asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now introduce legislation to bring the over-80s pension in line with the level of the contributory state retirement pension.

The over-80s pensions are noncontributory and are not means-tested. Such noncontributory benefits have traditionally been set at 60 per cent. of the rate of equivalent contributory benefits. We have no present plans to change this.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there remain 40,000 non-contributory retirement pensioners? In view of the recent modest estimate of £25 million a year to brng them into line with other state beneficiaries, does my right hon. Friend not feel morally bound to do so as soon as possible?

I certainly confirm the figure. In fairness to contributors, it has always been the practice to set noncontributory rates of benefit below the level of contributory benefit. However, I am happy to consider the whole question in the context of the inquiry into retirement.

Before my right hon. Friend agrees to this or any other change, will he examine the report on the social security system, due to be published later this week, by the Institute of Fiscal Studies? Will he consider whether we can combine the tax and social security systems to produce a scheme that will alleviate the poverty associated with the unemployment trap? Would not such a scheme be simpler and be aimed more at real need?

I have not yet seen the report, but I understand that it is to be published this week. Obviously I shall look at it, but at this stage I cannot hold out any hope. It will be for those giving evidence to the retirement inquiry to make precisely that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the industrial dispute at Barking hospital.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the dispute involving women domestic staff at Barking hospital.

The domestic services at Barking hospital are contracted out to a private company and have been for a number of years. The terms and conditions of service for these employees, which is what the current dispute is about, are entirely a matter for the contractor and its employees. I do, however, deplore the gross intimidation of staff that has taken place on the picket line at the hospital.

If the Minister is saying that there is nothing that he or the health authority can do to resolve a dispute that is damaging patient care in Barking, does he acknowledge that an automatic result of privatisation is that neither the Government nor the authority can interfere in a dispute between a private contractor and that contractor's employees?

I do not accept that any damage is being done to patient care in Barking, although clearly things are not well there. However, any damage must be the result of the industrial action taken by those on strike and those manning the picket line outside the hospital. All that the health authority has done is to make a saving of £143,000 per year on cleaning costs, which is now being spent on improved nurse staffing levels in other parts of the service.

Does the Minister appreciate that the reduction of more than 800 hours per week has led to a reduction in the standard of cleanliness in the hospital, that the health authority admitted that fact in a letter to me, and that the council's local environmental health committee complained last week about more than 30 items which were not clean? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now say whether he is satisfied with the standard of cleanliness; and, if not, will he intervene to try to get negotiations going?

The savings have been made by the private contractor cutting back on the work schedules, rostering and overmanning on the previous contract, resulting in a saving to the authority which can be spent on improving patient care. of course, cleanliness leave much to be desired at present. Some of the faults relate to work for which Crothall is responsible and others to work for which the authority is responsible. But it is hypocritical to complain about standards of cleanliness when it is the actions of the pickets, whom the hon. Lady supports, that make it impossible to take the remedial measures which the authority and the contractor wish to take.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the interests of patients, not trade unions, should be paramount in the Health Service, and that competitive tendering for ancillary services could do much to ensure that resources go to patient care rather than being wasted on non-cost-effective services? Will he also note the anxiety of some Conservative Members that his deadline for requiring tendering for services contracted out seems to have slipped to September 1986?

Order. That is getting a little wide of a question on Barking hospital.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not morally wrong for the Government to acquiesce in the development of a local private monopoly which can unilaterally reduce the take-home pay of low-paid workers?

I do not see how the contracting firm can be described as a local private monopoly when the contract is the result of a tendering exercise. The contractor in question had held the contract for 12 years without any industrial action being taken, so far as I know; but, when the contract was put out for retendering, it was discovered that substantial savings could be made. The money saved is now being spent by the authority in desirable ways on the care of its patients.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress in standards of health care has been made in the Wessex health region over the last 25 years.

The Wessex region was set up 25 years ago to provide a better focus for the development of health services in an area of growing population. It has achieved considerable success. The development of a completely new teaching hospital and medical school in Southampton has been complemented by new district general hospitals now open in Poole, Swindon, Basingstoke and Portsmouth. We are continuing this programme of investment with new schemes in Dorchester, Bournemouth, Southampton and Winchester. The people of the region are also receiving better services, with inpatient, outpatient and casualty attendances up by about 20 per cent. in the past decade and with hospital day cases almost doubled.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the excellent record of improving health care in the Wessex region, the region remains consistently underfunded not just in absolute terms, but in terms of the Government's RAWP formula? May we have an undertaking that we shall be at least on target within the next five years?

