asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with the pharmaceutical industry following his statement on 8 November about drug pricing.

As I announced on 8 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will have discussions with the pharmaceutical industry about the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. Arrangements have been made for him to meet representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry shortly.

Can my right hon. Friend give any assurance that measures resulting from that statement will not effectively amount to denying NHS patients certain important drugs? I have in mind in particular the arthritis drug, Distalgesic.

Branded drugs, which have been specifically developed for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatism and arthritis, will still be available. At present, Distalgesic is not in that category. We are committed to the limited list scheme, but the whole point of having the consultation period is to listen to the arguments on particular drugs. That is why we are having consultations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his first attempt to introduce a rational prescribing policy is to be very warmly welcomed, that he should strongly resist the selfish and distorted propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry, which is now screaming blue murder, and that the only advice he should accept about implementing this very good proposal is independent advice?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree with me that there is a balance to be held in these proposals. It in no one's interest to take measures which will damage the research-based pharmaceutical industry in this country. I believe that in the Government's proposals we are not doing that, and we are making useful savings in the Health Service budget. On those grounds I think that the proposals should, as the right hon. Gentleman says, be supported.

I, too, commend my right hon. Friend on the decision that he has taken and on the consultations into which he has entered. Will he take every opportunity, with the rest of us, to make it clear to patients that they will not be medically disadvantaged by the sensible decision that he has taken and announced?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point needs to be emphasised. There will, of course, be generic alternatives to the branded drugs which will not be prescribed free on the National Health Service, so there is no question of patients being disadvantaged by the steps that we have taken. We are having consultations so that we can ensure that that does not happen.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us on the Liberal Benches accept the benefits of genuine generic substitution, but will he confirm that it is his intention that all drugs presently available will continue to be available either across the counter, because prescription is not required, or by reason of their generic equivalence?

The drugs which are available across the counter will continue to be available across the counter. The vast majority of the drugs that we are talking about do not need a prescription in any event. They can be bought from chemists.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether medical members of the Mental Health Act Commission receive additional sessional fees from their employing authorities in respect of their work with the commission.

Consultants who are members of the Mental Health Act Commission may need to adjust their clinical commitments to accommodate their commission work. If, as a result, patient services might be reduced to an unacceptable level, health authorities should seek to make good the loss by employing a locum or in some other way. If that is not feasible, they may, at their discretion, award payment for one temporary extra session to the commission member.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he state whether commissioners who are self-employed or employed by private employers receive payment in the form of fees for their work as commissioners?

They receive expenses. At the moment we do not think that it is a good idea to put all the commissioners on a fee-paying basis. We look sympathetically at any situation in which a member might suffer hardship or difficulty, but we have an extremely strong commission, with very good members, and they do not have to be paid a fee for their work.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the chairman and members of the Mental Health Act Commission on their work, because the commission has been going only a short time but has become a responsible body in this area?

I shall pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to Lord Colville and his colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take action to avert the closure of up to eight hospital wards in south Manchester.

If any such proposals come to us, under well-established procedures, Ministers will decide on their merits.

Is the Minister aware of the district administrator's statement that his health authority has done everything that it can to balance its budget by efficiency savings and by reducing equipment, maintenance and building programmes, but that it may still have to close a maternity ward, a children's surgical ward, a chest ward, a chest clinic and even a cancer ward at Christie hospital at weekends? Is it not clear, as the community health council insists, that patient care is now at risk in south Manchester? In view of the Government's oft-repeated assurances that they will protect patient care, will the Minister now act urgently to correct the underfunding of this health authority?

I have been following events in south Manchester with care. What the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten is the increased resources that have been put into south Manchester over the past two years— an additional million of capital and an additional £1·2 million of revenue for cardiology and renal services. More patients are being treated in south Manchester than ever before. There is no truth in the assertion that patients are suffering there. No final decisions have been made about any of the wards to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and, if they are made, Ministers will consider them carefully, as they always do, in the best interests of patients.

