asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has had any meetings with the Royal College of Nursing to discuss civil defence matters; and what progress was made.

A preliminary draft of revised guidance to health authorities on civil defence planning was sent to the Royal College of Nursing last July. The college made a number of helpful comments which were discussed at a recent meeting between officials and representatives of the college.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. When does he intend to publish the revised civil defence plans HD 771?

We are still discussing with the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association the detailed provisions of the guidance. We hope to publish it as soon as it is available.

How far will it differentiate between attempting to pretend that there is a possibility of civil defence in a nuclear disaster as opposed to the proper need for civil defence in a non-nuclear disaster?

It will be a realistic document and we are having realistic discussions with both bodies.

In view of the extremely varied capability of the Soviet bloc in terms of biological and chemical weapons, has my right hon. Friend considered the need for isolation fever units in various parts of the country in relation to civil defence matters and whether these should be expanded, or at least maintained?

The Government are firmly committed to civil preparedness in time of emergency in warfare, whether conventional or nuclear. The National Health Service must play its part in that civil preparedness and we keep the need for facilities such as those to which my hon. Friend refers constantly under review.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received on his proposals to limit the prescription of certain drugs.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals to limit the list of drugs available on National Health Service prescriptions.

I am now considering the results of the consultation, following my announcement in the House in November, together with the advice of the group of independent experts consulted by my Chief Medical Officer. I hope to make a statement on the final list shortly.

Do not all those representations, including those by the experts, tell the Secretary of State that he is creating two National Health Services, one for those who can pay and one for those who cannot? Is he not saying to people who have confidence in the drugs that they are using and who find that those drugs suit them and work for them that he knows best and that he will prescribe different drugs for those who cannot afford to pay? Will he now take away his prescription for those people and reconsider his proposals?

No, I will not do that. Nor have we any intention of introducing a two-tier system. I have a responsibility to provide proper and sufficient drugs, and that responsibility I shall fulfil. That is why if we find a branded drug that cannot be replaced it will remain, but I ask the House to await my statement on the subject.

Will my right hon. Friend condemn the tactics that appear to have been used by certain sections of the medical profession in attempting to frighten some of their patients — especially elderly patients — into believing that certain essential preparations will no longer be available under the NHS?

The tactics employed in that campaign both by the profession and at times by the association that purports to represent the industry reflect no credit on either body. My frank advice to both would be to cool it and to await the statement. They will then find that many of the fears that they have raised are groundless.

Is the Secretary of State not aware that there is much genuine concern, especially among older patients, that they will be denied the drugs to which they have hitherto had access? Does he not realise that he could have avoided all this trouble if he had gone through the normal processes of adequate consultation before announcing the change?

With great respect, we have been consulting since November—

Nonsense. Not with the BMA.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) says "Not with the BMA". That is because the BMA has decided that it does not wish to consult. That is therefore a somewhat ridiculous statement, even from the hon. Gentleman's point of view.

Rubbish.

That was certainly the policy until a few weeks ago. If there has been another change, I am sure that the House would be pleased to hear what the policy is now. On this whole subject the Opposition have no credibility whatsoever.

Will my right hon. Friend note that many hon. Members join the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and the pharmacists in their full support for producing a limited list and putting an end to the enormous waste of drugs in the NHS? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the money saved will be spent elsewhere in the NHS?

Yes, I can give that assurance. Until now, I had always assumed that it was common ground between both sides of the House that we wanted to reduce the NHS drugs bill. Opposition Members talk about it, but they do not come forward with any proposals.

The agreement with the BMA that generic drugs should be used in place of the same drugs bearing expensive branded names is regarded as sensible. At the same time, however, will the Secretary of State adhere to the principle that doctors must be free to prescribe what they think is best for the patient?

In my statement, I shall consider such points. The Government stand firmly by the principle and the approach that I have already set out, but, clearly, I do not want to close the door on any reasonable suggestions —and suggestions have been made, both by doctors and by hon. Members, that we will wish to consider.

Homoeopathic medicine provides, at one-tenth or one-thousandth of the cost, remedies that are for the most part wholly satisfactory to the patients. Will my right hon. Friend take that on board, and also the fact that the BMA thoroughly dislikes it?

I have no proposals for a limited list in homoeopathic medicine. I know that my hon. Friend intends to give me a teach-in on the subject, to which I look forward with eagerness.

