asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the second report of the Social Services Committee on community care.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in implementing the recommendation on day care for the mentally ill of the second report of the Social Services Committee on community care.

The Committee's report and the Government response to it have made a valuable contribution to clarifying aims and encouraging progress in developing comprehensive local mental health services. Day hospital and day centre places have both increased in recent years, consistent with Government policy and priorities.

Does the Minister accept that there are still tremendous competing pressures on areas such as my own, where Winterton hospital is situated? The pressure is on the hospitals to release people into the community and on the ground from people who want people put into hospitals, particularly elderly people. Does he agree that there is still a real danger that, in the name of community care, we are simply loading a burden off the state on to families that cannot cope?

That is not the intention of successive Governments or of those who have studied the matter with great care. The whole concept of community care is not a cheap option; it is a desirable social policy. Of course, I appreciate that there are the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

The report comments on the need for special care units for the severely handicapped. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not handicap local authorities which are already developing the units by any further cuts in the National Health Service, thereby perhaps discouraging other local authorities from taking the initiative that the report recommends?

I accept that there is pressure on resources, but I must repudiate any suggestion that there have been cuts in the financial provision for the NHS. There have not been cuts; there have been increases in real terms over the period of this Government.

The policy of community care is obviously right for the patients, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the progress that has been made so far in implementing that policy. However, does he accept the Select Committee's concern that there should be individual care plans for everyone discharged from hospital, and is he taking steps to implement that recommendation?

I believe that patients must be treated as individuals. To treat them in any way as groups is entirely wrong.

Does my right hon. Friend know that the report also recognised that the fashion for community care has, in some respects, gone too far? Does he accept that many mental patients need continuing institutional care and should not be placed in the community, however alluring that phrase may sound?

Of course a proper balance must be struck, but I believe that, generally speaking, the move from institutional care to community care is desirable. I think that anyone who knows about, for example, young children who have been kept in Victorian institutions and who have now been released into the community to a fuller and better life must see the advantages of the policy. Of course, that does not extend to everyone, as my hon. Friend has rightly said.

I am sure the Minister understands that his policy is generally accepted. However, does he understand that the major obstacle preventing the policy from being implemented is the lack of resources for local authorities and voluntary organisations, which are expected to take over the responsibilities for patients who are removed from large mental institutions? If he understands that, will he ensure that resources are made available to those organisations and local authorities to start the process?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who speaks with authority as the Chairman of the Social Services Select Committee, for her broad endorsement of the policy. Having met representatives of the local authority associations and voluntary organisations that are principally concerned, I understand their desire to obtain more resources, especially bridging finance. These matters must be considered in the context of the overall constraints on public expenditure, which, in the Government's judgment, are absolutely essential.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the imaginative proposals put forward by East Berkshire health authority in conjunction with Berkshire county council for the development of community care for the mentally handicapped? Will he consider carefully the need for some bridging finance to facilitate that transfer?

Regrettably, I have not the knowledge that my hon. Friend clearly has of those particular plans, but he will undoubtedly draw them more firmly to my attention in future.

What evidence and figures does the Minister have, regarding the welcome policy on community care, about mentally ill and mentally handicapped people being readmitted as a result of insufficient back-up services and support mechanisms in the community?

I have no figures before me on that matter. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman if those statistics are available.

As there are 5 million carers in the community providing sustained care for elderly and disabled relatives, without whom the cost to the state of providing alternative institutional care would be enormous, why are carers uniquely denied any special support, such as a premium, under the Social Security Bill? How can the Government seriously claim to believe in community care when tens of thousands of severely disabled people will lose between £40 and £50 a week under the Bill, as a result of which they will be forced against their will from their homes into institutions, at a far higher cost to the state?