As someone who was a patient in the Wythenshawe hospital for several weeks in the middle of last year, I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware of the tremendous reputation and expertise of the chest unit at Wythenshawe hospital? Does he accept that if the service is severely reduced that is bound to have an adverse effect on the facilities available not only in the district but throughout the region?

It is very good of my right hon. and learned Friend to pay that compliment to those who looked after him in that hospital. Of course, we are aware of its high reputation. No recommendations about its future, or the future of any of the wards, have yet been referred to Ministers for decision. Should that happen, we shall of course consider most carefully any suggestions that have been made by the local health authority.

Is the Minister aware that the community services in south Manchester and the surrounding districts are already grossly overstrained and that it is almost inescapable that some cuts will have to be made because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, the district has not been able to balance its books without making cuts? If ward closures take place, it will inevitably mean that the community services, which are already overstrained, will fail in their primary target of serving patient needs.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for those in the area, but he is speculating about what might happen should decisions be taken at some time in the future. The district health authority must face its present problems of overspending, and face them hard. While saying that, I applaud the approach of the district health authority in looking first to the needs of patients and not to the funding of empty or unnecessary beds, particularly with the changes in the pattern of medical care, when many people wish to go home at weekends and even more people wish to have day surgery rather than stay in hospital for many days unnecessarily.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the level of Government support for the National Health Service in the next financial year.

As I recently announced, the Government plan to spend next year a total of £17 billion on the National Health Service in Great Britain. This represents an increase of £700 million on the anticipated expenditure for 1984–85 and is £200 million more than that previously announced in the 1984 expenditure White Paper. The funds allocated to health authorities will be increased by 1 per cent. over and above what would be required merely to keep pace with the forecast rate of inflation. These figures demonstrate the reality of the Government's continuing commitment to the Health Service.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is increasing public concern that the NHS does not have sufficient funds and resources to combat and publicise the danger of patients contracting AIDS as a result of blood transfusions? If that is so, will he assure the House that sufficient funds and resources will be made available to the NHS?

Yes, I think that I can give that assurance. The Government are taking a number of actions. We are seeking to become self-sufficient in Factor 8 so that imports are no longer required. I very much hope that that will be done by 1986. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has issued leaflets. Perhaps, most important of all, we are seeking ways to test blood donations. No screening test has yet been developed, but a pilot trial will be started in London in the next few weeks.

However much the Minister may seek to mislead the House and the country with statistics, does he agree that his statistics presume a pay increase of only 3 per cent. for nurses and ancillary staff? Does he admit, therefore, that, despite all the Government's protestations, those people have suffered, are suffering and will continue to suffer a substantial reduction in their standard of living?

Untypically, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not a fair commentary on our plans. We are providing an extra £700 million cash in Great Britain. If pay is settled at the 3 per cent. which the Government think reasonable, there will be 2 per cent. cash left for growth within the Health Service. Health authorities have cash budgets and they must plan within them. In that respect, there is no difference between the Health Service and any other service or industry.

When issuing statements and information documents about these important matters, will my right hon. Friend avoid using phrases, such as "relative technical limitations of the input volume methodology", which confuse rather than clarify and hamper the excellent story which the Government have to tell about their record in the Health Service?

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. To the best of my knowledge, I have never issued anything remotely similar to that in my name, and I shall certainly see to it that none of my ministerial team does so either.

The Minister insists on giving percentage figures. Do those assessments include the ever-increasing number of pensioners, which is currently growing by about 100,000 per year, thus adding considerably to the burden on the Health Service?

