asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made with the extension of pension ownership.

Major improvements in benefits for early leavers from pension schemes in the Social Security Act 1985 will come into effect on 1 January 1986. These will mean that early leavers' rights are protected against inflation and there will be a new right to a transfer value. These measures correct a major injustice affecting members of occupational schemes.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he care to hazard a guess as to how many more people are likely in future to have their own pensions as a result of legislation passed in this Parliament?

I wish to make it absolutely clear that we want to see a major extension of occupational pension schemes. About 11 million people who are already in schemes will stand at some stage to gain from the reforms which we have already passed into legislation.

Will the Secretary of State reward those who have provided themselves with small private pensions by withdrawing the proposal to reduce housing benefit by £500 million, as that proposal will strike at those very people?

The hon. Gentleman must wait to see what the White Paper states about housing benefit. He need be in no doubt that we intend to expand and extend occupational schemes so far as it is possible for that to be done.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any move into the desirable area of personal portable pensions will rely to a considerable degree on the tax inducements which may be forthcoming? May we have an assurance in advance of the White Paper—I appreciate that my right hon. Friend cannot say much about that today—that consultation will take place between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's interest in pensions. He will appreciate that the Chancellor and I share the aim of seeing a further extension of occupational pensions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he issued his consultation document on personal pensions he was careful to draw attention to the fact that under the proposals employees would bear the risk that is now borne either by employers or by the state? While lie understandably wishes to concentrate on what people stand to gain from what the Government have done, will he acknowledge that many people stand to lose from the changes that he proposes to make?

No, I will riot acknowledge that. The hon. Lady should refer to one of the original documents that we published at the time of the inquiry on retirement, which showed that it was the ambition and aim of the vast majority of people in Britain to have an occupational or personal pension of their own, and that is what the Government desire.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to seek to secure that community social services support is provided to a common standard throughout the United Kingdom.

The primary responsibility for providing adequate and appropriate social services rests with the local authorities. The Department issues national policy guidelines and our social services inspectorate is active in identifying and promoting good practice among social services departments.

Is the Minister aware that those in Bradford who are dependent on community social services believe that they are receiving an extremely raw deal? Is he further aware that there are 140 severely mentally handicapped people in Bradford who are being cared for by people who are themselves 65 years old, or older, and that Bradford will have no resources to make proper arrangements for those severely mentally handicapped people when those now caring for them are no longer able to do so? Will the hon. Gentleman stop displaying the complacent attitude that he has displayed at the Dispatch Box and announce that extra resources will be made available to places such as Bradford so that they can make proper arrangements for the care of those who are extremely dependent on the social services?

If the people of Bradford are dissatisfied with their social services they should direct their complaints to the local authorities in Bradford. The personal social services under Conservative rule have increased by 20 per cent. in cost terms. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that national spending on the National Health Service has increased by 20 per cent. so far and will increase by the 6·7 per cent. forecast as a result of the latest statement by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the growth in real terms in the funding of the National Health Service since 1979 to the latest convenient date; and if he will make a statement.

Spending on the Health Service in Great Britain has risen from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to £17·5 billion in 1985–86. That is an increase of 21 per cent. in real terms. Over the same period, public expenditure generally has increased by only 10 per cent. We plan further real increases in health spending in each of the next three years. These figures demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to improving the National Health Service.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it completely rebuts the claim of those who assert that the Government have imposed cuts on the Health Service, and shows that in recent years the only Government who did so were the Labour Government? Will he take this opportunity to remind Health Concern and others that inefficiency and waste in the operation of the Health Service are the enemies of proper patient care?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I also agree that the challenge to the Health Service is to use its resources to the fullest extent. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the Labour Government presided over cuts in the Health Service. They were the largest capital cuts in the history of the Health Service, never mind in the last 10 years.

The Secretary of State talks about the Government's expenditure on the Health Service. Will he clarify exactly what measurement of inflation is taken into account? Is it the retail prices index, or the internal mechanisms of inflation within the Health Service, which, for reasons of technological pressure and demographic change, are significantly higher?

The measurement is the RPI, as I said in my answer, and that is the effective measure of the resources that the Government have to make available. But there is also an increase compared with NHS pay and price increases. However the hon. Gentleman wishes to calculate the figures, the fact is that this Government are devoting more resources to the Health Service than any other Government in history.