In the light of recent events, was it wise for the advisers on this issue to be requested to sign the Official Secrets Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the advice and representations that he receives? If the overwhelming message that he has received by the end of the consultation process is that this is an undesirable attempt to introduce a two-tier NHS, will he undertake to withdraw the proposals altogether?

No. We shall act on the advice that we are given. That is the whole purpose of setting up a team of independent outside experts to advise me. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of the confusion and anxiety that has been caused, there is a strong feeling that the limited list ought to be for consultation? Will he introduce it as a list for consultation before bringing forward a statutory instrument?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has a close knowledge of these matters. I made an announcement to the House in November on how we were proceeding and I invited consultations and representations then. At some stage the House must reach a decision. The history of limiting the cost of drugs in the NHS during the past 10 or 20 years has been one of Governments evading action and simply using words. The Government intend to take action. I hope that that action will be reasonable and carry the support of my hon. Friend. The time has come for decisions.

Why does the Secretary of State not adopt the approach laid down in the Greenfield report, which would allow generic substitution with medical consent? Will he consider extending membership of the Acheson committee, which is advising him inter-departmentally, to take on board people in the medical profession who have shown a willingness to try to improve or move towards the generic system which both sides of the House want?

I am not sure that both sides of the House want the type of indiscriminate generic substitution that the Greenfield committee suggested. The industry would regard such a proposal as damaging to its interests, as it would affect research-based jobs. The hon. Gentleman and his party must take that on board. With regard to the independent committee, the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Members of the committee are not what he regards as an inter-departmental committee of civil servants but doctors, pharmacists and people from universities. They are from outside government. Their examination has finished and I do not intend to extend it.

Although much of the debate has rightly concentrated on the unscrupulous activities of a minority of doctors, does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety about the effect on pharmacists? Is he able to give us some assurances about compensation for stock losses?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. Pharmacists and their stocks will be considered in the statement. I understand, however, that many pharmacists broadly support the Government's action.

As the Secretary of State's bungling of the issue has been so ham-fisted as to turn off the British Medical Association and the Government's standing medical advisory committee, will he now at least have the grace to recognise that a limited list is acceptable only if doctors agree that it covers the full range of clinical needs—

What is Labour's policy?

This is our policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the limited list is acceptable only if it includes generic substitutes whenever possible, if it applies in the private sector as well as in the NHS, if it is not implemented over-rigidly and if it is subject to regular review by a qualified, representative and independent body that represents all of the relevant interests? Does he or does he not accept those criteria?

No, I do not accept those criteria. First, because the Labour party's policy — [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Government's policy?"] With respect, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked me to comment on the policy that he has just put forward. That policy would do immense damage to the industry and would be opposed by the research-based industry. No Government want that. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman believes so firmly in this policy why, when in government, did his party do absolutely nothing about the drugs bill? Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman is utterly inaccurate about the advisory committee. Three of the royal colleges support our policy. The Government are acting, and all the Opposition are good for is words and hot air.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make a definitive statement on the future of the children's ward at Wrightington hospital, Lancashire.

We have not been able to agree to the region's proposal for closure. A decision will not be made until we are satisfied that any revised proposals bring clear benefits to patients.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome assurance that the children's rheumatological unit will not be broken up at Wrightington hospital. Will he give a further assurance that if the feasibility study into transferring that unit to, for example, the Royal Preston hospital is not a success, the obvious answer will be to retain a ward with a small number of beds at Wrightington hospital? Does he recognise how urgent the matter is, bearing in mind the time that it has taken to reach a decision, and the fact that people do not know what the future holds?

For the avoidance of doubt, I should not want my hon. Friend to think that I had said anything other than what I have just said, which will be recorded in Hansard. That is the extent of my assurances. The regional health authority, the district health authority and the Department will consider carefully all proposals for the welfare of the children who are now being cared for in that ward in that hospital.

Will my hon. Friend recall that the interest in the future of the Wrightington ward is wider than the area immediately around Wrightington and the north-west because its distinction attracts children from other parts of the country? Will he bear in mind that it is undesirable to break up the successful team there, which is producing good, positive results?

I am aware of the excellent care that that ward has given to one of my hon. Friend's constituents. I shall certainly bear in mind everything that he has to say when making the difficult decisions that need to be taken about the future welfare of the children cared for there.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of treatment for cysticfibrosis sufferers at the Royal Manchester children's hospital.