Of course, we accept that, and that is why we are providing more cash for the Health Service. It is no use the hon. Gentleman making dismissive gestures. We are providing 5·5 per cent. more cash for the Health Service next year than was provided this year. One of our main reasons for doing that is the very argument which the hon. Gentleman put forward. His comments signally fail to undermine the Government's commitment to the Health Service.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although his proposals on generic prescribing will save the NHS money, there is no doubt about the efficacy of the alternative drugs and that those who have suggested that we are moving towards having one Health Service for the rich and another for the poor are guilty of mischievous nonsense?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Although there is some laughter on the Opposition Benches, I had thought that that was the policy of the Opposition, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider extending to all the long-term unemployed the high long-term rates of benefit as recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee.

As I told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 12 November, the necessary resources of about £500 million are not available to implement this proposal, which in any case raises wider questions about the supplementary benefit scheme more properly considered in the current social security review.

Does the Minister accept that one of the main areas of concern connected with unemployment at present is the growth of long-term unemployment? Does he further accept that the longer that people are unemployed, the greater the expenses that they incur, because their belongings wear out? Should not the longterm unemployed be given a fair deal, should not resources be made available to meet their requirements, and should not the supplementary benefit system be changed so that assistance can be made available by way of unemployment benefit?

That view has been put forward by many who have given evidence to the supplementary benefit review, so of course it is a view that we shall consider.

In view of the present abuses, will the Government consider, in consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee, the possibility of new arrangements for mortgage interest payments for the longterm unemployed and others to be made direct to the lender, not to the borrower?

I note what my hon Friend says. As I have said before, I am conscious of the concern expressed about the particular instance. However, I hope that, when pressing the point as a generality, my hon. Friend will accept that many people might well feel that it should not be an automatic consequence of becoming unemployed that their building society should immediately be informed by the local social security office.

If cost is a reason for not extending the long-term rate of benefit to all claimants, will the Minister consider the SSAC's compromise arrangement of introducing it first to those claimants with dependent children?

That is another view that has been put forward to the supplementary benefit review. I answer with some hesitation only because those who say that this should be a priority rarely say which other matters should be given less priority in its place, which is the necessary concomitant.

Given that the cost of extending the benefit to the long-term unemployed would be about £500 million a year, how can the Government justify refusing that benefit to the unemployed when they have this year handed out almost exactly the same sum—£520 million— to the very rich by halving stamp duty on stock exchange transactions and abolishing the unearned income surcharge? Is this not the most blatant example yet of having one law for the rich and another for the poor and the unemployed?

The most effective action that the Government can take to help the long-term unemployed is to improve the prospects for employment. [Interruption.] It seems extraordinary to me that the Labour party should apparently believe that unemployment problems do not involve increasing the prospects for employment, but it may explain some of the strange remarks made by Opposition Members.

The Government are not doing it.

Our aim is to improve prospects for employment. Part of that policy is to stimulate and encourage investment, and we are doing that with considerable success.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider the current financial problems facing local authorities with joint finance agreements with health authorities; and if he will consult the Association of Directors of Social Services and area health administrators on the matter.

The working group on joint planning, which we have set up with the National Association of Health Authorities and the local authority associations, will be looking at the arrangements for transferring resources between health and local authorities. The group is expected to complete work next spring and we shall consult health and local authority interests on its findings.

Will the Minister take into consideration the serious circumstances facing local authorities whose resources are being cut while there are demands for extra resources for the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled? Will he examine the tapering system and ensure that services that are in being will not be lost to communities because of penalties imposed on local authorities by the Department of the Environment?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constructive attitude. By saying that, I do not wish to do him any personal political harm. However, some of the problems facing local authorities are of their own making. One has only to consider the high disparity of unit costs in, for example, the provision of local authority accommodation for elderly people to see that. Of course, we shall consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. We are looking forward to receiving advice in the spring from the body to which I have referred.

I know that my hon. Friend will welcome schemes, such as that in my constituency, by which mentally handicapped people are being moved from institutions to small homes. Will he bear in mind that, if the scheme is successful, the next step will be for those people to go into individual accommodation, but that they will still need the services of, for example, social workers? Will he therefore persuade our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that local authorities have the funds to maintain an adequate number of social workers to continue the process?

