaining process?

It is up to those who work for health authorities to decide which unions they wish to join. The Whitley structure cannot be frozen for all time if it transpires that a significant number of staff want to be represented by another organisation. The Government and the employers are wholly neutral and the chairmen have been addvised to be guided by the wishes of their staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were treated for cattle-attributed leptospirosis in the National Health Service in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion was diagnosed by general practitioners.

This information is not available centrally. In 1983, 40 cases of this disease were notified from England and Wales to the communicable disease surveillance centre.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Now that brucellosis has been cleared from the scene, does he agree that the extent of leptospirosis is becoming more apparent, especially to those who work in the dairy industry? Does he accept that the more general practitioners are aware of the disease the more they are recognising it and diagnosing it? What steps will he take to ensure that it is made more widely known among GPs? What is his assessment of the danger to public health?

The danger to public health is limited. There were 40 cases of leptospirosis last year, 12 cases the year before that and 10 the year before that. I am generally satisfied that GPs have an adequate knowledge of the risks of the disease, especially in dairying areas. It is very important for those engaged in health education to make it clear to those who work in the dairy industry that there is a need to wear adequate protective clothing and to take proper protective measures. We are grateful to the reference unit, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency in Hereford, for the work which it has undertaken.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about a system of opting out for donation of organs for transplant.

Since this subject was debated in the House on 13 February we have received letters about it from 24 hon. Members, mostly forwarding correspondence from their constituents or others, and about 30 other people.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the opinion poll commissioned by the BBC's "That's Life" programme, which revealed that 71 per cent. of those questioned said that they favoured an opting-out scheme? Notwithstanding that opinion poll result, there is a substantial body of opinion that is still against opting out, including doctors. Will he consider an official inquiry before any steps are taken?

We shall examine this issue extremely carefully. As I said when I was last asked a question on the matter, I think that there is more prospect of an opting-in system than an opting-out system. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, following the launch of the donor card system, in the five weeks from 13 February to 19 March there were 173 transplant operations compared with only 103 in the same period in 1983.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the British Medical Association on parallel imports.

The British Medical Association has replied to our consultation document on parallel imports, giving a general welcome to our proposals. It has made a number of detailed comments, which are being considered carefully along with the others that we have received.

Is true that prescription-only drugs are available from parallel importers without prescriptions? What is the Government's response to the ABPI suggestion to its members that it should not cooperate with the Government in evaluating the hazards of parallel imports?

There have been some worrying newspaper reports suggesting that some importers will supply through the post drugs to those who apply for them without checking whether they are qualified pharmacists. It is illegal to distribute drugs in that way and the Government will expect the law to be enforced. I have no evidence of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries withdrawing any co-operation from the Government. They have given us their representations, along with others, on parallel importing and we hope to produce our final proposals as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is nothing short of immoral that some pharmacists are importing cheap foreign drugs and selling them to the NHS at full British prices? What does he intend to do about this?

We have issued a consultation document, which shows that we shall close a loophole that has appeared in the present regulations, which allows large quantities of drugs to be imported without a licence. At the same time, we shall set up a proper licensing arrangement for imports from the EC. The consultations have thrown up many conflicting detailed points, but we realise the urgency of the matter and hope to sort it out as quickly as possible.

When the Minister speaks of cheap foreign goods, he refers to drugs that are produced in Britain and exported cheaply. Is he aware that the British pharmaceutical industry is damaging the National Health Service by charging it higher prices than it charges comparable health services in Europe? The Health Service should use parallel imports at lower prices, provided that the DHSS exercises quality control. Can the Minister confirm that the pharmaceutical industry has refused to cooperate with quality control?

The reason for such movements is that different countries have differing systems for setting drug prices, which means that certain drugs may be cheaper in some countries at different times. Changes in exchange rates may also affect prices and good entrepreneurs can buy drugs more cheaply abroad and import them into this country in competition with the identical drugs produced here; it works both ways. Recently, Britain was a major source of parallel imports to EEC countries because the drugs could be bought more cheaply here. We have negotiated a fair price arrangement with the pharmaceutical industry, which saves the National Health Service £100 million a year. It is completely untrue that any sector of the pharmaceutical industry is refusing to co-operate with the Government on safety.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that some drugs coming to Britain through parallel importing are not as safe as British proprietary brands, yet imported drugs are dispensed by chemists as if they were proprietary drugs? Could not such a practice put at risk the health of those relying on dispensing pharmacists to give them a drug that will work in the way required by the prescribing doctor?

That is our major concern. Although we have no evidence at present of patients being injured by imported drugs, we need to eliminate that risk. Where the drugs involved are the same, we must be sure how they have been handled, where they came from, that individual batches can be checked back and that instructions are given in English for English patients. We are working rapidly to solve those problems.