In addition to the welcome real increase in growth in the Health Service, how much extra money has been made available for patient care as a consequence of the Government's policy of requiring health authorities to use the money more cost effectively?

The Health Service is at present providing about £150 million a year from cost improvements. That illustrates that the Health Service is now using resources more effectively than at any stage in its history.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he gave reveal savings but no efficiency? Let me give three examples. First, because of a cut in the number of acute beds, three hospitals in this region are taking their emergency cases to three teaching hospitals not far from this place. Secondly, two hospitals in my constituency have been closed. Thirdly, because of the Government's privatisation policies, I know of two hospitals in which patients are scrubbing out the lavatories.

More resources are being devoted to the Health Service, but a better measurement is the use made of those resources, which shows that the Health Service is now treating more inpatients, more day patients and more outpatient cases than ever before —dramatically more than when the Labour Government were in power.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new hospital now being built in Hemel Hempstead was cancelled by the previous Labour Government? Is he further aware that within over-resourced regions there are areas that are suffering from lack of resources? When will he make more resources available to those areas, at the expense of the over-resourced areas in inner London?

The policy of reallocating resources is continuing. I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House about that. My hon. Friend is right about capital spending. The Government have restored the capital programme, and we shall now develop it further.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many people who live in deprived inner city areas, especially inner London, will fail to understand what he has said today, when all around them they see ward and hospital closures?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will explain to them the reallocation of resources proposal which was supported by the Labour party and with which, as far as I know, the Opposition spokesman on health matters does not disagree. The policy aims to put resources where people are. That is sensible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Shropshire warmly welcomes the substantial increase in health spending, especially in hospital provision? Will he give a thought to the speed with which the region transfers resources to the area health authority to take account of the fact that Shropshire now has the fastest growing population in the west midlands?

That is one of the issues about which I shall talk to the regional chairman of the west midlands.

So that the British people can make a balanced judgment on these figures, will the Secretary of State now dare to write to the chairmen of district health authorities and ask whether they have sufficient funds to provide adequate funding of the NHS in 1986–87, and publish the replies?

It would be more useful to do what we are already doing—[Interruption.] Rather than write, we prefer to talk to them. That is what we are doing. We do not believe in government by circular, which is what the Labour party stands for. As far as I am aware, district health authority chairmen understand our policy a darned sight better than does the Opposition spokesman.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients have been treated for end stage renal failure; and how this compares with the situation in 1978–79.

The latest available figures show that there were 11,270 renal patients receiving treatment in the United Kingdom at 31 December 1984. This compares with 6,167 on the corresponding date in 1979, an increase of 83 per cent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that this encouraging news is a further sign of increased efficiency in the Health Service and contradicts utterly the continual whingeing that we hear on this subject from the Opposition?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend.

I congratulate the Minister on the increase in the number of patients receiving treatment. Does he consider 50 per million new patients per year for end stage renal failure as a distinct possibility by, say, July next year? Will he consider putting the names of people who carry kidney donor cards on a computer to which they can contract in or out, as transplantation seems to be the best method of resolving end stage renal failure?

We are constantly improving our achievement in terms of take-up. The take-on rate has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. We have a long way to go, but we are making progress. We are ready to consider every possible way of promoting the transplant campaign.

Can my hon. Friend given us any idea of the length of the waiting list for kidney transplants? What thought has he given to changing the present system whereby, although a deceased person carried a kidney donor card, his or her wishes are not carried out unless the next-of-kin gives permission? If such people's wishes were carried out, many more kidneys would be available and there would be many more transplants.

We do not have central figures for the transplant waiting list. That is a matter of clinical judgment in individual cases. We shall continue to consider every possible way in which to improve the system and to reinforce the transplant service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received on the social security reviews.

We have received more than 7,000 responses to the Green Paper.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that more than 80 per cent. of those representations were against his proposals and that they included a petition with more than 20,000 signatures, the largest petition ever raised by the people of Coventry? Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State plans to increase temporary staff at the DHSS by more than 10,000 to deal with the proposed cuts, but refuses to increase the permanent staff to deal with the present work load? Is he aware that in some inner city offices the turnover is between 50 and 60 per cent. due to the work load and the low pay, and that my constituents are suffering severe delays in the payment of benefit?