We greatly admire the work being done in my hon. Friend's constituency involving the movement of those who suffer mental handicap back into the community and, we hope soon, into flats and sheltered accommodation of their own. Local authorities have the power to protect the especially vulnerable. Many local authorities, Labour as much as Conservative, have done exactly that recently by good and prudent housekeeping within the substantial sums of money that they already get.

Will the Minister confirm, or deny, the hardship caused by his joint financing alteration to the local authority, the health authority and the mentally ill and severely frail people who live in Salford?

As we have increased expenditure on joint finance by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979, I do not know how anyone can speak of hardship.

My hon. Friend is well aware of the policy pursued by successive Governments of transferring mentally ill and handicapped people from hospitals into the community. Will he assure the House that the Government will provide adequate funds to ensure that the facilities, the services and the care that were available to such people while they were in hospital are available to them when they move into the community?

We are already providing at least £100 million this year for joint finance schemes. In addition, we are making it possible for health authorities, with patients who go back into the community, to transfer permanently money which will not count against targets for local authorities. We also have several centrally funded initiatives, such as the care and community initiative, at a cost of £16·5 million, and the helping carers to care initiative, which costs £10 million.

Will the Minister confirm, or deny, that his Department issued guidance to regional health authorities, including that in Yorkshire, to alter the rules in calculating bed norms, thus substituting commercial criteria for technically derived criteria, with the result that there is a serious under-estimation of the need for beds in future, especially for the elderly?

The modern Health Service does not have bed norms. It is concerned not with beds but with treating patients. We are treating more patients than have ever been treated in the history of the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman could play a constructive role in his area where, I am told by local people, joint planning between health authorities and the social services department is not going well. He should do all that he can to smooth the growth of an effective joint planning procedure such as we have in several authorities elsewhere in his area.

I accept that partial abatement from penalty during the period of joint financing has helped, but does the Minister agree that there is a growing reluctance among local authorities to embark on joint financing because of the improbability of being able to cope with it under rate-capping when the taper is finished? That is especially so in local authority areas where the need is greatest, as the possibility of rate-capping there is highest.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in welcoming what we have been able to do, which he thinks has helped. Of course I appreciate the tapering problems which some authorities face, but we have no evidence that joint finance is not being taken up, because a record sum of money is being taken up—about 95 per cent. of the money available to local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the publication of the third report from the Maternity Services Advisory Committee.

The committee's report should be ready early in the new year.

I acknowledge the valuable work of the MSAC and the growing improvements in maternity services, particularly in perinatal mortality rates, but does my hon. Friend agree that further research needs to be done into cot deaths? What steps is he prepared to take to monitor the situation more closely and to arrange more research into this harrowing topic?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the MSAC, which has so far produced two excellent reports. We are looking forward to its third report in the new year. A considerable amount of work is going on at present into the problems of cot deaths, and Professor Knoweloen from the University of Sheffield will shortly be reporting on the results of a trial examination of these problems that has been going on for the last seven years. We look forward to receiving that shortly in the new year.

Assuming that the advisory committee will reinforce the demands of the Select Committee for better standards of care for the distressed newborn, does the Minister accept that his Department's responsibility is to ensure that those standards are enforced? That is different from recommending. Is that not particularly so, given that in social class 4 in the west midlands the perinatal death rate of distressed babies rose from 13·1 in 1981 to 13·3 in 1982, which is way above the national average?