Salford health authority is considering improving services for cystic-fibrosis sufferers and other patients at the Royal Manchester children's hospital by altering the present ward arrangements. I am aware of the hon. Member's concern. If the health authority decides to press ahead with those proposals, it will consult locally.

I express gratitude to the Minister for his reply, but will he say how wide-ranging the consultations will be? In view of the national importance of the hospital, will he give a firm assurance that the decison will be made on medical grounds, not on the basis of administrative expediency?

The decision will be taken on medical grounds and in the best interests of the patients at present being served in the hospital. Consultation will be according to the well laid down pattern for consultation, with the local community and the community health council.

Is the Minister aware that parents of children and staff in the affected ward at that hospital are worried about a possible break-up of the specialist teams and their skills, which have been built up for the treatment of cystic-fibrosis? Is he further aware that as it is a regional service — my constituents, for example, use it — the decision should not be in the hands of Salford district, but should more properly be shared equitably throughout the region?

Obviously, the regional health authority is considering the region-wide implications of proposals such as this which may be made in that hospital. We have been assured by the district health authority, which so far has made only possible proposals, that the treatment will simply be carried out in different parts of the hospital, and at the same level and largely by exactly the same staff as previously.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the matter causes widespread anxiety in all parts of Greater Manchester, including my constituency? Will he give an undertaking that if these proposals are implemented they will be kept under constant review, and that if they do not work, the decision can be reversed?

We would not permit any decision to alter the use of the ward, or to transfer patients from one ward to another, if we did not think that it was in the best interests of the young patients who are being helped in that ward.

The change that Salford health authority is considering is that a seven-day ward should he reduced to a five-day care ward. That is based on experience in recent months of similar changes in a surgical ward. However, the treatment of children with cystic-fibrosis is wholly different from the treatment of children in surgical wards. Many Opposition Members are desperately keen for the regional health authority to have a say in this and to make sure that any changes will be for the benefit of the children — [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Although the yobbos on the Conservative Benches may not like it, it has been said.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has written to the regional health authority about this matter following a meeting that he had shortly before Christmas with interested local Members of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much, in real terms, the Government's spending plans for the National Health Service in the next three years have increased since 1979, and if he will make a statement.

Expenditure on the NHS is planned to increase on average by 1 per cent. a year in real terms during the next three years. By the end of the period expenditure on the NHS would be about 24 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Have the Government made any real cuts in capital expenditure on the National Health Service?

I am glad to say that capital expenditure is about 16 per cent. higher than it was under the Labour Government. The only Government who have cut the capital programme of the NHS and delayed new hospital building were the Labour Government in 1976.

Is it not dangerous to rely on national figures in the face of obvious shortages of staff and resources at local level? How much of the increase is taken up by the justifiable reduction in nurses' hours of work?

The increase in nursing staff must reflect in part the changes in nurses' hours, but there has still been an absolute increase in the number of nurses. We also have increased demands on the budget. Nevertheless, the increased expenditure is real and is shown best by the way in which we now treat 650,000 more inpatients each year than the figure that was achieved during the last year of the Labour Government.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that his admirable pursuit of value for money in the Health Service will not lead him to put at risk the section of the population which receives blood transfusions? I understand that the output of the National Blood Products Laboratory at Elstree is inadequate fully to supply heat-treated factor VIII, which guards against the AIDS virus. Will he allow imported products to bypass the usual licensing procedures so that such supplies can be made available immediately, and so that we need not wait until April, when the Elstree laboratory will be able to supply them all?

We are investing more than £30 million in Elstree to make Britain self-sufficient in blood products as quickly as possible. Some imported heat-treated factor VIII is already coming into the country, and Elstree is about to start manufacturing that product. We must ensure that no infected factor VIII is given to haemophiliacs, and we shall spare no expense and effort to do so.

Is it not true that, as a percentage of gross national product, the NHS has had less spent on it this year than was spent on it five years ago? If the NHS is properly funded, why is it that this year more premature babies are being turned away from intensive care, that the death rate has increased because of a lack of renal dialysis for kidney patients, that there are growing delays for patients awaiting heart surgery, that there is lack of provision for drug addicts and for hypothermia, that geriatric wards are being closed and that there is a breakdown of the emergency bed service in London? Does that suggest an improving service?