The overwhelming view is that very few respondents are satisfied with the present system. As I have said, the Government's proposals will be set out in a White Paper very shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are hoping for a radical review of the social security system and look forward especially to the abolition of SERPS because it is no part of Conservative policy to provide a nationalised earnings-related pensions system?

My hon. Friend has only a short time to wait before all will be revealed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many families are concerned about the changes in housing benefit, which will affect the most deprived families, and that local authorities will be hard hit because they will have to pick up the additional burden? Will he ensure that those families do not suffer and that local government is not further penalised financially by the Government?

There is not a great deal that I can acid to what I have already said, save to point out that housing benefit goes further up the income scale than basically arty other income-related social security benefit.

What proportion of the representations were from professionals employed by welfare organisations with a vested interest in the status quo?

No breakdown of that kind has been done, but I will see whether it can be done.

Will the Secretary of State respond to the representations from the Hammersmith Unemployed Workers Centre, which objects strongly to the suggestions in the review? Is he aware that people have to sleep on the floor at the centre because the supplementary benefit offices cannot provide a proper service, not least because one office has been smashed up as a result of pressure on claimants and staff in the area? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that, and what message does he wish me to convey to those people'?

I shall look at the problem raised by the right hon. Gentleman and seek to reply to him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Friday I attended a meeting called by the TUC Week of Action, at which 35 people were present, and that, apart from the representative of the Child Poverty Action Group, who made some valid comments, the majority of the remaining 34 people favoured combining supplementary benefit and family income supplement? Is he further aware that the vast majority of my constituents look foward to the White Paper and to a simplified system for those in need?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Very few people are satisfied with the social security system. The present system is indefensible. It is far too complex and help does not always go to the right people. The time for reform has come.

Is the Secretary of State aware that relief at the preservation of SERPS will be premature and wrong if he makes major cuts in pension benefit for which the Government Actuary has found not an ounce of justification? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a national insurance scheme for which people have paid in full and in which they have entitlements and full rights to benefit? Does he agree that any private insurance company which unilaterally reneged on its obligations in the way that he seems to intend would be taken to court for bad faith and breach of contract?

The hon. Gentleman should not rehearse his speech before he has seen the proposals. Perhaps he will now publish the Labour party's proposals on social security and tell the British people whether he still intends to abolish mortgage interest tax relief, because the public want to know.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will refuse his consent to the ending of treatment for cancer at the North Middlesex hospital.

No, Sir. This is a matter for the health authorities concerned. The current review by the North-East Thames regional health authority of its cancer services is about finding the best way of improving services to patients. If the review leads to changes which involve the closure of the North Middlesex radiotherapy unit and re-provision of the service elsewhere, there will be full local consultation. If the community health council objects to any such proposal, the matter will be referred to Ministers for a final decision. Further comment from me at this stage would not be appropriate.

Is it not a fact that the proposed changes are of some size? The suggestion is that five cancer centres should be created in London and that the North Middlesex hospital should be merged with the Royal Free hospital. If that happens and there is the creation at the Royal Free of a cancer centre, the linear accelerator that has already been ordered for the North Middlesex hospital and the building which has already been constructed there will be scrapped. It will make nonsense of the travelling arrangements that people in both north London and the outer areas will have to make to get to the centre should it not be established at the North Middlesex hospital. To provide a rationale, will the Minister intervene before the consultations take place so that a sensible plan can be devised for the cancer centres in London?

The hon. Gentleman gives currency to completely unfounded scare stories. This is a consultative proposal about the possibility of providing a better service for patients. It is not a question of saving resources.

I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that there is considerable feeling and outrage on both sides of the House about this report, which has been pilloried by the medical profession. I am not prepared—and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends are not prepared—to stand idly by and see some of our cancer patients, who are suffering enough as it is, having to travel long distances.

I hope my hon. Friend agrees that it is entirely right for the health authority to take every possible measure to seek the best method of delivering these services to their patients.

Does the Minister recognise that there is concern, both within London and in those parts of the North-East Thames regional health authority that are outside London, about the proposals? Does he also recognise that it is necesary for him to intervene so that cancer treatment provision in Greater London and outside that area can be seen as a whole? The North-East Thames regional health authority should not be permitted to go ahead with its piecemeal proposals without bearing in mind what is happening in other parts of the south-east.