We have drawn the attention of all regional and district health authorities to the recommendations of the MSAC. I know that the hon. Lady shares my pleasure that we have seen recent record reductions in perinatal mortality in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the level of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

Since 1 August 1984, eight letters have been received about the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

Is it right that anyone earning as little as £35·50 a week should suffer any deductions from pay? Is my hon. Friend aware of the bunching that is now taking place below the earnings limit and the gap that is opening up between this and the income tax threshold? As part of his social security reviews, will he look at ways in which the limit might be increased?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are already looking at the structure of national insurance, including the lower and upper earnings limits. Like him, I am concerned about the cliff-edge effect of national insurance, where just below £34 one pays no national insurance and just above £34 one pays £3 contributions. We are examining that and shall certainly try to improve it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that apart from the concern which he has expressed—and I welcome his words—the Opposition are also concerned that the upper earnings limit is so low? That makes it a regressive tax, as, the wealthier one is, once one gets beyond the upper earnings limit there is no contribution at all. Will he therefore confirm that perhaps in this respect the Government will be at least as harsh to the rich as to the poor?

I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that we are looking at both the lower and upper earnings limits. That is part of the work of the reviews, and when they are published I shall seek to respond to the hon. Lady.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study he has made of the book "Another Story," by Mrs. Jean Carr, a copy of which has been sent to him, relating to his Department's treatment of relatives of service men killed in the Falkland Islands and of service men maimed in the conflict, and their families.

I read the book with interest and duly noted its comments.

Does the Minister accept as fact the description by Mrs. Jean Carr of his Department's handling of the case of Mrs. Jane Keoghane, a pregnant widow of a Welsh guardsman, which is described on page 53? If so, what will he do about it?

I do not accept that description as fair in the case of Mrs. Keoghane, or in any of the other cases. A total of 225 cases were dealt with as a result of the Falklands war, and there was reason for some improvement in some of them. However, I believe that overall the Department's conduct was exemplary.

How was my hon. Friend able to take seriously the sincerity behind the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who time and time again has pointed his finger at the British task force with regard to the sinking of the Belgrano, which undoubtedly saved hundreds of British lives?

Order. The question relates to Mrs. Jean Can's book.

Is the Minister aware that there is strong feeling that the widow to whom my hon. Friend referred was shabbily treated? Is he satisfied that service men who must leave the forces because of a deterioration in their medical condition are fully informed of the benefits available to them when they leave?

I do not believe that there is any justification for the view that Mrs. Keoghane has been shabbily treated. At one stage she was in receipt of double benefit, but there was no question of asking her to repay it—quite justifiably. All the benefits available to service men as a result of the Falklands war are well known, and the Ministry of Defence and my Department have taken action to ensure that that knowledge is widespread.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that on Question No. 9 you intervened in the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). Would it be in order for me to say that I have never criticised service men? My criticisms have been related to politicians. Am I to understand that you asked the hon. Member to withdraw the remark? In the hubbub that followed, did he do so?

I do not recollect that there was any particular problem with that question. I think that the integrity of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is beyond dispute in this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the percentage in 1978.

The United Kingdom spent 5·6 per cent. of the gross domestic product on the National Health Service in 1983. The corresponding figure for 1978 was 4·8 per cent.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures show clearly that the Government are giving the National Health Service a higher priority than did the Labour Government?

They certainly do. They show where it counts most. Last year, hospitals treated 3·5 million more cases than were treated during the last year of the Labour Government.

In making these financial decisions, is my right hon. and learned Friend trying to persuade his Department away from the idea that all mothers-to-be must have their babies born in central areas? Maternity units are extremely important in rural areas.

A great deal of clinical advice is that it is safer to have babies born where there is ready access to emergency provisions. However, the atmosphere in many small maternity units is much preferred by mothers-to-be and their families. Therefore, we try to balance those two considerations when difficult cases come before Ministers.

Is the Minister aware that the most recent Health Service workers' settlement has left the West Cumberland health district with a bill of £175,000 to pay? The only way that it can find the money is by cutting back on the maintenance of hospital buildings. Does the Minister agree that that is a false economy? Is not the only solution to the problem for the Government next year to provide our health district with additional moneys to secure the future of our hospital?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman's health district and others were provided with substantial extra funds to cover the additional cost of the pay settlement. The Government met about 80 per cent. of it by increasing cash limits. That leaves a contribution to be made in other ways. However, all local authorities are identifying cost improvement programmes and ways of increasing their efficiency, and the sums being saved by eliminating waste and improving performance easily cover any additional cost of the pay settlement and also provide for growth in patient services. I do not know enough about the details of West Cumbria, but I hope that none of our districts is resorting to false economies when real ones can be made.