The hon. Gentleman's comments are most revealing. He should believe in what most of us would regard as normal civilised behaviour, namely, being concerned about members of our own families who need care. Yet he believes that that responsibility should devolve to the state and that the state should have a primary responsibility in that area. The hon. Gentleman's view—it certainly is not mine—is of a great big nanny state.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, when the responses to the child care law review have been considered, a final report will be published; and if he will make a statement.

The Government will be considering how best to take matters forward in the light of the responses to the report of the child care law review, and we will make our intentions known in due course.

In view of the consistent research findings that the provision of day care facilities for children reduces the need for committal to local authority care also and in view of the high cost of state care for children, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that in the child care law review local authorities will have a statutory duty to provide adequate nursery places? At the same time, will he assure us that he will provide the financial wherewithal to carry out that statutory duty?

The hon. Gentleman takes us further than the child care law review goes. So far, the response of officials to the report, which was published last October, has been favourable; but, having said that, I have the strongest sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Day care facilities of the kind that he sets out are an important contribution in this area.

Having regard to recent cases and the report of the National Children's Home into children in danger, is it not vital to have full public confidence in the law in relation to every aspect of child care and dealing with children? Is there not a danger of this matter being tackled in a somewhat piecemeal fashion?

There is a danger if this is dealt with in a piecemeal fashion, and that is one reason for the report. The Government accept the need for reform of the law. It should be dealt with as one, and I hope that we shall be able to put proposals to the House in the not too distant future that will enable that to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many operations were lost in the Canterbury and Thanet health authority area between 1 and 31 December 1985 as a result of the failure of the blood transfusion service to supply the Margate and Kent and Canterbury hospitals; why this failure to supply was allowed to occur; what steps will be taken to prevent a further seasonal blood shortage next Christmas; and if he will make a statement.

Due to a seasonal shortage of blood donors, the Canterbury and Thanet district health authority postponed 18 non-emergency operations over the Christmas period. The blood transfusion service will continue to make special efforts to encourage donors to come forward over the Christmas and new year periods in future.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, although he does not give the figure that I requested. I trust that that will be forthcoming later. My understanding is that 50 elderly people had their operations postponed as a result of the failure of the transfusion service. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that next Christmas, not only locally but nationally, there will be an advertising campaign to ensure that this kind of shortage, which is eminently predictable, does not occur again?

The figure that my hon. Friend requested was given. Eighteen non-emergency operations were postponed over the Christmas period by that health authority, and there was sufficient blood for all emergencies that might have arisen. I understand that historically there has been some pulling back by donors during the Christmas season, perhaps for the understandable reason that they are involved in other matters. Special appeal letters were issued, reminders were sent to regular donors, and there was special advertising. Those special attempts to get people to come forward and donate blood will continue in future.

If, as the Minister says, the shortage of blood was seasonal, surely that was foreseeable. If so, why were operations scheduled when the blood for them could not be expected?

The shortage was not of blood but of donors, and that shortage occurred only in this one region, which shows that the national blood transfusion service is a highly efficient and excellent organisation. I hope that the comments that have been made in the House this afternoon will in no way detract from the considerable public service that is provided by the transfusion service, nor from the public service of those who donate their blood. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage donors to come forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last visited a private residential care home for the elderly.

Such visits are made from time to time by Ministers. Most recently I visited such a home in Southampton on 15 January 1986.

I am sure that the Minister will agree about not only the physical but the emotional needs of elderly patients. Therefore, what plans does he have to improve social work training for careers in those homes, given the present abysmal level, where less than 10 per cent. have any social training qualification at all?

The hon. Lady makes an interesting and useful point. She will know that the registration of homes is the responsibility of social service departments. They must satisfy themselves about the level, adequacy and nature of staffing provided in those homes. They are fully aware of the hon. Lady's point.

May I invite my hon. Friend to visit a private residential care establishment for the elderly in my constituency, where he will find that the standards are first-class? They could be copied throughout the rest of the country. Does he agree that, sooner or later, we will need some form of assessment system for people entering private residential care, to ensure that the large sums of public money being spent are being allocated appropriately?