The proportion of gross national product spent on the Health Service has increased from 4·8 to 5·6 per cent. under this Government. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should have listed the parts of the service where we all know that more needs to be done, and that he should make such selective quotations in an attempt to denigrate the achievements of a service which remains one of the best in the world and which is being improved by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that old and needy people are able to keep warm during the current severe weather conditions.

We have both increased benefit rates in real terms for the least well-off—those on supplementary benefit — and extended entitlement to regular weekly additional help with heating costs, which now goes automatically to all supplementary pensioner householders over 65. In recent weeks we have also publicised the arrangements whereby one-off payments may be available to some supplementary beneficiaries in areas where the weather has been judged to be exceptionally severe.

Is it not regrettable that at this time of very bitter weather Ministers are reported to be more concerned with preparations to reduce the cost of heating allowances than with meeting need? How many old people have died of cold this winter, and how many does the Minister think are currently at high risk?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that Ministers are making a serious effort to improve the working of the supplementary benefit system as a whole, not least the effectiveness of the help that is given to all those who need our help. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, the concern that he feels about the effects of this severe weather is shared by all of us. We have been working closely with the Health Education Council and with Age Concern to make sure that all possible steps are taken to help old people.

Does my hon. Friend recall that quite recently he described the extra heating allowance scheme as "weird"? Is not the scheme a farce? Does my hon. Friend also agree that, because of the appalling weather conditions from which we are now suffering, particularly in the south in areas like Brighton, many pensioners need heating to be on for 24 hours a day on account of the old buildings in which they live? Will he please look sympathetically at how this group can be helped when the bills start to arrive in March?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of my view that there is something strange about this regulation and that we need to look further at it in the context of the review. As to his wider point, I must emphasise that one of our aims has been greatly to extend heating additions to include all pensioners who are in receipt of supplementary benefit. There are now far more pensioners in receipt of regular help of this kind than there were when this Government came to office.

Is not the reality of the matter that, despite the bad weather of this winter, old people suffer every winter from having to make the choice between heating and other provisions in terms of their budget? Is it not about time that instead of shedding crocodile tears the Government came forward with a real system? Will the Minister go to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "If the Government have money to give away in tax cuts to the rich, would it not be more sensible to make that money available to old-age pensioners so that they can look forward to other winters without this hardship and without these difficult conditions?"

Both I and my predecessors have already been to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to such effect that the amount spent on heating additions has risen from little over £100 million in 1979 to around £400 million. This represents a real increase of £140 million and has been directed at exactly the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Whatever the charitable reasons that may have led to the introduction of the severe weather payments, will my hon. Friend accept it from me that there are many old people who simply do not understand why they are not entitled to these payments when the weather appears to be just as severe for them as it is for their friends who live perhaps a few miles away and who are receiving these payments? Would not the best course be to scrap this well-intentioned idea and to merge any additional assistance during severe weather into heating allowances generally?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. Obviously we shall take it into account when looking at this provision.

Is the Minister aware that the exceptionally severe weather payments that he has been making are a farce because the benefits are too paltry, the trigger points are too low and the system is far too slow to operate? Is he also aware that each week this winter during the miners' strike the Central Electricity Generating Board has been paying out £40 million on expensive oil in place of coal and that the expenditure of that sum for one week, if it had been devoted to pensioners, would have fully protected them from extra fuel costs in this bitter weather?

I really think that it is time the hon. Gentleman stopped harping on about the miners' strike in this context. The purpose of the CEGB has been to make sure that old people can have some heat when the miners have been seeking to deny it to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the social security reviews presently being conducted by his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the result of his departmental review on the supplementary benefit system.

I expect to announce the Government's conclusions on the review and proposals for change in the course of the next few months.

When will the Secretary of State lift his perhaps justified secrecy about these reviews and confirm to working people that he has refused to include in them proposals to abolish the £10 Christmas bonus, the £30 death grant, the £25 maternity grant, other woefully inadequate housing and supplementary benefits and the ending of the right to supplementary benefit for 234,000 16 to 17-year-olds? On Thursday 28 February, will the right hon. Gentleman meet a delegation representing upwards of 5,000 youngsters who on that day will be outside this House demonstrating against his proposal to end supplementary benefit to unemployed teenagers?