Is the Minister aware that under the Government's policy on the National Health Service, which he calls expansion, 193 hospitals have been closed and only 35 opened? If that is expansion, will he confirm that next year there will be a contraction when, for the first time, he forces health authorities to cover the full cost of pay rises above 3 per cent. for Health Service workers? Does he expect Health Service workers, who are among the lowest paid, to subsidise the NHS by taking a real pay cut when thousands of rich people are being given massive tax handouts?

We should all bear in mind the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about the figures that we use. The figures for hospitals opening and closing are amongst the silliest which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) ever uses. He knows that we close small, old hospitals and open bigger new hospitals. The total number of new beds provided under this Government is almost equal to that of the total number of beds lost from the older hospitals. What is more important—as patients' stay in hospital are shorter—is that we treat more patients. The Health Service is not in the business of conserving buildings or providing empty beds; it is for treating patients, and 3½ million more patients each year are being treated than before. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about next year's pay settlement. We plan for a cash increase of 5½ per cent. on top of this year's health spending. Out of that, of course the Health Service has to find its pay costs, just as every other major service has to.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what initiatives are being taken by his Department to promote the greater use of computers to help general practitioners.

We are evaluating the use of microcomputers by 140 GPs in a scheme funded by my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. The study is looking at the benefits of computers in patient care and practice management, and its results— to be published late next year— will show how useful computers really are to GPs. We are also preparing a factual report on about 20 different GP computer systems to help GPs who are interested in computers to make an informed choice.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he accept that the pooling of computerised information about patients suffering from diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis will speed up tremendously the research into a cure for those diseases? Will he consider making capital grants available for that specific purpose?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of the great potential advantages of computerising general practice. We are not, of course, inhibiting GPs' choice of computers, but it would be helpful if all the systems were compatible so that we could examine the choice. We have already made substantial capital funds available to the scheme which I described— the so-called "Micros for GPs Scheme" funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. We shall consider further ways of encouraging the worthwhile spread of computers.

All that said, will the Minister confirm that the DHSS reimburses GPs for work on manual card index systems but does not reimburse them if they want to buy a computer?

That is an extremely simplified version of the system, and I shall not give a long and elaborate one. GPs are partly reimbursed through the present expenses system for buying computers. We do not reimburse them in full. We must leave the GPs to make some judgments of their own about how much a computer is worth to their practices.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce measures to raise the death grant to at least £300; and if he will make a statement.

We have been continuing to give consideration to our policy towards the death grant in the light of the response to the consultative document published in March 1982, which revealed no clear public consensus. This consideration will now be carried forward within the context of the wider re-examination of social security which my right hon. Friend has set in hand.

Is it not a fact that if the £30 death grant had been uprated in the same way as the Government are keen to uprate supplementary benefits to attack strikers, it would have gone up to something well over £300 in real terms? Will he also bear in mind that on 5 February 1982 when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) brought in a Bill which was talked out by the Government, one of those hon. Members who took part in the campaign was made a Whip for his services in talking out the Bill? No consultation of any kind has been taken into account. If the Government can find £4,500 million to smash the NUM, why can they not find sufficient money to pay for a decent funeral?

