asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what precisely he gives to the National Health Service capital programme.

The Government give high priority to investing capital in the NHS. Capital expenditure in 1983–84 was 23·5 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79 when we took office.

Is it not a fact that, despite Opposition claims that we have been cutting the Health Service, we are now including the biggest hospital building and rebuilding programme that Britain has seen since 1948? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to concentrate spending on the areas of most need?

Certainly, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. My hon. Friend is correct, inasmuch as we are seeking to restore the cuts that were made to the capital programme by the previous Labour Government, when the capital programme was cut by one third.

Does the Secretary of State regard the £30,000 invested in the training of each nurse as one of the priorites in his capital programme? If so, would it not have been more appropriate for him to have given the House the opportunity to consider the review body's report on nurses than to have the information given by the Prime Minister in a written answer on Friday?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. First, it was on Thursday. Secondly, it is customary to announce the review body's recommendations and the decision on them in that way. Thirdly, that matter has nothing to do with the NHS capital programme.

What about those new buildings which have been put up but not opened because of cutbacks on current account?

We have been trying to achieve a better planning system in the Health Service than the one that we inherited. In the past, all too often capital projects went ahead without any thought to the revenue consequences. Fortunately, we have managed to reform that, where the previous Labour Government failed.

If the Minister is so proud of his efforts to increase the capital programme, when does he intend to put capital spending on the Health Service under this Government back to even the average annual level of that of the previous Labour Government?

Between 1976 and 1978 capital spending in real terms went down fom £735 million to £571 million. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are already considerably above that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there has been any improvement in the National Health Service activity rate.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of patients being treated in hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available.

Across a broad range of services the number of patients treated has risen over the last five years. Comparing 1982 with 1978, the NHS treated nearly half a million more inpatients and day cases, nearly 2 million extra outpatients and emergency cases, and nearly half a million more people were visited in their own homes by health visitors or district nurses. The average daily number of hospital inpatients in England in 1982 was 280,000.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer. Does that information not show that the reality within the NHS is very different from what is often claimed by Opposition Members? However, is it not the case that those figures disguise considerable variations between districts? Under-resourced districts within over-resourced regions, such as mine, are in particular difficulty because the growth in population is much more rapid than the shift in resources. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to meet a delegation from the North-West Herts district to discuss this problem?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health would be only too glad to do that. I give that guarantee on his behalf. I have visited Hemel Hempstead and I know of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred. He is right. The number of patients being treated has increased substantially under this Government.

What additional resources from the productivity savings of increased activity levels have been identified for patient care, so that improvements in services are made for patients? Is it my right hon. Friend's policy on incentive schemes for district health authorities that they can keep the proceeds of productivity savings to improve their local health services?

We want to do that in principle. It was one of the Griffiths recommendations that health authorities should be able to keep the savings achieved by productivity improvements, and we shall certainly work towards that end.

Will my right hon. Friend take seriously the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in unearthing people who do not turn up for outpatient appointments and those in hospitals——

Order. There is another question on that matter.

Is not the reality of the NHS performance this year seen in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's so-called 1 per cent. growth figure has already been cut by 0·25 per cent. because of his failure to cover all the costs of the nurses' pay award last week, that it has been cut by a further 1·5 per cent. because of the need to take account of the greater numbers of elderly people and the rising costs of medical technology, and that it will be cut by a further 2 per cent. if ancillary workers receive a pay award which is merely in line with inflation? Is not a 3 per cent. cut this year in NHS spending levels a resigning matter?

It would be if it were remotely true, but, as always, the hon. Gentleman is extravagantly wrong. In real terms we have added 1 per cent. to the health budget. In their reports to us the health authorities have said that they can provide a further 1 per cent. We have asked the health authorities for about £36 million out of that £200 million to provide for pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in his rewriting of his Department's legal aid instructions, the L code, he will revise the instructions about section 22 of the Legal Aid Act.

No decision has yet been taken.

Is it not about time the Minister admitted that the instruction to DHSS officers to breach section 22 of the Legal Aid Act is a blatant piece of law breaking by the Government? Are there not double standards, in that there appears to be no prosecution of that blatant piece of law breaking? Should not the hon. Gentleman resign over the fact that he has presided over giving an instruction which breaches the criminal law in an important respect?