My hon. Friend can have the undertaking that we are working to the RAWP formula and are endeavouring to make it better and to set off inequalities between different areas. My hon. Friend will have seen what the chairman of the regional health authority said about Wessex. He said that the National Health Service in Wessex was working harder and more efficiently than ever before in that region.

I congratulate Wessex on its progress, but will the Secretary of State pay the same attention to Salford?

Yes, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the remarkable progress made by the Wessex authority is highly regarded by all people, and that the spinal units at Salisbury and Odstock have been much appreciated? Will my right hon. Friend not forget that the Health Service is dependent upon the voluntary sector, which will provide many of the services for the way forward in the future and which we must encourage at every turn?

Get on your horse.

Order.

If I may just intervene for a moment, I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I underline the importance of the voluntary sector. One of the most impressive improvements in the Wessex region, as elsewhere in the country, has been the increase in capital spending. Capital spending between 1978–79 and 1984–85 has increased by 66·7 per cent. in real terms. That follows the previous Labour Government's period of cuts.

Is the Secretary of State not being a trifle complacent, when hospital waiting lists which stood at 32,000 in 1976 in the Wessex region now stand at nearly 47,000? Is he not also being complacent when no fewer than three quarters of the 4,300 people on the urgent waiting list in Wessex have been waiting for urgent operations for more than a month?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman chooses the 1976 rather than the 1979 waiting list figure. If he feels so strongly about people on the waiting list, as I do, it is a pity that, when it comes to industrial action, he does not do more to condemn it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over75-year-olds take up to 10 times the health care resources required by 20-year-olds? Will he bear that in mind—

Order. Is this question related to the Wessex health authority?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I shall do that. We shall be going to a new system of looking at the projections for the increase in the elderly population, which I believe will help Wessex considerably.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on the sponsorship by his Department of residents in residential care homes for the elderly.

Our policy is that elderly people eligible for supplementary benefit should be able to receive appropriate residential care if they need it.

Why does the Minister not acknowledge that essentially his policy is one of using public funds to encourage and subsidise the private sector, which is primarily motivated by the need to make a profit? If the Minister is interested in the standards of residential care for the elderly, why does he not make his views known to the Department of the Environment, so that it will exempt part 3 accommodation from local government expenditure cuts, and encourage the public sector, where care is the principal motivation?

The Department helps elderly people requiring assistance and supplementary assistance, whether in local authority or private homes. We welcome the extension of both.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the operation of social security benefits for patients in hospitals for the mentally handicapped is acting as a constraint on those patients being returned to the community? Will he undertake to consider that problem?

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that many elderly people are looking for care in private homes because they cannot get into local authority homes and that that arises from the numbers of geriatric patients in local authority homes? Is not the answer for the Department to put more resources into psycho-geriatric care to relieve local authority homes and thereby enable people who want to go into them to find places?

In addition to those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, one factor involved is that there are 650,000 more people beyond the ages of 60 to 65 than there were four years ago. Therefore, there is bound to be additional pressure on both private and local authority homes.

Are there not many people in hospital at present who would not be there if they had people outside to care for them? Would there not be a cost saving if more resources were allocated to residential care or, for example, to day centres, such as the one built in Newark entirely by voluntary subscription?

We desire, as a Government, to encourage the voluntary sector. If people prefer to remain in their homes with additional help, we shall also favour that in any way that we can.

Is not the massive growth of private residential care privatisation by stealth under the present Government, and is it not quite deliberate? Despite the Minister's claims about increased controls, will they not be inadequate, since there will not be enough staff to guarantee those controls? Are we not likely to see a deterioration in the standards of care for the elderly? As the problems for the individual increase, people will tend to come back into the local authority sector, which, because of the penny-pinching attitude of the Government, will not be able to cope.

There are about 31 per cent. more people in residential care in 1983 than there were in 1982. The number is increasing in both the private and local authority sectors.

Does the Minister accept that great damage is caused to the morale of all those in the caring services by the repeated willingness of Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and herald every possible development and extension of private residential care?