I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to accuse the rest of us of trying to talk out his question. To increase the death grant to the level that the hon. Gentleman suggests would take almost exactly the amount of money that would be required to do what one of his hon. Friends was urging earlier—to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed with children. I know what my priority would be.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for a substantial increase in the death grant to restore its real value, but that it would be acceptable to have it means-tested so that those who died leaving even a relatively small capital sum would not be eligible for it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will not expect me to pre-empt the result of my hon. Friend's review in this respect any more than in any others, but he has made a sensible point.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to make a further statement about the proposed closure of the children's ward at Wrightington hospital.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to the regional health authority seeking certain assurances following his earlier representations. I shall write to him again shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he recognise that the decision about the proposed closure has taken a great deal of time, and that many people around the area are concerned about the future of this children's ward? Does he also recognise the importance of retaining the team together, so that the facility for treating children suffering from arthritis is maintained in the area?

My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of this cause, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). I hope that my hon. Friend recognises, by the care that we have shown for this small group of children, that we care very much for those, however small in number, who are disadvantaged.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that miners in Yorkshire are returning to work because, in their own words, they are ashamed of intimidation and sickened by violence? Should not that unequivocal condemnation of violence be endorsed by every hon. Member? Is not the refusal by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to call off the violence a sign of the unscrupulous means which the Left is willing to use to get its own way?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and it would be as well if violence were condemned by every member of the NUM and every member of the TUC, but the acid test—

Acid test?

The acid test is whether the violence will be stopped. It could be stopped by the leadership of the NUM if it chose to do so. The other acid test is whether the TUC guidelines will be followed

Has the Prime Minister had any discussion today about those Swiss and American bankers and brokers who are buying forward to obtain British Telecom shares, and offering 40 per cent. above the part issue price, even before the issue is closed? Can she give an estimate of how much will be lost to the Exchequer by this most recent example of the bungling of a flotation by her Government?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Exchequer will have its money by virtue of the underwriting. The right hon. Gentleman cannot stand the success of the British Telecom flotation.

The right hon. Lady either does not understand the law or is careless of its application. The practice that I have described is illegal, or would be illegal if it were operated by British speculators. Why does she condone, and even boast about, the practice, which would be illegal were it operated within the ambit of the British courts?

If a practice is illegal in the British courts it is dealt with totally and utterly impartially, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. I return to what I said. The right hon. Gentleman does not want more extensive share ownership and therefore he condemns the privatisation of BT.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that disarmament talks are to be resumed is a complete vindication of the defence policies of the West? Is she therefore surprised that CND, at its latest annual conference, responded by refusing even to criticise the USSR, and in that way was simply pursuing policies which bring aid and comfort to this country's potential enemies?

I believe that the Soviet Union has been brought back to the negotiating table by NATO's firmness in implementing its dual track decision. I welcome the agreement to go back to the negotiating table and I hope that it will be successful. It would not be successful had we all gone for unilateral disarmament. I well remember Mr. Andropov's statement:

"Let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We are not a naive people."

Does the Prime Minister recall the 1950 election manifesto on which she first fought? Does she remember the words:

"We regard the maintenance of full employment as the first aim of a Conservative Government."?

Governments should do everything that they possibly can to achieve the financial framework to maximise employment in Britain. At the same time, they must see that industries keep abreast of technological advance, as this Government are doing, and not extinguish the very enterprise from which jobs will come. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have the same policy. He usually tries to imitate Conservative Governments.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

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

Does the Prime Minister realise that her utterances and those of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the coal industry dispute, this most damaging of disputes, are, to say the least, less helpful than they could be? Does she not realise that instead of dividing and being divisive she should now use her power and influence to bring the people to the negotiating table? In addition, in the interests of the mining communities, will she set in motion a public inquiry into events on the picket lines? In short, will she act like a Prime Minister and a leader, or does she just not care?

I think that I probably care more about the future of the coal industry than many of those in the leadership of the NUM. There are very good jobs available for miners if they wish to return to work. It is the leadership of the NUM which, without consulting the miners, is deliberately making them suffer privations, and making some of them suffer violence and intimidation, which has totally and utterly split the NUM. That is the fault of the leadership of the NUM.

During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the proposition that to cut the overseas services of the BBC is as short-sighted as the threat to cut the Endurance before the Falklands war?