It seems to be a heavy casualty day—like D-day plus seven today. We are awaiting legal advice from the Attorney-General, who is giving this matter his urgent attention. [Interruption.] I mention to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is enjoying his time in the Commons, that the arrangements under this Government are the same as those that have been in operation since 1951, under three or four Labour Governments. Former Ministers in those Governments are now on the Labour Opposition Front Bench.

Is the Minister not ashamed at making funny remarks from the Dispatch Box about official secrecy being used to cover up official law breaking, when his officials are attempting in some instances to prosecute women who wish to spend a night with a friend and when the unemployed are being pressurised by snoopers?

The basis of the social security system is that it should give help to those who need it, not to those who do not. That has been the intention of every Government and it is this Government's intention as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Canterbury report on the prevention of coronary heart disease.

We welcome this report wholeheartedly. It is an important source of advice on ways of reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, which is now a major cause of death in the United Kingdom.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with the principle of funding the prevention of heart disease as a way of reducing the cost to the nation of funding the cure of heart disease when it becomes established in the middle-aged and the elderly? When does he expect to be able to publish the COMAC report on the medical aspects of dietary regimes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. The Government are convinced that prevention, above all else, is of the greatest importance. We shall publish the report as soon as possible after its receipt from the chief medical officer's advisory committee, on which we depend for advice. I prefer to rely on that source of professional advice rather than on the absurd body which The Times tells me has been set up by the Greater London council today, called "The London Food Commission", which is meant to give us advice on these important matters. This is one more example of why the GLC should be shut down as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that the Health Education Council has no chance of competing with gigantic food industries in its attempt to explain the dangers of some foods which can cause cancer, strokes, or heart disease? As some foods are dangerous and cause heart disease, will the hon. Gentleman quadruple, at least, the council's budget, to assist it in its attempt to fight heart disease?

The council does valuable work, in co-operation, for example, with the British Nutrition Foundation, on these important issues. We keep the council's budget under constant review and we must await the independent medical advice to which I have referred before we decide what action is appropriate.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the amount that is being spent on preventing illness and disease, as distinct from treating it, to ascertain whether we have achieved the right balance? Will he pay special attention to the recommendation in the Canterbury report that there should be far more energetic Government support for the prevention and control of smoking, which is one of the largest causes of coronary disease?

My hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware of the recent important report of the Royal College of Physicians, which attributes 20 per cent. of the deaths from heart disease to smoking.

What arrangement has the Secretary of State made for miners who are single, who are suffering from coronary heart disease or other diseases and need constant medication? When they receive their prescriptions from their doctors, there is often no one available to take the prescription to a chemist? What arrangements have been made to deal with these single miners?

Every case is dealt with, and no one in need of medication by prescription will be denied it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the effect upon National Health Service costs of patients failing to keep their outpatient appointments.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further information he has received, since he last answered oral questions, on the number of National Health Service patients not keeping appointments duly made for them at National Health Service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

We do not at present collect the information which would be needed to estimate the cost of failed appointments.

To encourage my hon. Friend and his Department to follow the line of action that he has proposed in his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in one hospital in Hampshire, in the month of March, 1,200 patients failed to keep their outpatient appointments? Does he agree that this not is a unique experience and that it is a matter to be taken seriously at the Elephant and Castle?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern and of the problem in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire district health authority. Two things have to obtain. First, clinics have to be well and efficiently run. Secondly, prospective patients must recognise their moral responsibility to turn up on time for appointments in order not to waste valuable National Health Service resources.

Is my hon. Friend aware, pursuant to my raising this question at the last DHSS Question Time, that asking patients to rely on their moral responsibility is hardly concomitant with the Government's responsibility effectively and efficiently to manage the Health Service? I am glad that one of my hon. Friends says nonsense, because that confirms the rectitude of my view. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Wessex area health authority is not unique in this regard and that a large sum of money and the time of many skilled doctors are wasted as a result of what is going on?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I said as much to our hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) a moment ago. My hon. Friend is right. As at the last DHSS Question Time, I point the finger at the need for more effective management in the Health Service. That is why we rely so much on the recommendations of the Griffiths report, which my right hon. Friend has commended to the House.