I am well aware of the concern, as is the regional health authority. However, I am also aware that the regional health authority has a responsibility to study this proposal and that it has every right to do so. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that should this procedure go a step further, we should then enter into a consultation process in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and other ministerial colleagues would be involved.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposal to close the cancer treatment unit at the North Middlesex hospital is part of an overall package, put forward by the North-East Thames regional health authority, which will also affect the cancer treatment unit at Southend? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the report is riddled with errors and inaccuracies and that it is no more acceptable to the people of Southend than it is to people in the North Middlesex hospital area?

I am well aware of that concern. I have no doubt that the regional health authority will take note of that concern in reaching its conclusion on the report.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals the Government intend to bring forward over heating additions for those on limited incomes.

We have recently again increased the supplementary benefit heating additions which go, for example, to all supplementary pensioner householders over 65. The total now spent on such additions is some £400 million a year. In the social security Green Paper proposals, expenditure on heating additions would be included in resources for the income support scheme and their pattern would be taken into account in setting the income support premiums for pensioners and for other groups, such as the disabled.

Is the Minister aware, and do the Government care, that so many people, especially pensioners, cannot afford to heat their homes during the winter months and dread the nightmare of those months? Many such people receive no assistance because they do not claim supplementary benefit. Does the Minister wish to deny that if the Green Paper proposals are put into effect fewer people will receive help with their heating bills?

The improvement in heating additions for recipients of supplementary benefit, including pensioners, is now much greater than it ever was under the Labour Government. That reflects the Government's concern about this matter. I cannot add to what I have said about income support premiumns. As all supplementary benefit pensioners transferring to income support would receive a premium under the proposals, and as those premiums would take account of the current pattern of heating additions, the hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposal to incorporate heating additions and other allowances in the premium rates of income support will be widely welcomed by many pensioners as a simplification that increases access to benefit? Will he ensure that the premium rates payable to pensioners fully reflect the energy costs that pensioners necessarily incur?

It is certainly our intention that the premium rates in the proposed income support scheme will take account of the additional costs falling on pensioners generally and that heating costs will be an important part of our consideration of those premiums.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen reports in today's Scottish papers to the effect that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been pressing for a special social fund for Scotland from which payments could be made for heating allowances to cope with the cold climate? If the Secretary of State finds it necessary to press for such a fund because he cannot accept the prospect of Scottish pensioners having to decide between eating or heating, will the hon. Gentleman support that decision? This would mean that people in Scotland, with its colder climate, would have sufficient heating to enable them to live in comfort.

I shall certainly consider any views attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the development of our social security proposals. We shall take any such points into account in working out the proposals for the social fund.

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that last year Scottish pensioners got the rawest of raw deals from the Government? Does he recognise that climatic conditions in Scotland are worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom? Will he take cognisance of that fact and ensure that on this occasion those pensioners get a fair deal?

I can at least assure the hon. Gentleman that supplementary pensioners and other supplementary benefit recipients in Scotland, including the long-term sick and disabled, will have benefited, as in other parts of the country, from the large increases in heating additions made by the Government, which were increased again just a couple of weeks ago at the time of the uprating.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no particular virtue in paying these heating allowances separately? Does he accept also that the idea of embodying them in a general needs assessment will be warmly welcomed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he confirm that, in moving towards that system, it is proposed to wind up the special weather allowance, which has caused great concern because it has been paid in one constituency and not been paid in another just a few miles away?

I welcome the first part of what my hon. Friend said. As about 90 per cent. of supplementary benefit pensioners now receive a heating addition, it is obviously more sensible to give such benefits in a more generalised way, along the lines of the premiums that we have proposed. As to the exceptionally severe weather payments, my hon. Friend will be aware that the chief adjudication officer issued new guidance on the administration of those regulations last week. Ministers continue to consider the matter in the light of the guidance and the commissioner's ruling, but I cannot add anything to that.

Is the Minister aware that there are ominous signs that many old people are losing the battle to keep warm, as is shown in Stoke-on-Trent, where the major hospital already has a red alert because many old people are suffering from chest diseases and cannot keep warm? The Government are responsible for people who are old being cold.