We meet the local authority representatives regularly, and local authority homes are considered in the same way. Recently we wrote to the local authority associations inviting them to participate in a joint working group aimed at improving collaboration between the local authorities and the Department in this area. We are not just pushing on with a sector that is private. We are equally concerned about the local authority side.

Is the Minister aware that, by allowing private nursing homes to pick up inflated boarding allowances from social security, he is, in effect, using taxpayers' money to promote private hotel development for the elderly? Is he further aware that DHSS offices often pay out more than £100 a week in boarding fees for elderly persons who have not been selected on the basis of need and who do not need constant care? In effect, he is subsidising with public money private homes which are run for profit and which often do not have adequate standards of care.

Opposition Members remind us regularly of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It was that committee which advised the Government last year to put up the limit. If we had not done so, we could not have found places for patients. We cannot agree with the committee about one matter and disagree with it about another. What is more, there is no compulsion to pay the top figure. There is a figure in every area which differs according to the demand in the area. On one side, we are concerned for the elderly people going into these homes. On the other side, we are concerned to preserve the public purse. I am delighted that for the first time we have the support of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reverse the decision to stop payment of child-minding benefit to trainees on TOPS courses.

The Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations have never provided for payment of child-minding expenses to trainees on training opportunities scheme courses. The law in this respect has been the same since the regulated supplementary benefit scheme was brought in in 1980, and we have no proposals to change it.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Women who are using this service will be pleased to hear it, and will refer back to their benefit offices to ensure that the rules are applied.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for whom I have the highest regard, fully understood what I said. I am glad that he has welcomed my reply, but I should not wish him to form the wrong impression.

Is the Minister aware that a matter of definition is involved? In the London area and elsewhere, people have taken what are effectively TOPS courses, where charities have provided training opportunities for people on benefit. Because the local offices have decided to redefine the way in which they regard these courses, people are losing up to £21 a week in benefit. They are precisely the people whom the Minister constantly urges to help themselves. The actions of his Department are preventing them from doing so. As the Minister seems to have been unaware of the situation, will he now take action to reverse it?

I am always delighted when bright lights are shone into dark corners of which I am not aware. No payments have been made under the regulations to people on TOPS courses. I appreciate that there is a desire for certain people to have a child-minding allowance. Several hundred one-parent families are involved every year. As I told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davies) in a letter last year, if the MSC made an allowance for child-minding, the supplementary benefit regulations would permit it to be disregarded to the same extent. We feel that it is the responsibility of the MSC.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reverse the decision to apply the full extent normal rule even where, in the hours worked, the pay received would not meet the national insurance contribution otherwise due.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if there is a minimum number of hours worked below which such hours cannot be regarded as qualifying for application of the full extent normal rule.

We have no plans to alter the full extent normal rule. Unemployment benefit is intended to compensate for loss of employment which has resulted in loss of earnings. It would therefore be wrong in principle to pay benefit for days on which a person would not normally work, no matter what the number of hours worked on other days, or the wages actually received.

Does not the rigid application of a rule brought in at a time of low unemployment smack of vindictive meanness against the poorest in our society? Would it not be better to have a more flexible approach, particularly in the case of those who, as I have said, do not even earn enough to pay national insurance contributions?

The rule was brought in in the 1930s—another time of high unemployment. It was inherited by the scheme in 1948, and maintained by all Labour Governments. The rule applies only when there is a contract for part-time work. Why should people get unemployment pay on other days when they have signed a contract for part-time work, or when they have been employed part-time for six months and it is plain that they intend to continue this method of work?

Is it not true that in some cases workers have been prepared to work more days but employers have made sure that they do not, because that would affect their benefit and pension contributions? Is not the essence of the matter that this is a cut in public expenditure which should be succouring the poor? If not, is there not a muddle between the Department of Employment and the DHSS? If so, why does the hon. Gentleman not get his act together with the other Departments concerned?

I could not disagree more. The rule makes it plain that if people normally work three days a week and have no intention of working on the other two days, they are not given unemployment pay on those two days. At present, when there is short-time working, the full extent normal rule is not applied. If short-time working is brought in by the employer, there is no disadvantage to the employees. They get unemployment pay on the days when they are not working. The situation is perfectly fair.