Will the Minister accept that one reason for failed appointments is that the time that elapses between making the appointment and the appointment date is lengthening in many areas? Will he institute research into the link between lengthening waiting times for appointments and failed appointments?

I can give the hon. Gentleman some good news. We are discussing with the West Midlands regional health authority the possibility of running an experiment in that area—a bed bank experiment—to look at exactly these issues.

Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why people find it difficult to keep appointments is the long distances that they have to travel because small community hospitals, such as the Waterloo hospital in my constituency, which provide a worthwhile service are being closed? Many people who travel long distances cannot get financial assistance, even though they are unemployed or on low incomes. A constituent of mine will go blind if she does not get financial assistance from the Health Service to enable her to travel to London for treatment.

It is the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to keep a good balance of Health Service provision in large and small hospitals. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the figures for GP beds in such small hospitals to see that they have not gone down in the last five years.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, although he has been unable to give the House any figures, the cost of these missed appointments must be great, as must be the effect on waiting lists? Furthermore, any patient who knows that he cannot keep an appointment can always telephone and say so. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of improving arrangements to encourage patients to keep appointments?

Of course we will. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. It may be of interest to her and to my right hon. and hon. Friends to know that the average cost of a broken appointment seems to be between £20 and £50.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the death grant was first set at £30; and what is its present real value.

The death grant was increased to £30 in 1967, and would need to have been increased to about £165 in November 1983 to restore the 1967 value.

Is the Minister aware that many elderly people are fearful about what is to happen to them because the death grant is so inadequate, and that many would like to face death with dignity? That is being denied to them at present. When will the Minister do something to raise the level of death grant to a figure commensurate with the present high cost of funerals?

To increase the level of the death grant to what it was in 1967 would cost about £120 million a year if it were paid to all people. I appreciate the concern of older people in this regard. The last Labour Government, like this Government, did not find a solution to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in April that we shall want to consider the death grant together with the whole of social security over the coming years, along with the other surveys that we are doing.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the majority of those who do not need the death grant would be happy for their contribution to be given to the minority who do need it? Do not that minority need the grant to be increased quickly?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Three schemes put out for consultation two years ago involved transferring money to those who were most in need. However, no agreement was reached. I remind my hon. Friend — [Interruption.] There are means tests, income tax and many other things in Britain.

Does the Minister remember that about four years ago we were promised an answer to the whole question of the death grant? Even the most patient of us are now finding that patience wearing rather thin. Is not the cost of a modest funeral for ordinary working people between £300 and £350? Should not the Minister find some solution to the problem at the earliest possible opportunity?

I appreciate that the cost of a funeral can be between £300 and £600. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that inflation has been a cause of the drop in the real value of the grant, and that of that drop 47 per cent. occurred under a Labour Government, compared with only 35 per cent. under the Conservative Government. The last Labour Government did nothing to solve the problem—they did not even consult about it.

I appreciate the Government's problems, but will my hon. Friend look at the assistance given by the DHSS towards funeral expenses? Do not many people often give permission or instructions for a funeral which, quite frankly, they cannot afford, and then find themselves in great difficulty trying to pay for it?

I take my hon. Friend's point. We shall study that matter and I shall discuss it further with my hon. Friend.

How much does it cost to administer the issuing of the death grant, and what proportion is that of the grant paid? Do the Government now hold the record for putting off a decision on the death grant, or is there another area of decision-making in which they have taken so long to reach a decision?

The cost of administering the death grant is £12 million; the cost of the death grant itself is £17 million. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the speed with which the Government works and is therefore disappointed in this case.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the discomfort and grief not only of the bereaved but of the officers in his Department who have the embarrassment of explaining the death grant to the bereaved? Can we not either get rid of the stupid £30, which hardly covers the price of a wreath, or make new arrangements? We must do one thing or the other, because the present system is absolutely stupid.

I note the point that my hon. Friend puts so elegantly. No doubt we shall deeply consider his view.

Does the Minister's earlier reply mean that he has legitimised the permanent delay in making a decision by including it in the comprehensive review?

That is not the Government's intention. However, as the whole of social security is being reviewed, it would be odd to deal separately with one part of the whole.

Can the Minister give the global figures more succinctly? What proportion of the cost of the death grant is applicable to administration?