I have always hesitated to be overaggressive with the right hon. Gentleman, but, in the light of what the Government have done to increase heating additions, not only for pensioners but for many disabled people, it is ridiculous for anybody who supported the miserable provision by the last Labour Government to be attacking this Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is fairly outrageous for a Minister in this Government to talk about the increases in heating additions without also referring to the increases in fuel prices imposed by the Government? Will he accept that if there is any truth in the rumours—I hope that he will take this opportunity to deny them—that it is intended not to reform but to restrict the operation of the severe weather allowance, such behaviour by the Government will be regarded as a disgraceful act?

I sometimes wonder where Labour Members were during the period of the last Labour Government. If anybody has more nerve than the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), it must be the hon. Lady, who has forgotten the deplorable record of fuel price increases under the previous Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has discussed the social fund proposals with the British Association of Social Workers.

The British Association of Social Workers and local authority associations gave evidence to the review of supplementary benefit, and have submitted their comments on the Green Paper on the reform of social security. In addition, I attended a seminar on the reviews organised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 26 July, and addressed the joint social services annual conference on 27 September.

Did the Minister have second thoughts about the social fund when he faced enormous criticism at the joint social services annual conference, at which not one Conservative councillor would speak up publicly in his support and in favour of the social fund? Conservative councillors in Coventry have told me that the Secretary of State has said that the social fund will not be cash limited. Will the Minister either confirm or deny that? If he denies it, we can tell the Conservative councillors in Coventry that they have been misled.

My right hon. friend the Secretary of State has asked me to say that he cannot recall having made such a statement. We are continuing to consider the detailed proposals for the operation of the fund, and further proposals will be set out in the White Paper before long.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there are certain aspects that concern others besides the British Association of Social Workers? Is he aware that today I received a letter from one of my constituents who had been expecting the restoration of the 5 per cent. rebate on the invalidity benefit, but did not get it? Why is this so, and if it is deliberate, will he take care of this in the new review?

My hon. Friend's question strays a little from the social fund. The 5 per cent. rebate on invalidity benefit was restored, but there have been a number of other changes to some invalidity benefits, which may have affected the position of my hon. Friend's constituent.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services at what level of gross income a man with a wife and two children aged 10 and 15 years, who was claiming all benefits and allowances to which he and his family are entitled, would be as well off in net weekly spending power while working as he would be if unemployed (a) before the recent uprating and (b) after the uprating.

Before the recent uprating the man's gross earnings would have needed to be £40·55 compared with £40·68 after the uprating.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am disappointed with his reply, because although he has told us the point at which such a person would enter the poverty trap, he has not told us at what point he would escape from it? Is he aware that such a person needs an income in excess of £130 a week to make working worth while before the uprating, and that the greater part of the work force falls into a similar category? Is not the only way to escape from this depressing situation to raise the tax thresholds well clear of the benefit cut-off points, by ceasing to index benefits and by a co-ordination of the taxation and welfare systems?

It is true that the gap between income, whether in or out of work, does not become significant until gross income exceeds £110. My hon. Friend is aware that one of the main objectives of the Green Paper is to ensure that people are better off in work than out of work. We can study the proposals in the White Paper shortly. My hon. Friend is aware that income tax thresholds have risen by 20 per cent. since 1979, taking 1·25 million people out of tax.

The Minister referred to £110 being the significant level at which wages and benefits diverge. Is he aware that fewer than one in five adult manual workers earn below that level of income, so we are talking about very low wages indeed? Is the Minister aware that that level of income is only two thirds of what one of his hon. Friend's last night boasted had been paid to him, on an annual basis, for his support of one of the fixed Channel link propositions? Is that not the real measure of the division in our society?

I have no comment to make on the hon. Gentleman's second point. On his first point, I hope that, in view of what he said, he and his party will support the proposals in the White Paper—which, to a substantial extent, will be geared towards meeting the problem that he outlined.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of those concerned about the potential disincentives to taking paid employment because of our welfare and taxation systems believe that the maintenance of child benefit at realistic levels is one of the most effective ways to counteract the unemployment and poverty trap?

My hon. Friend is a powerful lobbyist on that point. She knows that we have given strong support to the child benefit system in recent years. I hope that she is satisfied with what has been achieved.

The question asked by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) highlighted the problems of the take-up of benefits. What is the Minister doing to increase that take-up, without which there is no point in having benefits? Is not a great deal of poverty caused because people do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled? Does the Minister intend to increase publicity to help to alleviate that problem?