Is the full extent normal rule, or other rules that are related to the cut-off point of unemployment benefit, being reviewed as part of my hon. Friend's review of the social service system to see whether it is fully in accord with modern social conditions?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I can give him a definite affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for mobility allowance have been accepted during the past 12 months; how many were rejected; and if he will make a statement.

Decisions on initial and renewal claims in the 12 months ended 22 June resulted in 92,100 awards and 59,300 disallowances.

Does the Minister agree that a disproportionate number of the non-allowances result from the fact that many people claim after reaching the age of 65 because they are ignorant of the existence of mobility allowance? Was it not the intention of the Labour Government in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) served—he introduced the mobility allowance—that it should be phased in? Is it not time that the Government began to phase in mobility allowance for the over-65s who, because of ignorance or because they live in parts of the country were the council is not Labour-controlled—so there is no take-up campaign—do not benefit from it?

The hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension about what was said by the Labour Government to whom he referred. The allowance was phased in, but it was envisaged as being phased in only for people up to the age of 65. That phasing in was slightly accelerated by the incoming Conservative Government, to the benefit of about 30,000 people. In a manifesto which, at the previous general election, made almost every conceivable social security pledge, the one that was missing was a pledge to extend mobility allowance to people aged over 65.

Is my hon. Friend's Department trying to reduce delays in the processing of applications for mobility allowance between local DHSS offices and the central unit at Blackpool? Such delays in my part of the world seem to be getting longer rather than shorter.

I shall look into what my hon. Friend said about his part of the world. We have implemented 11 recommendations of the so-called Oglesby report on speeding up procedures. The result is that clearance time for claims has fallen from 19 weeks in 1982 to only 11 weeks now. There has been a considerable improvement.

In the light of the continuing streams of representation which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House receive on this matter, is it not time to consider amending the rules to allow certain groups of people collectively to obtain mobility allowance when they are at present excluded?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He might be thinking of a variety of points. If he is asking whether we should categorise certain disabilities such as blindness for automatic qualification, I think that my answer is no. It would be impossible to start sorting out the disabilities that would automatically qualify, leaving others which have to be judged. I am sure that such a system would produce far worse anomalies.

Will the Minister state his intentions with regard to elderly disabled people who, under existing arrangements, will lose mobility allowance as they reach the age of 75? Is it intended that the allowance will continue in those cases? Will the Minister say something about the Oglesby recommendations?

We must examine the right hon. Gentleman's first point. There is no question of mobility allowance being received by those aged 75 for some years. I have just said that we have implemented 11 of the "quick" Oglesby recommendations. We are considering the other more fundamental ones and will make a statement as soon as possible.

How much is currently spent on mobility allowance and how does it compare with five years ago?

I happen to have the figures before me. Mobility allowance now costs about £300 million a year as compared with rather less than £50 million when we came into office. It is not a bad story.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the £4 earnings allowance for those on supplementary benefit has been changed.

We have no current plans to increase the £4 supplementary benefit earnings disregard.

Is the Minister aware that the existing allowance is rendered null and void if, in other ways, through the benefit system people have charges imposed on them—such as national insurance—which are more than the earnings allowance? I noted the Minister saying that these matters would be considered in a review. Can he assure us that they will be considered favourably and reviewed to the advantage rather than to the disadvantage of claimants?

The supplementary benefit review will examine all aspects of supplementary benefit, including the earnings disregard. I remind the House that the Conservative Government in 1980 doubled the earnings disregard from £2 to £4 for the unemployed and increased it considerably for one-parent families.

Does my hon. Friend have any plans for the review to deal with the anomaly whereby a person over the age of 60 who has elected to take long-term supplementary benefit and effectively becomes a pensioner is nevertheless tied to the amount of earnings disregard as if he were not retired?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. We are examining that matter. Whatever moneys are available, we have always considered it better to spend that on increasing benefits than on increasing disregards.

If the real value of income disregard is not maintained, does that not restrict access to benefits? Does the Minister agree that income disregard for supplementary benefit, which was introduced in 1975 at £4, ought to be £10 a week so that it keeps its real value?

The hon. Gentleman's calculation is correct. At any time the Government have just so much money for social security. The more that is spent on earnings disregard, the less will be spent on increased benefits. Short and long-term supplementary benefits are higher in real terms than when we came to office. That is where our priorities lie.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the abuse of social security benefits, whereby young people state that their place of abode is somewhere other than their home and thus increase their supplementary benefit from £16 to £51? Will he urgently set up an inquiry into that practice?