I thought that I had replied to that question earlier. However, I shall help the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously too far away to hear. The overall cost of the death grant—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he might understand. The overall cost of the death grant is £29 million. The cost of administration is £12 million.

If the hon. Gentleman genuinely wishes to give assistance, particularly to old people, with the cost of funerals will he consider excluding funerals from VAT, as such people have the terrible burden of paying VAT even on the cost of burial?

That is a point for the Treasury, and I am sure that it will have noted with interest the hon. Gentleman's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of people on supplementary benefit, office by office, in Liverpool at the present time.

Liverpool local offices are paying supplementary benefit to 195,600 claimants at present. With permission, I will provide the office-by-office figures in the Official Report.

I am over here. Is it not scandalous that the Government, instead of encouraging those who are entitled to benefits to claim them, have brought into Merseyside an army of snoopers, which is having the opposite effect on people who are entitled to benefit? Will he support the action taken by the Merseyside county council in promoting its take-up campaign, which has produced evidence that this is the case?

I am sorry that I did not look at the hon. Gentleman when I was replying. I was looking at other Liverpool Members to bring them into our conversation. As about 25 per cent. of the households in Liverpool are receiving supplementary benefit, one cannot say that the DHSS there is too harsh on its administration. One in four is a fair factor. I do not know how many people from the special claims unit of the Department have been in Liverpool, but I shall look into this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Have not people on supplementary benefits been badly affected by the policies of this Government and in particular by the introduction of VAT on take-away meals? This affects pensioners, single-parent families and large families on supplementary benefit. In Liverpool, I know of cases where take-away shops have experienced a drop of between 20 and 25 per cent. in their takings because people cannot afford to pay for these meals.

The hon. Gentleman's question about VAT is one for the Treasury. On supplementary benefit, I remind him that the value of the purchasing power of supplementary benefit is 5 per cent. higher than it was when we came into office and for children under five and between five and 12 there has been a 27 per cent. increase in real terms in the value of supplementary benefit.

Will the Minister answer the question put to him in the first place by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? The Minister said casually that the fact that one in four households can claim benefit proves that the system is generous. Whether they are getting their full entitlement is quite another matter, particularly considering the way that the Government consistently fiddle the regulations and even take illegal action. Will the Minister welcome the action taken by Merseyside county council?

The hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Loyden) asked me how many people were drawing supplementary benefit in Liverpool and I gave that figure —the actual figure down to single numbers was given, which shows this Government's grip on administration. Merseyside and Liverpool had a take-up of 600,000 cards, which went out last year, if my memory serves me right, and an increase in take-up came from that. Although largely single payments were made, that was at least a help.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has had from health authorities where a shortage of acute beds is further exacerbated by non-regional specialty referrals.

None, Sir.

Will the Minister accept that the Cambridgeshire problem of second referrals and the financial burden of being classed as a centre of excellence are very expensive for a county and do infinite harm to other people in the county? Will he, as a matter of urgency, allocate extra resources for an in-depth analysis of what is going on?

I will not accept that. Adequate provision is normally made for cross-boundary flows between local health authorities. Secondly, the East Anglia regional health authority is instituting a high-level review, which involves the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon district health authorities, to look at these issues. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman should accept some of the responsibility for the state of affairs in East Anglia., for it was in the period of the last Labour Government that East Anglia resources for the Health Service got way behind. That Government were supported by the Lib-Lab pact, and it has been this Government who since we took office, have increased expenditure on the NHS in East Anglia to a higher level than it has ever been. We shall continue to do so.

Should a patient have to travel for specialist treatment from an area where that treatment is available in the private sector from doctors who also have a contract with the National Health Service?

It is up to consultants to decide what they do in their free time regarding work in the private sector. It is important that National Health Service waiting lists are examined so that there can be maximum flexibility and people can be switched from one waiting list to another where the waiting time is shorter.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) pressed the Cambridge authority to run its district as efficiently as the Peterborough district is run—as it covers my constituency and part of his—he would not: have the basis for his question in the first place?

While I am happy to give some praise to my hon. Friend's own district health authority, the last: thing I wish to do is to criticise the Cambridge district health authority, whose chairman is doing an admirable job tackling some of these detailed problems. The root of the problem goes back to the underfunding of East Anglia. between 1974 and 1979, which the Government are correcting.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the current year's uprating of child benefit.