The answer to increased take-up of benefits is not simply one of publicity. One substantial difficulty has been the complexity of the system. I hope the hon. Gentleman has noted that we have reviewed the system, one of the benefits of which may be substantially higher take-up. For example, we expect the family credit system to have a much higher take-up than family income supplement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the responsibilities of the chairmen of the regional health authorities, the National Health Service management board and himself, respectively, for the running of the National Health Service.

The powers and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to health authorities, and the functions of regional authorities, are set out in the National Health Service Act 1977, as amended by the Health Services Act 1980. The regional authorities are accountable to the Secretary of State.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this rather complex system at the top of the NHS will be sufficient to encourage effective and decentralised line management at unit level?

We are certainly seeking to get the relationships and strategies that will enable downward delegation to take place, as well as upward accountability. The Griffiths reforms and their successful implementation are essential to that end.

Can the Minister confirm that when a private cleaning company falls down on the job of cleaning a hospital, the whole NHS hierarchy swings into operation? Is it not true that the district health authority is not allowed to sack that firm? The authority must make representations to the regional health authority, which then takes up the matter with the private cleaning company. If that does not work, the Minister gets in touch with the directors of that cleaning company's holding company, rather than simply allowing the contract to be terminated?

If anyone falls down on his job within the NHS, it is essential that management takes appropriate steps to remedy the deficiency.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many manager's posts still remain vacant at regional and at district level within the National Health Service.

All regional general managers are in post and have been for some time. Of the 191 district general manager posts, just one remains to be filled, and I am confident that this appointment will be made soon.

Is the Minister aware that the administrative system has been devastated and that that has been disruptive to the morale of nurses? Will he ensure that in the new unit management structure that is being established the bedside nurse will be responsible to the head of nursing services and accountable to her, and that she will be a qualified nurse? Will he make a statement about the 17 district health authorities and his vetoing of their plans for the filling of managerial posts?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures. It is right that doctors and nurses should continue to play an important part in the management of the NHS, and I am glad that they are being appointed in significant numbers to general managers' posts. The new arrangements at district and unit levels should command the confidence and commitment of the professional bodies involved.

asked the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Secretary of State Shultz. 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.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed some of the alarmist reports today about the possible consequences of a fall in oil prices? Does she share my view that the gloom is largely misplaced? If the price of oil declines and that leads to a reversal of the recent strength of sterling, there will be a direct benefit to British exporters and a general boost to international trade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most likely overall consequence will be a further strenthening of Britain's already healthy balance of payments?

I believe that large disruptive movements in the price of oil would not be in anyone's interests. I agree with my hon. Friend that comparatively small movements would reduce world inflation. The autumn statement took into account the possibility of a small fall in world prices.

Has the Prime Minister seen the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on the autumn statement? Will she tell the Committee and me why she is so coy about explicitly admitting to the major changes in economic policies that have made everything dependent on high interest rates? How will she respond to the CBI's call for an immediate cut in interest rates? Do her Budget intentions still include tax cuts, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly implied? Does she intend to continue to sell off public assets to finance the consequences of her economic failures?

Government policy depends upon the factors which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequently set out and which were set out in his autumn statement. He did not provide a fiscal adjustment. There used not to be a fiscal adjustment given in the past, but the practice was changed temporarily. My right hon. Friend has returned to previous practice, which I believe is thoroughly wise. The privatisation programme will go ahead. The public sector borrowing requirement, either including or excluding the assets of the privatisation programme, is still a smaller percentage of gross domestic product than it has been since 1971–72. Therefore, policies will continue as formerly. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that right now is not the time to lower interest rates.

The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service was not convinced by the replies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not think that anyone can be convinced by those of the Prime Minister. Will she tell us how she will respond to the CBI's call, and the call of manufacturers and employers throughout the country, for an immediate cut in interest rates?

On further reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that today is not the time to call for further cuts in interest rates. I also point out to him and the CBI that although a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates would benefit industry to the order of £250 million, a reduction of 1 per cent. in wage rate increases would benefit industry by £1 billion. Thus, it will know where to get the greater amount.