The inquirers will be very busy. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says. I shall meet another of my hon. Friends this afternoon to discuss the same sort of abuse, in which people move to the south coast with no intention of taking work. Just as we must ensure that those who deserve money will receive it, so it is our job to make sure that those who do not deserve it do not receive it.

When does my hon. Friend expect to conclude the review of the regulations which allows those receiving supplementary benefit to receive up to £140 a week from lodgers without their supplementary benefit being affected?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, which he did in person last week. The matter has been brought to the attention of the press this week.

Public school sneak.

Order.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of Thorpe hospital.

Thorpe hospital is the responsibility of Sunderland district health authority. However, I understand the health authority is considering proposals for the expansion of maternity facilities at Sunderland general hospital, which would allow the transfer of inpatient maternity services from Thorpe hospital.

Does the Minister realise that it would be a disgrace for this hospital to close? If a hospital enjoys the complete confidence of the community that it serves, is centrally situated and has a proper work load, as well as a below average mortality rate, what possible reason can there be for closing it? Thorpe hospital meets all of those criteria, so will the Minister put a stop to all the nonsensical talk of closure?

The hon. Gentleman is a little early in raising the matter, because the health authority has not begun to consult about the proposal. If it does consult and decides to go ahead and the matter becomes controversial, it will eventually come to the Minister for a decision. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall approve a proposal to close the hospital only if we are satisfied that that is in the interests of the patients. That will mean taking account of any and all of the arguments, including those raised by the hon. Gentleman as well as local medical opinion and the balance of advantages to the service.

Is the Minister aware that I am a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand)? My family has taken advantage of this hospital on two occasions. This is an outrageous attack on the facilities and an incredible decision. The Minister's explanation today is unacceptable to the people in our area. Will he reach a decision about the matter as early as possible?

I realise that the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) has more than one constituency problem, but I agree that this is quite a serious one. I shall take account of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I must ask both hon. Members to look at the issue dispassionately. Ultimately, one has to make an objective judgment as to what is in the best interests of patients and mothers-to-be who live in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will increase the grant to the Pre-School Play Group Association.

My right hon. Friend has made a grant of £361,000 for 1984–85 as a contribution to the PPA's national and regional expenses, giving it the largest grant made by the Department to any voluntary organisation. The Government are pressing the statutory sector, including the NHS, to achieve the best possible use of its resources, and the voluntary sector must also take stock from time to time and show that it is taking the same care to operate efficiently and effectively. Therefore, I have asked the Department's audit staff to advise the association on its financial efficiency. The chairman of the association has accepted this help and we will review the level of grant in due course. In the meantime I understand that the association may seek additional help for the purchase of computer facilities and we shall consider that sympathetically. This is an association which makes an enormous contribution to the day care of young children in this country and we support it enthusiastically.

I am interested in the Minister's words and hope that they will be converted into money. However, is it not true that the grant gives the association absolutely nothing for inflation? Indeed, the fact that the Government announced it in June—three months too late—means that the cuts will be particularly harsh. Will that not now mean very real cuts in under-five provision, not only in the local education authority sector but in the voluntary sector as well? Is it not indisputable that Tory economic policy sacrifices the under-fives and their play groups?

This year the Government are supporting the voluntary sector at a higher level than ever before. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should choose to drag that sector into the political arena. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman thought a little more before asking questions and spent rather less time trying to cabal against those of his honourable and better Friends who are seeking reselection, he would learn more about the problems of the voluntary sector. That invaluable association, which gets the biggest grant given by us to any voluntary organisation, is suffering from a few unfortunate financial problems, one of which involves a police investigation.

Although I welcome my hon. Friend's statement about the PPA, will he ensure that, instead of leaving it for a few months before giving his Department's advice to the chairman of the organisation and her colleagues, he advises her earlier so that that organisation can continue doing the very valuable work which he has already acknowledged, which is fundamental to the voluntary work done in both the social service and educational sectors?

I take my hon. Friend's point. The Government appreciate the work being done, but they must also ensure that public money is properly spent. At the moment, the PPA's own auditors are examining the books, and there is a police investigation of one member of staff. We intend to put in our own auditors and financial advisers as soon as possible. Once that investigation has been completed we shall—as I said in my original reply —review the level of grant sympathetically.