We have received representations from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Family Forum, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children and the Trades Union Congress.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although increasing tax thresholds is one way of tackling the poverty trap, a more cost-effective way would be to increase child benefit? Accordingly, will he bring as much pressure to bear as possible on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that child benefit is increased this year by a percentage not less than the increase in tax thresholds?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the uprating statement, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must make in due course. I am sure that both he and the Chancellor will take note of what my hon. Friend said. The only basis on which increases in child benefit can reduce the poverty trap is if existing means-tested benefits are comparably reduced, that is, if dependence on means-testing is reduced. There is a conflict between tackling poverty and tackling the poverty trap.

Does the Minister accept that since his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) is correct in saying that raising child benefit is the most efficient and effective way of reducing poverty, if that increase is not comparable with the increase in tax allowances it will be seen as evidence that the Government are more interested in methods of change to help the wealthy than in those which give greatest help to the poor?

The hon. Lady made a number of points about a difficult area, which must be considered. However, she is plain wrong in saying that increases in child benefit are the most effective way of tackling poverty.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the effectiveness of child benefit is blunted by its indiscriminate nature? Does he agree that the problem is that too many people, probably including many hon. Members, are receiving child benefit when, patently, they do not need it? Will he consider that point?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister for Health is currently chairing a review of benefits for children and young persons. I am sure that he will note what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that his Department can deal speedily with the claims of those involved in industrial disputes and adequately meet the needs of the claimants' dependants.

We are satisfied that the Department can deal speedily with claims from those involved in industrial disputes and that the needs of strikers' dependants are being met up to the full extent allowed by the Acts and regulations.

Does not the Minister think that the way in which the guidelines have been tightened harshly against the miners, as has been shown during the present industrial dispute, is totally wrong? Does he agree that it is totally wrong to take into account gifts given by charitable organisations and other donations given to miners' families during the present dispute?

There has been no change in the regulations. There has been an interpretation of the S code of 1980 and other factors, but there has been no change. Regarding the question of gifts, all gifts over £4 are taken into account for anybody who receives supplementary benefit, not only for strikers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Social Security Act 1980 deems that strikers will receive £15 per week in strike pay from their union, which is quite properly taken into account, and that the NUM decision not to provide any strike pay out of its enormous reserves is utterly reprehensible?

The NUM was perfectly aware of the position before the strike began. The provision to which my hon. Friend refers was in the 1979 Conservative manifesto and became part of the law of the land in 1983. As for the extent of the NUM's reserves, I once read in the Financial Times that they exceeded £27 million.

Why is it that the wife of a murderer who goes to prison does not lose £15, but the wife of a striker does? As for social security benefit, why have some people who have appealed against the Department's decisions been waiting as long as 12 weeks for their appeals to be heard, due to the Government's deliberate policy of starving strikers back to work?

There is no such deliberate policy. More than 800 officers are working on miners' benefits and we have given postal claim forms to the NUM to distribute.

Does my hon. Friend agree that miners in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere have solved the problem by continuing to work?

I cannot add to the delightful and accurate point made by my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that according to a secret Government document — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] entitled,

"Guidance Additional to the S Manual — Miners' Strike 1984,"

As it happens, I have a copy of that so-called "secret" document with me. So far as I know, there is also a copy in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman has any other secrets, perhaps he will share them with me. If that document is not already in the Library, it will certainly be there tomorrow. [Interruption.] I said that I believed it was already there. I am not so arrogant as the hon. Gentleman, who thinks that he is always right. Even Conservatives sometimes make mistakes. Nevertheless, I believe that the document is in the Library.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will circulate a list of the reciprocal arrangements with European Economic Community members which give British citizens access to their social services.

EC regulation 1408/71 determines the circumstances in which British citizens have access to social security benefits and health care in other member states.

Does not the reference that my right hon. and learned Friend has so helpfully given emphasise that membership of the EEC brings with it, or increasingly will bring with it, among many other things, the reciprocal benefit of access to other countries' social security provisions? Is that not an additional reason for this country remaining an active member of the Community?

Just so. The present arrangements ensure that nationals of this country have access to the health care and social insurance systems of other countries on exactly the same basis as nationals of those countries. In all our work in the Council, the British Government work to simplify and improve the arrangements. I have not the first idea where the Labour party would take us if—should it come to power and try to carry out whatever its policy on the EEC might then be—it tried to renegotiate all those beneficial arrangements.