Before the hon. Gentleman brings a delegation to see me, it would probably be a better idea if he discovered what the proposals are. As he does not know, it would seem slightly premature to have the sort of demonstration that he wants. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman is in one of his more reasonable moods, and I must tell him that there is no point in having a review if we reject options in advance. We are looking at all options in social security, and I have no intention whatsoever of confirming or denying the kind of rumours that are around at present, however wild they may be.

Will the Secretary of State accept that in principle I and my hon. Friends wholeheartedly agree that a review is very much needed? However, is he aware that the constitution of the reviews has been very much Government-orientated, in that they do not contain very many independent experts, and that the time scale is extremely short? Will he assure us that the consultation process will allow adequate time for people to respond and that he will publish all the evidence, or at least summaries of it, which he receives in private, as distinct from public hearings, so that we can all consider the matter properly before legislation is introduced?

There will, of course, be a period of time for consultation between the publication of the review and the time any legislation is introduced. As to outsiders, I must point out that the supplementary benefit review which the Labour Government carried out in 1978 was done entirely by departmental officials. We did not take that view, but felt that we should include outsiders. One has only to look at the pensions review to see how many independent outsiders were involved in that. What applied to that review applies to all the other reviews as well.

As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) suggested that the pensioners' Christmas bonus might be abolished, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that that bonus was abolished for two years, and on both occasions by a Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There were two years in the 1970s when the Christmas bonus was abolished by Mrs. Barbara Castle when she was Secretary of State for Social Services. The only party which abolished the Christmas bonus was the Labour party.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what he said about the time scale? Does he realise that on 19 March he is the supremo of two of the major spending Departments? Therefore, his reviews should be published before the Budget, otherwise we shall be discussing a very nebulous approach to expenditure for the coming year.

I doubt whether I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on bringing out the proposals before the Budget. A moment ago I was urged to bring them out later rather than earlier. I hope that the proposals will be produced within the rough time scale of the Budget considerations, because I think that the hon. Gentleman has a fair point about the connection between the two.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure Conservative Members that if the reviews, when published, show areas in which savings can be made, that cash will be used to reduce public expenditure rather than to increase benefits?

If there are savings in any area, the Government will have the alternative of putting the money into other benefits or reducing public expenditure and raising tax thresholds. I must stress that the aim of these reviews is basically to make the best use of available resources and to channel such resources to people who most need them.

May we yet again press the Minister to publish the reviews themselves, because only by comparing the evidence he has received with the conclusions and proposals of the Government can we properly judge what the process of review has been? What assurance can the House or the country have that, even if we believe that the Government are not attempting to destroy the welfare state through these reviews, they will not do so by the inadvertent incompetence that is the hallmark of this Administration?

On the last point, the hon. Lady will just have to wait and judge the proposals as they come. In regard to publication, the hon. Lady, with her knowledge of the review process, will know that all the proposals to be put forward will be Government proposals. There is no question of publishing separate review reports. Clearly, different issues are contained from those in the housing benefit review, which is under independent chairmanship and which the House will want to see.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Service how many representations he has received concerning cold climate allowance for Scotland and the North of England.

Since the beginning of last year we have received about 80 letters on the subject of a cold climate allowance, including 11 from right hon. and hon. Members.

Will the Minister recognise that the recent decision to give additional heating allowances to areas in the south of England because of cold weather was greeted with shock and outrage in the north of England and Scotland, where the weather is traditionally colder? Will he recognise that in the same week that one area in the south-west of England recorded a temperature of 55 deg F and got a cold climate allowance, Aviemore in Scotland, with a temperature of -6 deg F, did not? Does this not mean that the criteria should be reviewed and that cold weather areas should have a permanent allowance to take account of the higher costs of heating?

The hon. Gentleman's question shows a misunderstanding of two issues — the cold climate allowance and extra help for budgetary requirements when there are exceptional weather conditions. He should be aware that Governments of both complexions have rejected the concept of a cold climate allowance for several reasons, which he should understand. Various factors have an effect on supplementary benefit spending. Expenditure on heating is only one of those factors.

Surely my hon. Friend will accept that, despite what has been said in answer to previous questions, the cold climate allowance, as presently enforced, adversely affects parts of Scotland, particularly in Grampian and my region of Banff and Buchan, because of the severe weather they have to suffer. Can my hon. Friend give an undertaking that that point will be taken account of in the review, and that the needs of the north of Scotland will be carefully considered?