No, Mr. Speaker. I believe that all organisations, including the external services of the BBC, have a duty to get full value for money and to run their services efficiently. I believe that that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has seen to it will happen.

In view of the attack on the Government's economic policies last week by the Secretary of State for Energy, is it not surprising that he should wish to remain one of her Ministers? Or does the Prime Minister believe, as many hon. Members do, that the right hon. Gentleman likes office far too much to act on his supposed convictions over the misery of mass unemployment?

I have my right hon. Friend's speech with me. Will the hon. Gentleman say precisely what he regards as an attack on the Government? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the speech.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend scotch the silly rumour which has appeared in today's press and elsewhere that the Government are intent on attacking Conservative families by in some way taxing or means-testing child benefit? Does she not agree that, though it may be well merited to give more money to the poorest families in society, the best source of those funds is not the remainder of the family sector?

There are many rumours about. I cannot say what will be the result of the four inquiries which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is conducting. There are many rumours about, directed at trying to stop the very things that those inquiries are trying to consider, to ensure justice both for the taxpayer and for those in receipt of social security benefit. We are determined to conduct those inquiries well and thoroughly, and the results will be brought before the House in due time.

In the light of the tragic death today of Deputy High Commissioner Norris in Bombay and the alltoo-frequent acts of terrorism from which we all suffer, would it not be intolerable if Yasser Arafat were allowed to visit the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will not be granted a visa to do so?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a statement after Question Time on the assassination in Bombay. However, I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy for the widow and family of Mr. Percy Norris, our deputy high commissioner, who died as a result of this morning's tragedy.

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

I refer the hon. and learned Gentlemen to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister please consider the anxiety and problems caused to local authorities by the transport of Chevaline and other nuclear missiles through their areas without prior warning having been given to the police or fire authorities? In view of the persistent refusal of Ministers to give the House any reassurances whatever, will she personally inquire into the matter, with particular regard to what would happen in the horrific event of an accident?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the decision to go ahead with the Chevaline modernisation of Polaris was confirmed by the Labour Government, so he cannot be against the modernisation of Polaris. From his question, I understand that he is not against necessary movements, but only against them being made without warning having been given to the local police. I shall inquire about the matter that he has raised.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of her colleagues on her perceptive analysis last night of the danger facing democracy in this country? When she is able to return to her theme of the Fascist Left, will she point out that the vicious intimidation of miners, their wives and children has seen no equal since Oswald Mosley's blackshirts brought fear to the homes of Jews throughout the East End?

I agree that the intimidation and violence that we have seen is a blot on the face of Britain and has done our reputation abroad and our trade untold damage. I sometimes wonder whether that is the object of the Labour party, which supports the strike.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell us when she last visited Moscow and negotiated a nuclear arms reduction with the Russians?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what Mr. Andropov said—I would not be so naive.

asked the Pime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Portsoy.

I have at present no plans to do so.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join the rest of the House in agreeing that the communiqu? issued this morning in Brussels with regard to the lifting of restrictions against the people of Gibraltar—[Interruption.]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked the wrong supplementary question, as his main question refers to Portsoy.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is naive indeed to imagine that because people say that their missiles are not targeted on a certain country they cannot then be retargeted at short notice? Consequently, is not an agreement on such lines meaningless and worthless?

I agree that such an agreement is totally worthless. I understand that a similar offer was made in 1978.

In her recent statement at the Guildhall the Prime Minister said clearly that the good work, loyalty and allegiance of the miners would not be forgotten. Will she take the opportunity this afternoon to give a similar assurance about the good work, loyalty and allegiance displayed by those men and women who, 30 or 35 years ago, offered good work, loyalty and allegiance on Monte Bello, Maralinga, Christmas and Malden Islands? If she will give that assurance, will she tell us clearly in what way it will be manifested?

I hope that this Government never forget the good work of those who have served their country well and truly. I cannot be more specific than that.