Is the Minister aware that, in Italy, the Mafia has devised a system of supplementing income and thus providing a social service for members of the family by means of what is known as the tinned tomato scandal? Are any reciprocal arrangements in operation on that matter?

No, Sir, but no doubt the Greater London council is exploring the possibilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the subject of taxation and, in particular, the spurious allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition about the likelihood of the imposition of VAT on food? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House and the nation yet again that the Government have no intention whatsoever of imposing VAT on food?

We get this scare at every election, whether it is a general election or a Euro-election. We are used to it. It represents an attempt by the Opposition to divert attention from their total absence of policies on Europe.

Does the Prime Minister still say, on behalf of her Government and her party, "We are not going to intervene in the coal dispute"?

Yes. The term "intervention" is very well understood. The right hon. Gentleman has been trying to persuade me for a very long time to get both sides along to No. 10 Downing street for beer and sandwiches so that I can be told, "Give 'e m the money, Maggie."

The evidence of the Prime Minister's intervention for the mischievous purposes of deepening and embittering this dispute is now obvious and proven, and the evidence of her deceit is also proven by the way in which she has continually claimed not to be involved while in fact, for all the wrong reasons, she is directly involved. Will the Prime Minister now apologise for her deceit and use her power to encourage the negotiating parties to come to a speedy and mutually satisfactory result to the dispute?

The right hon. Gentleman asks me to intervene in the way in which I refuse to intervene.

g asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

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

Now that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been to Liverpool and seen just a little of the housing problem facing the city council, and has said that the council is right to regard it as a priority, will the Prime Minister review the housing investment programme for Liverpool? Furthermore, will she consider restoring her reputation as the Iron Maiden by having the guts to visit Liverpool to confirm the situation—and next time she visits Liverpool, will she come in broad daylight?

I seem to remember that last time I went to Liverpool it was very broad daylight.

And everybody was asleep in bed.

Order.

I hope that, for the moment, the hon. Gentleman is awake. With regard to the more serious aspect of his question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a joint paper has been produced by officials of the Liverpool city council and officials of the Department of the Environment on options for achieving a balanced city council budget for 1984–85. It has been presented to the city councillors and the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is due to meet councillors to discuss it. In the meantime, I understand that the auditor has written strongly advising the council to set a rate by 20 June. I hope that it will do so.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the announcement in this morning's press that the Americans have managed to shoot down a warhead in space? Will she take time today to consider whether that event has any implications for the purchase of the Trident missile?

It would be extremely unwise to rush into any conclusions on the basis of a press report or to make any statement without considering its full implications. The difference between one event and turning it into working technology is enormous, especially in this sphere.

In view of the Prime Minister's proven involvement in British Rail's pay offer, will she spare the House the humbug of pretending that she is not involved in decisions about whether British Rail should now invoke the civil law in relation to secondary picketing by members of the National Union of Railwaymen? Will she now tell us what she thinks should be done?

I have already said, in case the right hon. Gentleman has not noticed, that should the great nationalised industries invoke the civil law, the Government will not override their decision.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Denktash and some other Turkish-speaking Cypriots are shortly to host a dinner at the Savoy hotel which 40 or 50 of the Prime Minister's Back Benchers will attend and which will be addressed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who will associate the Tory party with the Turkish annexation of Cyprus? Will she dissociate herself from that annexation and assure the House that no Government facilities will be made available for any trade negotiations during Mr. Denktash's visit to the United Kingdom?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have condemned the attempts to declare an independent northern Cyprus. The Government wish there to be a unitary state of Cyprus and have supported and will continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to bring both sides together to achieve the restoration of a unitary state of Cyprus. With regard to other matters, right hon. and hon. Members are free to do as they wish.

Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on the deafening silence of the opposition parties when the Prime Minister of South Africa was received by the Pope?

No. I sometimes prefer the deafening silence to the other thing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree with this summary of the European election campaign, that whereas the Labour party, quite properly for it, puts Socialism first and the Liberal and Social Democratic parties put Europe first, Conservative candidates are putting Britain first? Does she further agree that every Conservative candidate is committed to the retention of the national veto, favours increasing free trade in the Community, and is against a federal system for Europe?