Will the Minister confirm that the reason why British pharmacists find it cheaper to buy drugs abroad is that drugs are cheaper in western Europe because western European Governments have forced their pharmaceutical industries to keep down drug prices? Is it not time that the British Government followed suit?

That is far too simplistic an analysis. For the reasons that I gave, some drugs will sometimes be cheaper in western Europe than in Britain, and at other times drugs will be cheaper here. That is because people are playing the market. The Government are concerned, however, with patient safety. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), we hope to produce a workable system to bring us a supply of drugs at a fair and competitive price, while protecting people against drugs that have not been handled properly.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals were closed upon the decision of the Secretary of State between May 1979 and March 1984; and what were the comparable figures for the period from March 1974 to May 1979.

Between May 1979 and December 1983 there have been 159 whole closures of hospitals, which compares with a figure of 270 whole closures under the last Labour Government. Of those closures, the numbers approved by Ministers were 32 and 35 respectively.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that many people listening to Labour propaganda will be surprised to learn that the Labour Administration closed down many hospitals, and even more surprised that that Government closed down almost twice as many hospitals as the Conservative Government in an equivalent period?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour Government carried out the biggest capital cut in the history of the National Health Service. From 1976–77 to 1977–78 capital spending was reduced from £356 million to £314 million, which was a cut of £160 million in real terms.

Can the Minister advise the House of the number of his next planted question?

I am sorry that we should have caught the hon. Gentleman on such a sore point. I repeat that those figures on capital spending inside the Health Service deserve to be better known.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether any of the hospitals closed were listed buildings and, if so, their likely use in future?

Not without notice. I shall consider the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

If the Secretary of State wanted a planted question, should he not have got the Opposition to ask it, because the net loss of beds under his Administration is far greater than it was under the Labour Government?

That is not so. If we wanted planted questions, we already have the Leader of the Opposition.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was alleged earlier that I planted question No. 14. Will you rule that, if that is on the record, I am entitled to deny it? Do you agree—it is well known to hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis)—that the only things I am guilty of planting are trees?

The planting of questions is a colloquialism which is unknown to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time between a person registering a claim for supplementary benefit and a decision being reached on that claim in the latest year for which figures are available.

In the year ending 14 February 1984 it was five days.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision on the claim of my constituent, Mr. Allan took no less than four months, causing him much hardship? Although I accept that that is in no way typical, is not that an unacceptable length of time for making a decision on such a claim?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I have already written to him about this case. If there are any further points that he would like to bring to my attention, I should be glad to receive them. The average time for supplementary benefit claims to be decided in the various offices in his constituency is between three and seven days.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the memorial service for our late colleague Maurice Macmillan at St. Margaret 's, Westminster. In addition to my duties in the House] shall be having further meetings later today.

The savage sentence meted out to Miss Tisdall contrasts sharply with the establishment—[HON.MEMBERS: "Question."]

Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. He must be aware that this case is sub judice. Mrs. Knight.

rose——

In between her engagements today, can my right hon. Friend spare a moment to consider whether it might—[Interruption.]

rose——

Order. In fairness, I shall give the hon. Gentleman another chance to complete his original question.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman may complete his question in a moment. I have just called Mrs. Knight.

In between her engagements today, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it might be possible to divert the attention of Mr. Arthur Scargill from the business of investing hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of funds to the best possible commercial advantage to the fact that the miners' strike will put people out of work if they are not careful?

I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to problems at certain foundries that are short of coke; Scunthorpe has not enough for steel making. Scunthorpe has made strenuous efforts to get its steel output up to a high quality and to sell it at a very competitive price. The jobs of some of those people would be at stake. They have worked extremely hard. It would be ironic if as a result of the strike people were made unemployed, as customers would go overseas for steel and the products of foundries, and their custom, would never return.

rose——

Order. I ask the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) to take care in framing his supplementary question.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the time has arrived when sentencing policy should be reviewed in terms of cases that affect national security compared with those that do not?

No, Sir. Sentencing is a matter for the courts. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in certain cases we are proposing next year to introduce a right of appeal against a sentence, but it would not apply to the particular case. It would apply only where it was thought that a sentence was unduly low and would be guidance for the future.

asked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with the progress being made by local authorities to privatise services.

No. I am still dissatisfied with the progress that local authorities are making in seeking better value for money by putting their services to the test of competition. We are continuing to study what measures can be taken to speed up the process.