Would my right hon. Friend care to express a view, in her role not only as Prime Minister but as the nation's science supremo, on the breach that has recently occurred of the fundamental principle of the freedom of members of the Association of Scientists, irrespective of the political views of the Government for whom they work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decision at Southampton is most regrettable? Can anything that follows from that be of any possible benefit to all the countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are dependent on the high quality of science that must be observed, not least in South Africa itself?

As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point well. Scientific talent must depend on scientific ability, not on political views.

Does the Prime Minister recall the thoughtful speech by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in March about the strategic defence initiative? If so, will she tell the House what answer she has given to the question that he raised about whether the enormous funds to be devoted to such systems might be better employed?

I believe that that is a matter for the United States. It is for them to decide what funds will be devoted to the system. I believe that it is right to go ahead with the strategic defence initiative, and it is right that the Alliance should be well ahead in the latest scientific and technological advances in defence. That being so, I believe that we were right to take part in SDI. Other countries will follow us. They may not like it, but, as usual, we went ahead first.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her support for the coal industry has seen the creation of Britain's newest trade union—the Union of Democratic Mineworkers? I am proudly wearing its lapel badge today. On the badge it says, "Democracy reborn 1985". Is my right hon. Friend not surprised that she cannot see the badge being worn by any Labour Members?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on the way in which he put his question.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister explain to us what priority she has when, to use her own language, she can throw £250 million of taxpayers' money at the festering abscess of Johnson Matthey and yet refuse to pay a professional wage to the teachers who are carrying out a vital task for the community? Does she not realise that they have a deep feeling of frustration because of the Government's conduct? That moderate section of the community has struggled alongside most of the people in Britain for a living wage, yet, in her obdurate intransigence, along with the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister refuses to give them a professional wage when they have proved over and over again that the gerrymandering of the Burnham committee will not solve the problem of getting our children back to school.

I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that in dealing with teachers' pay it is vital to set out a statement of their contract of service so that there can be no other argument about it. It is also vital to have a pay structure that means that the better teachers will be paid more. Subject to those two things, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, some £1·25 billion over four years, over and above the normal pay increases, has been offered to the teachers. That would result in a pay structure starting at £7,500 for a new graduate rising to £24,000 for the headmaster of a large secondary school. We believe that that is reasonable.

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

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

Given my right hon. Friend's responsibility for Government publicity, will she reject the cynical advice offered to her by the dirty tricks booklet from the Association of Liberal Councillors? Does she agree that, whatever else may divide us from the Labour party, we fight on the real issues, not on character assassination and cynical appeals for tactical voting on behalf of what has become the refugee camp and dustbin of British politics?

I am not responsible for the propaganda of the Liberal party. I have fought the Liberals all my life in my constituency, and beaten them every time.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some hon. Members are receiving financial rewards from companies interested in the Channel tunnel? Does she agree that if votes are cast by those hon. Members in connection with the scheme, it must be bordering on corruption?

Whether hon. Members cast votes in connection with something in which they have an interest is a matter for the House. Many and varied interests affect both sides of the House.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the district health authority in Leicester has saved over £400,000 by putting out to competitive tender cleaning contracts at the Glenfield hospital and Leicester general hospital? Does she agree that in the Tory party it is the patients who come first?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that contracting out some of the domestic, catering and cleaning services in the National Health Service has already saved a good deal of money, and that money is now being put towards extra patient care, which is a good thing. There are about £1 billion worth of such services, which leaves a lot of scope for more contracts going to the private sector.

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

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

Last week I presented the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves). Will the Prime Minister join me in hoping that the Bill enjoys a swift passage through both Houses and that its opponents do not talk it out?

If I did that on every Bill that I may or may not support, I should soon be in acute difficulty. I hope that my hon. Friend will have a good debate on those important issues.

I revert to an earlier supplementary question. How will the Prime Minister ensure a small reduction in world oil prices in view of her profligancy in producing 2·7 million barrels per day from the North sea at present?

I said that the autumn statement had already made provision for a small change in oil prices. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for any one of us to be able to effect a change in world oil prices —up or down.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister share the concern of the general public at the depths to which the BBC will now stoop to present a "good" programme, as demonstrated by the intimidation and threats to the witnesses in a recent case featured on the programme called "Rough Justice"?

The Lord Chief Justice made his strictures very clear, and as far as I can remember they are absolutely unprecedented. I feel sure that the BBC will take them very seriously. Indeed, it should do so.