I agree broadly with my hon. Friend. With regard to the veto, our manifesto makes it clear that we wish to retain it as it is. With regard to our attitude to trade in Europe, we wish to reduce the internal barriers. Of course, I am against a federal Europe.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the House was deliberately deceived by the Government about intervention in the miners' dispute? Does she state now whether the Secretary of State for Energy actually saw the letter from Andrew Turnbull to Henry Derwent? Will she also agree that the Secretary of State yesterday treated the House and the National Union of Mineworkers with contempt by saying that he could not remember seeing the letter because it was not important?

With regard to the precise papers that the Secretary of State for Energy sees, I suspect he has seen a great deal more than I have, because he is the sponsoring Minister. With regard to intervenion, right hon. and hon. Members are still urging me to intervene by getting them all to No. 10. I have not done so, and will not do so. I have repeatedly said that this Government have set——[Interruption]

Order.

If the hon. Member wishes to call it intervention, I must tell him that this Government have provided £2 million per day for investment in the coal industry. They have seen to it that money is there for a very good deal for the mineworkers and that the best voluntary redundancy terms are available. They have seen to it that there are extra subsidies and extra prospects for manufacturers who wish to turn from oil to coal. If that is intervention, yes, I have intervened, but asking them to No. 10 and beer and sandwiches, no, never.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that during the European election campaign at least one Conservative candidate has received the active support of Captain Kent Kirk, who in January of last year showed such blatant contempt for the British fishing industry and British fishery law? Does the Prime Minister welcome the support that Conservatives have from Captain Kirk?

If we have only one candidate taking a particular view, that is very different from the Liberal party. None of their candidates appears to take the same view.

What does my right hon. Friend think about a group which campaigns against apartheid, which is violently against the visit to his country of Mr. Botha but at the same time in certain of its constituency branches is actively setting up black-only sections?

I have noted it. I think that it is humbug and double standards.

Since, under the Government's own chosen measures, Conservative-controlled Portsmouth has overspent to a much higher degree than Labour-controlled Sheffield, what sympathy has the Prime Minister for the problems of the Secretary of State for the Environment in trying to manufacture a list for rate-capping which ensures that Sheffield is included but that Portsmouth is excluded?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate-capping measure has not yet been enacted. It is still before the other House and it would be somewhat premature to devise a list before that Bill has even become an Act. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that that, of course, was the habit of the Opposition when in government, but I think that it is a little premature at the moment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

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

May I plainly ask the Prime Minister to intervene beneficially in a further industrial dispute, to take steps to ensure that the women, already on poverty level wages paid by Messrs Crothalls at Barking hospital in East London, benefit from a settlement that will give them decent levels of pay and working conditions? If she will not, is she not admitting that the future of the Health Service depends on the payment of wages below the poverty level to many ancillary workers on whom the Health Service depends?

No, Sir. The savings are going to provide more nurses and on extra patient care.

Has my right hon. Friend heard the news that a well-known SDP parliamentary candidate has defected to the Tories? Does she agree that after next Thursday there will be more such defections?

I hope that a large number of others will follow the same course, because it will be the wisest thing that they have ever done.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Comecon summit meets this week in an atmosphere of bitter division in the Communist bloc, whilst the London summit last week emphasised agreement in the free world? Is there a lesson which Moscow might learn?

My hon. Friend is correct. On East-West relations the summit last week stood absolutely solid in the view that it took on defence. It also pointed out that we are always willing and, indeed, wish to enter into greater dialogue across the West-East divide. I think that that is the right course of action.

Since the Government are undeniably involved in the coal dispute, will the Prime Minister change the habit of a lifetime and say something helpful? Will she give an unequivocal commitment to the future of the Scottish coalfield and to the necessary development in Stirling, Fife and Musselburgh bay, which are essential for the future of that so-called peripheral coalfield?

I shall gladly repeat what I said earlier, which is very helpful for the prospects of the coal industry. The Government have provided £2 million a day investment in coal — a greater investment than that provided by any other party. The Government have seen to it that the money for voluntary redundancy is better by far than that provided under any previous Government. The Government see great future prospects for the coal industry and hope that the miners will return to work to take advantage of those prospects.