I welcome that reply from my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that there is now ample evidence from those Conservative councils that have had the guts and the vision to put out their services to private enterprise that that is the most positive way of capping rates? Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing legislation that will oblige all local authorities to compare existing costs for those services with the costs if they are tendered to the private sector?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are great opportunities for reducing expenditure by submitting contracts to private competition. So far, progress has been very disappointing. Only 23 contracts have been let, but they result in a saving of £7 million annually. I hope that we can be much more successful in persuading local authorities to go out to private competition, but I should be reluctant to commit us to legislation, because that would be a very technical measure to put through the House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is great anxiety that the Territorial Army will be increased to 86,000—

Order. The question concerns privatisation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

When people can be imprisoned for six months for, in effect, telling the British public what the Government should have told them, does the right hon. Lady not agree that there is an urgent need for legislation so that, while the interests of our national security are protected, the Government cannot conceal the scale of what they are doing from the British public and Parliament?

No. I do not believe that any Government can carry on their business unless they can trust those in the Civil Service who have charge of secret documents to keep those documents to themselves.

Did my right hon. Friend read in the Leicester Mercury the report of Mr. Jack Jones, who said:

"We are not violent men but we will not be intimidated. We have voted to work and even if we"—[HON.MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Order. The hon. Member must not read.

Mr. Jones said:

"even if"——[Interruption.]

Did the Prime Minister hear that question? If this type of baying goes on, neither the Prime Minister nor I will be able to hear the question. Will the hon. Member please repeat his question.

Did my right hon. Friend read the report of the leader of the miners in Leicestershire, Mr. Jack Jones, who said:

"We are not violent men but we will not be intimidated."[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Order. The hon. Member must not read.

"We have voted to work and even if we are operating the last 4 holes in the country, we will work."

I am not sure that I could hear all of that question precisely. The Conservative party is totally and utterly against intimidation of people who are trying to go about their law-abiding business normally. We believe that the police are doing a superb job enabling those people to get through to their place of work.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disgraceful campaign being conducted by the GLC against its abolition?—[Interruption.]

Order. This type of behaviour is very unseemly.

That campaign includes threats amounting to blackmail of its suppliers, including my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she remains determined to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties?

Yes, the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties will be abolished in accordance with the provisions in our manifesto. A paving Bill will be introduced in the House shortly.

In his negotiations in Brussels today, has the Foreign Secretary been given instructions to ensure that any agreement that he makes will contain provision for rebates to the United Kingdom that are sufficient to offset the additional £675 million contribution that will arise if our own resource subscriptions were to increase from 1 to 1·4 per cent.?

He is instructed, if I might use —[Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend is under the same instructions as I impose upon myself. The Foreign Secretary would, of course, refer back if there were to be a change.

Does my right hon. Friend think that any Government could carry on their business effectively if the Official Secrets Act 1911 were so amended as to legalise the wilful betrayal of trust by civil servants? Could not a civil servant of any grade who supposes himself or herself to be the victim of a conflict of loyalties ask to be transferred to non-controversial work or resign from the service?

Yes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I note that when the matter came up during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government, in June 1976, the then Prime Minister said:

"There must be absolute confidence that papers and discussions that take place are kept within the circle to whom they are given."

"Is the Prime Minister aware that we fully share his view about the gravity of this matter? It is essential that confidentiality of discussions and documents should be assured."—[Official Report, 17 June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 738–39.]

How can the Prime Minister possibly justify the all-embracing section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, which was described by the present Home Secretary six years ago as indefensible? Do a Government who have shown such contempt for civil liberties welcome such a section to deal with all those who happen to displease them?

The Franks report on the Official Secrets Act was published in 1972. The Labour Government held office from 1974 until 1979. During those five years they could have introduced legislation, but they did not. In 1979 we introduced legislation which did not find favour with the House. We have no intention at present of introducing further legislation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an internal CND document—[HON. MEMBERS: "Leak."]—on cruise, just published, instructs CND members to render the deployment of cruise missiles militarily useless by informing the world, including our enemies, of exactly where they are sited? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that confirms the impression of many Conservative Members that Lenin's willing dupes in the CND are now doing the Soviet's dirty work for them?

That is correct. They are making a fundamental attack on the defence, security and liberties of our country, including the liberties that enable them to have freedom of speech and demonstration.

Would not the country be far better governed if freedom of information legislation protected those areas that should be in the public domain and left the apparatus of the law to protect far fewer secrets?

We try to keep protection to such matters as are vital. The hon. Gentleman must understand that it is vital to keep certain matters confidential for security reasons and certain negotiations confidential for commercial reasons.

I refer to my right hon. Friend's answer to Question No. 2. Has she yet read the Audit Commission's report, which shows that local authorities have amassed £250 million in rent arrears? Does she agree that that is a classic case for putting out, at least to the voluntary housing movement, the collection of rent and the housing management function?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be possible to put the collection out to the private sector, possibly with profit to the public sector.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make a clear and unequivocal statement of support for the principle that the wishes of the Clevelanders must be paramount?

I make a clear and unequivocal statement of support for the manifesto upon which the Conservative party fought the general election.