I confirm that the exceptionally severe weather payments will be the subject of review. Again, my hon. Friend is confusing the concept of the cold climate allowance with budgetary help under exceptional conditions for variations of climate. In regard to the criteria, I remind the House that it is possible for payments to be made in Glasgow when average temperatures are higher than average temperatures obtaining, for example, in Birmingham and Suffolk.

Is the Minister aware that people in Scotland and in the north of England are convinced that the decision to pay the allowance in the south of England was political? Was the decision taken because the people in Scotland and the north of England have consistently returned Labour Members of Parliament? Is the Minister prepared to make a statement on proper lines?

As the hon. Gentleman should understand, that is an outrageous suggestion. I refer him to the regulations setting out these criteria, which are available in the Library if he would take the trouble to go and read them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what account he takes of the political affiliations of regional health authority and district health authority chairmen when they are appointed.

Chairmen of health authorities are appointed for their personal qualities and not to represent particular interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We often do not know the political affiliations of chairmen and potential chairmen and we do not give undue weight to those affiliations when we know them.

The reaction of the House shows the cynicism with which we greet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. Is he not aware that the current edition of the Hospital and Health Service Review says in its editorial that we all know that political appointments are made? Would it not be an idea to link the operation of the Health Service and the health authorites with the inquiry into local government practices that was announced yesterday?

I said that we do not give undue weight to political affiliations when we know them, because I know that the House would not accept that we do not pay regard to them. However, that is a minor factor in making appointments and we try to pick the best people. I think that we have a much better record of objectivity than our predecessors in the Labour Government.

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

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

Now that Clive Ponting has been acquitted, and a jury of ordinary men and women has reasserted the value of parliamentary democracy over ministerial deceit, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that this is the last time that we shall see a person in fear of his liberty for preferring to tell the truth on behalf of the people to telling lies on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Ponting was accused and duly acquitted by a court of law. That is a fundamental part of our constitution. It is not a variation from our democracy, but an example of it.

While my right hon. Friend must be right to resist pressure for hasty reform of the Official Secrets Act on the basis of a single verdict, does she not agree that it is essential that Ministers and civil servants should be able to work together within an accepted framework of mutual confidence and trust? Will she give some consideration to setting up a special committee of experienced and responsible Privy Councillors to review the matter and report back to the House as soon as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely vital that there should be trust and confidence between Ministers and civil servants. I note that a former Prime Minister said in 1976:

"there must be absolute confidence that papers and discussions that take place are kept within the circle to whom they are given." —[Official Report, 17 June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 739.] I, then in opposition, supported him.

Confidence and trust between civil servants and Ministers is essential, but so is confidence and trust between the Government and the House of Commons, and that is what is at stake here. Yesterday, a vetted jury unanimously concluded that Mr. Clive Ponting had not broken the law by exposing the attempts of Ministers to mislead Parliament and the public deliberately. Did the Prime Minister know about the proposed deception of Parliament, and if she did, did she endorse it? If she did not know about it, will she now condemn it in the strongest possible terms? What was her involvement in the decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting?

To take the last point first, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, Ministers have absolutely no role in deciding whether to prosecute. That is the duty of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Ministers had no role whatsoever in the prosecution.

The right hon. Lady says now, and she has said to me before, that she was not involved in the decision to prosecute. Frankly, I do not believe the right hon. Lady—

Withdraw.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in order.

The right hon. Lady's domineering style of government forbids belief that she was not involved in an issue as important as this. Mr. Ponting testified on oath that his superiors had told him that it would be the end of the matter if he resigned from the Civil Service. Since prosecuting counsel in the trial said that it was not suggested that the disclosures damaged national security, will the Prime Minister tell us what issues of national security were at stake in the Ponting affair? What reasons, other than the Government's political convenience, motivated the prosecution of Clive Ponting?

I told the right hon. Gentleman, and I must ask him explicitly to accept what I said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that I was not involved in the decision to prosecute a particular person. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is correct. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that point, otherwise he is making a very grave accusation. Before I answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I ask him to accept my word.

We have not had in writing nor have we had on any previous occasion or now an adequate explanation for the prosecution of Clive Ponting, in view of the fact that even prosecuting counsel said that no question of national security was involved in the decision to prosecute Clive Ponting. Until we get an adequate explanation, my words stand.