In the announcement that the Minister has just made, precisely what element of the grant allows for inflation?

We shall maintain the core grant at the same level as last year.

Is it not a sham for the Government to say that they are helping voluntary sector provision for the under-fives, given that the rate penalties and the capping imposed on local authority departments, together with the abolition of the metropolitan councils, will decimate support for such provision? Furthermore, theves Government are keeping the lid on voluntary provision for the under-fives, and the PPA grant is a very good example of that.

The hon. Lady knows that local authorities of all political colours which are prudent spenders are able to maintain an adequate level of expenditure, incluing expenditure on care for the under-fives. If the hon. Lady spent less time making these baseless allegations and more time advising her colleagues in local government to give up their tinpot, politically motivated attacks using ratepayers' funds, we would all be better off.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the families, and particularly pregnant wives, of striking miners are receiving full and proper provision from his Department during the present industrial dispute.

I am satisfied that families are getting the benefits to which they are entitled.

I am amazed to hear that the Minister is satisfied, because he should be appalled at the treatment given to a young married couple in my constituency. The wife is expecting a baby next month and is receiving £6·45, disregarding the payment for interest on the mortgage. Is the Minister aware that when she went to the social worker at the hospital to ask for assistance for vitamins she was advised that she should eat potato peelings, which she was told contain as many vitamins as an orange? Is the Minister not appalled at such treatment?

I read that report. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge that the complaint he has made is not one that could be made against staff in the DHSS. Before he makes such complaints, he should be frank to the House about that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

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. Later today I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what advice she gave, and what instructions she issued, to the chairman of the National Coal Board at the secret meeting last week?

No. No instructions were issued. Mr. MacGregor came with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to make a report on the industry as he saw it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern in the Essex county council and the Southend-on-Sea borough council arising from the fact that, having loyally kept to every guideline set by the Government, they have had their grants cut, while at the same time the Government have suddenly been able to pluck millions of pounds out of thin air to help the Liverpool council, which has broken every rule in the book? Would it not be helpful for the Government to help those who follow their guidelines rather than those who break them?

I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about Conservative councils which have loyally kept within spending limits. I shall make the position about Liverpool clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued a statement. There are no concessions on targets on Liverpool, on GREA, on block grant, on penalties or on disregards. The rules will apply to Liverpool just as they apply to every other local authority area. Nor are the Government re-opening this year's housing investment programme allocations to give Liverpool extra. Like every other local authority, if Liverpool reduces overspending, it will benefit from reduced penalties and, therefore, a higher rate support grant. It is misleading to count that as an addition to expenditure from the Government.

Following this entirely arbitrary grant of badly needed money for the city of Liverpool, does the Prime Minister hold out any hope of a return to a principled system of financing local government, or is the Labour party councillors' weekend threat of noncompliance with central Government the only way to make the Government finance local services? When will this trench warfare come to an end?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have heard exactly what I said about the statement. There are no concessions on target, on GREA, block grant, penalties or disregards. The rules will apply to Liverpool just as they apply to every other local authority in England. The right hon. Gentleman is now asking whether there is anything extra. Conditional on Liverpool making a legal rate, the Government have agreed to a modest increase of £2·5 million to supplement Liverpool's inner city partnership programme. This comes out of an existing national urban programme provision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that today more than 1,000 dock workers are on strike in Southampton and that most of them have no idea whatever why they are on strike? Will she appeal on their behalf to the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union to put an end to this pointless strike as soon as possible, which otherwise threatens job opportunities for many dockers and others in Southampton and elsewhere?

I agree with my hon. Friend that if the strike goes on many jobs will be threatened as ships go to other ports on the continent. Consequently, the dockers here will be helping to solve the unemployment problems of Belgium, Holland and Germany, who will take jobs away from this country. I understand that the port employers and the union are likely to meet in the national joint council for the port industry later this afternoon. I hope that they will arrive at satisfactory conclusions, so that the dockers can get back to work.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the present dispute in the mining industry differs radically from many that have preceded it, in that they were primarily concerned with remuneration, real or monetary, whereas this one turns on the right and opportunity of British industry to renew itself for the future?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This dispute is not about the conditions offered to the miners, which are the best ever in the history of coal mining in this country.