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

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

Now that the 1922 Committee has ruled that only Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies can vote in the Scottish group of Tory Members, will the Prime Minister consider extending that good democratic principle to all Scottish business in the House to bring to an end once and for all the undemocratic practice whereby the majority of Scotland's elected representatives are often outnumbered and outvoted when the Lobbies—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

—are infiltrated by Tory extremists from the deep south?

The rules of the House are for the House and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise me if I were to arrogate them to myself.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise directly out of questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. You will recall, that during Question Time there were at least two references to the Register of Members' Interests, with specific reference to the Channel tunnel. You may also be aware that last night it was revealed on BBC television's "Newsnight" that certain Tory Members of Parliament were not entering their names on the Register in time. Indeed, it was suggested that one entry on the Register was made only after the challenge had been made on television by the interviewer.

Order. I was in the Chamber last night when the programme went out so I do not know what was said on it, but I have heard about it this morning. The House knows that interests must be registered in the Register of Members' Interests.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise directly out of Question Time?

It does arise from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. It arises from a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and, with respect, it is not simply a matter of the Register of Members' Interests. There is a larger issue involved. Financial rewards are being paid to hon. Members by companies seeking a contract for the Channel tunnel. The television film last night revealed that there is the utmost pressure by companies and payments are being made to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked about the Register of Members' Interests. There is nothing in the register about rewards paid to hon. Members. I have raised that point previously. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members to receive financial rewards in respect of contracts that are being bid for by companies? Does not that call into question whether there is an element of corruption? How can any hon. Member speak and vote when he is being financially rewarded by a company?

Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point?

I want you to rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether the practice that is now going on is acceptable, or whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has correctly said, it borders on corruption.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the points put to you by my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), could you also consider the references made at Question Time and Prime Minister's Question Time today to the increased privatisation of cleaning and other services in the Health Service, and Tory Members who are directors of or consultants to the companies that receive the contracts?

rose—

Order. Points of order take time from our next debate, but I shall take them if they arise directly on this matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the programme last night certain definite allegations were made that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) had not registered his interests. After questioning by the programme, he altered the entry in the Register of Members' Interests, which is available to the House. Either the programme was guilty of contempt or breach of privilege, or the programme, which made serious allegations about the lobbying that is taking place, should be investigated.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is surely notorious that, although a Select Committee made a recommendation which was accepted by the House, the House never enforced its rule against the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who has refused to comply with the requirement to register interests in the Register of Members' Interests. That is why the matter has fallen into disrepute and disuse. I notice that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who complains of a failure of the Register of Members' Interests, has not complained to you that the most notorious case of this has endured for years—that of the right hon. Member for South Down. Because the House has, wrongly, never chosen to enforce its rule in his case, as he is articulate and television-worthy, it has become clear that the rule is not a rule at all. Either the register should be enforced, which is what I favour, or it should be done away with as spurious. It should not be left in its present condition, in which one of the most senior Privy Councillors defies it with impunity, and has done so for a decade.

rose—

Order. I shall take one more point of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you, on our behalf, look at the film and see whether it raises any matters of privilege? I saw the film last night in company, and after it people raised matters about the way in which hon. Members behaved, which needs investigation.

If the right hon. Member is alleging the involvement of privilege, he should raise it in the normal way. I take the point of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). There is a Select Committee which deals with complaints about the registering and declaring of interests. The House lays down the rules governing declaration, and it is right that they should be followed.

rose—

Order. Every right hon. and hon. Member knows that if he has an interest in an enterprise, it should be registered. That is a matter of honour.

rose—

rose

Order. I have nothing more to add.

Further to that—

Order. I have nothing more to add to what I have said.

rose

Order. If it is a different point of order, I shall take it, but I will take nothing more on that subject.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the past four weeks at business questions on Thursday I have asked the Leader of the House whether a report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was published last July, could be brought before the House for debate. As I understand it, that report may well be debated next week and, indeed, at the beginning of January. If any hon. Member wishes to make representations on the matter, he could do so during that debate. However, the point that is being raised is an extension of that. It is whether those who declare an interest should vote. That is an extension of the principle that we have not examined in the Select Committee.

The hon. Members makes a wise point. The House should debate the report.