No. Mr. Speaker. I have said explicitly and before the whole House, to which I am answerable that I was not involved in the decision to prosecute Clive Ponting. I ask the right hon. Gentlman to accept that explicitly.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that Mr. Ponting said in court that there was a good military case for attacking the Belgrano and that he had seen nothing to support the contention that the ship was sunk to end a Peruvian peace plan? Does that not mean that the contention that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wished to prove when he started his line of questioning was wrong?

The Belgrano was sunk for the protection of our armed forces, our naval forces, the Hermes and the Invincible. May I make it clear to everyone that, so long as this Government are in power, the protection of our armed forces will be our prime consideration, whatever the Opposition say. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition: will he or will he not accept my assurance? May I tell him that I was on holiday when the decision was taken?

Has the Prime Minister noted the determination of the jury to distinguish clearly between loyalty to a Government and the security of the state? Will she therefore welcome, indeed rejoice at, this reaffirmation of basic democratic values by a cross-section of the British people and will she demand higher standards from her Ministers?

I accept the decision of the court —of course I do; I always have—but I stress that two things are vital. The first is that Ministers are able fully to trust civil servants. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that and does not in any way endorse or condone the breach of trust that occurred.

"The Government has concluded that information relating to security and intelligence matters is deserving of the highest protection whether or not it is classified. This is pre-eminently an area where the gradual accumulation of small items of information apparently trivial in themselves could eventually create a risk for the safety of an individual or constitute a serious threat to the interests of the nation as a whole."

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

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

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the announcement by the National Union of Teachers this lunch-time that it intends to call a series of strikes? Does she not find this a strange way for teachers to carry out their duties and responsibilities to the young people of this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Children are in the care of teachers and it is a tragedy if teachers do anything to jeopardise the future of children in order to go on strike. But I must say that I do not believe that many teachers will go on strike. I think that they will prefer to look after their charges.

Who was it who altered Sir John Fieldhouse's official commander-in-chief's report without Sir John Fieldhouse's knowledge?

I understand from Admiral Fieldhouse that during the drafting of his dispatch at Northwood he queried the date in the sentence on the detection of the Belgrano but agreed that it should be left as 2 May in order to protect sensitive operational and intelligence information. The second of May was therefore the date in the dispatch that Admiral Fieldhouse submitted to the Ministry of Defence. It was not altered by officials there.

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

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

In view of the rising costs of Trident, will my right hon. Friend consider whether there are new ways of ensuring that a far greater domestic content is included in the contract? Given the increasing cost of purchases from America, an additional input from the British end would be very helpful to British industry.

A very considerable part of the Trident order has been placed in Britain as, indeed, all the submarine orders have been. I shall see whether we can achieve anything more, but the whole Trident programme will give us far more deterrence than any other programme on which we could spend that same amount of money.

The Prime Minister is a Member of the House and is aware of the convention that when the record of the House is printed it is accurate. When that record has been shown to be inaccurate and statements have been made to the House that have subsequently been shown to be untrue, they have been corrected. Why has the Prime Minister not come to the House today to correct the many mistaken statements that have been made by her and her Ministers, the most recent of which was on 21 February 1984, and is reported in column 695 of Hansard. She said that all the facts had been revealed and went on to say:

"All the facts are there. They support the Government's case."—[Official Report, 21 February, 1984; Vol. 54 c. 695.]

The right hon. Gentleman wrote a very long letter to me in the autumn. I answered his allegations fully in my letter to him of 8 October. He replied to that, and I answered again on 16 November. I have also answered very extensive letters from other right hon. and hon. Members, and I believe — although I speak from memory — that some of them have been reproduced in Hansard.

rose—

I shall take the private notice question and then points of order.

There is a point of order, but it must relate to the subject of Question Time, social services, or Prime Minister's questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must seek your guidance and possibly even your protection. I am well aware, as a new Member, that I am unable to accuse any member of the Government of telling lies. Am I able to accuse any member of the Government of being unable to tell the difference?

That is just the sort of point of order that I had hoped would not be made.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition invited you to look into the recent habit of the Prime Minister of reading lengthy statements during Question Time. I happen to have done a little research into this and it confirms what my right hon. Friend asserted last Thursday. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker?

I have no responsibility for how questions are answered, or for the questions that are put to the Prime Minister or to any other hon. Member. That is entirely a matter for those concerned.