Given the sinking value of the pound on the foreign exchanges, the deteriorating industrial situation and the inevitable rise in interest rates which is to come, is not the Prime Minister's world collapsing around her head? When, as will inevitably be the case, higher interest rates feed through to owner-occupiers, what words of comfort will the Prime Minister have for them then?

My world is not collapsing. The hon. Gentleman's world should be collapsing, given that the Labour party is supporting strikes, miners who are on strike against those who are at work, and those who look to bring about industrial anarchy as a means of getting round democracy. The economy is in good shape —[Laughter.] Inflation is well under control, and despite this month's high money supply figures the monetary situation is satisfactory, but the United States situation is still unsettled. The recent rise in interest rates demonstrates the Government's commitment to firm monetary conditions. When the miners' strike is off, the economy will have every reason to go ahead. So long as it is on, Labour Members are deliberately trying to create unemployment and to destroy jobs.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning without reservation the appalling violence of pickets yesterday at the Rossington colliery? Can she assure the House that the Government will not give way to anyone using these appalling tactics? Does she look forward as eagerly as I do to hearing the Leader of the Opposition. condemn this behaviour?

This strike is not about industrial relations. I hope that we can contain mass picketing, which inevitably turns to violence. Those who undertake mass picketing know that it will turn to violence.

Has the Prime Minister seen the article in the current issue of The Economist describing her Administration as the most inept since the war? Will the right hon. Lady give a firm pledge today that, whatever may happen to other Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for the Environment, she will in no circumstances resign her position as Prime Minister before the next election, because next time round she will be worth millions of votes for the Labour cause?

I am afraid that it is the Leader of the Opposition who is worth millions of votes to the Conservative cause, and will be when we come to win the next election in this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 July.

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm the regret of the whole House at the tragic fire at York Minster on Sunday night and, if that is the case, as I am sure it is, can she say what the Government can do towards helping to restore the fabric of this cathedral?

It is a great tragedy that the roof of York Minster was severely damaged by fire and parts of the cathedral were seriously burned. I have asked for a full report on the damage. I understand that in the first instance it will be for the cathedral authorities and the insurers to decide the financial implications, but I have made it clear that the Government stand ready to help, if help is needed.

The Prime Minister says that the economy is in good shape. When we have a rise in the unemployment trend, when we have had 1·2 million people unemployed for more than a year, 650,000 for more than two years and 356,000 for more than three years, when we have an increase in bankruptcies, when we have a rise in interest rates and when we have a pound worth $1·30, about which economy is she talking?

If the right hon. Gentleman takes that view, I wonder why he does everything that he can to increase unemployment.

The record unemployment that this country endures at this time is directly due to the stupid policies of the right hon. Lady and her Government. Only one thing is crazier than the introduction of the policies, and that is the absolutist way in which she insists on sustaining them. She is ruining this country. Will she apologise, quit or change?

No, Sir. I wonder then what the right hon. Gentleman would say to those Socialist countries which have similar levels of unemployment, much worse levels of inflation and much worse prospects than this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the unanimous resolution passed by the Merchant Navy Officers Association, which accuses her of total abdication of responsibility for the shrinkage of the British merchant fleet and lack of consideration for the seafarers, who will have their pay reduced by between £10 and £40 per month as a result of her actions? Is she further aware that the association has no confidence in her policies to maintain the commercial and strategic needs of the United Kingdom? What will she do to reverse this disastrous situation?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, those who compete in the shipping world have to compete for business with others who have extensive fleets and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to be aware, a docks strike will damage shipping in this country and the interests of the seafarers. I hope that he will join me in asking that it comes off, and comes off today.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a gross abuse of union power that a national dock strike should be called on the flimsiest of pretexts? Is it not clearly an irresponsible and opportunistic bid to bring the dockers into the mining dispute, which can only cause a loss of jobs in the dock industry and in British industry generally?

I agree with my hon. Friend. All the ports and dockers on the mainland of Europe will be cheering as a result of the decision of dockers in this country to go on strike. I shall soon get questions about why unemployment has risen in the docks. It will be because the dockers have decided that they will strike and lose their jobs to others.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

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

In view of the Prime Minister's dissociation from the Secretary of State for the Environment last week, has she abandoned the principle of Cabinet responsibility?

Nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about Liverpool, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I were both today trying to put the facts right. The GLC and the MCCs will be abolished.