My hon. Friend has extended an enticing invitation, which I shall bear in mind. I entirely agree with her observation.

Is the Minister aware that the inflexible restrictions on supplementary benefit payments for residential care are causing great distress and tend to hit the nursing element of care? If the Social Security Commissioner upholds the decision of the local tribunal in Leicester of 3 December, which delared that the restrictions were unlawful, will the Minister undertake immediately to withdraw those restrictions?

I cannot anticipate that result. We have considered the levels in the Ernst and Whinney report, which we expect shortly. We are committed to a review of residential and nursing home limits within 12 months of their implementation. That is not far away now.

Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of elderly and disabled people risk acute anxiety as a result of the decision not to cover the rising costs of residential care due to inflation, as a result of which they run a real risk of eviction? Is he further aware that elderly and disabled people whose capital has been depleted below the supplementary benefit level since April last year still have no guarantee of security of tenure? Will he give an absolute and unquivocal guarantee that no elderly person will be evicted from residential care because of the DHSS's failure to cover the full cost of residential charges?

Even under the Government of which the hon. General was a distinguished luminary, that happy circumstance did not not apply. Handicapped people and those who have been in homes for some time might be entitled to special hardship provision, for which my right hon. Frind the Secretary of State has discretion.

That is not a guarantee.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the operation of the new rules on supplementary benefit for persons living in bed and breakfast accommodation.

We are reviewing supplementary benefit limits for all types of board and lodging allowances in the light of the Department's general monitoring of the arrangements since April 1985, information from local offices and representations from individuals and organisations affected. We shall also take account of the results of the management consultant's study that we have Commissioned on residential care and nursing homes when they are available. Our aim will be to reach conclusions in time for any changes that are shown to be needed to be made at the time of the general uprating in July.

As bed and breakfast accommodation in Southend is about £7 a week above the amount allowed in the regulations, the result is a great deal of hardship. WiL my hon. Friend act on the representations made by Southend tenants and landlords, observing that it is quite ridiculous that Southend, a seaside town, should charge a rate £5 below that allowed in Peterborough?

We shall consider the representations that my hon. Friend made in correspondence with the Department with other representations in the context of the review.

Is the Minister aware of the difficulties experienced by refugees and others seeking asylum in Britain? Will he take their needs and circumstances into account in the review?

We have had correspondence with the British Refugee Council. I assure the hon. Gentleman that during the review we shall take account of any problems that we are convinced must be tackled further.

During the review, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that although many people would welcome some form of adjustment, they do want him to lose sight of the fact that thousands of people are ripping off the taxpayer, and that that must be the central fact to be borne in mind?

We have been anxious throughout to strike a sensible balance between meeting real needs and preventing exploitation. That will remain our aim.

Does the Minister recognise that his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has admirably highlighted the fact that the limits are inadequate for those in bed and breakfast accommodation, just as they are inadequate for the elderly in residential and nursing homes, and especially for the physically and mentally handicapped? Does he also recognise that in saying that the limits will be reviewed in time for the July uprating he is saying that the review will take place after the date of the year's grace given to the physically and mentally handicapped, when their benefit can no longer remain at its original level? That is the time when people may have to move out of their homes. For the Minister to say that the uprating will be considered in July, when those people face the need for removal in April, cannot be right. Will he reconsider the timetable for the review?

The hon. Lady will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the existence, under the new regulations that came into effect in November, of the capacity to deal with individual cases of hardship. Against the background of the July uprating, it is obviously sensible that we should seek to consider all the issues, together with general benefit levels, that will have to be set for that time.

Will the Minister tell the House what guidance he has given to officials on the interpretation of the exceptional hardship exemption; and will he place a copy of that guidance document in the Library?

I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average waiting time for hip replacement operations at the Leicester city general hospital; and how this compares with the waiting time for such operations nationally.

Such local information is not routinely held by the Department. I understand that the typical waiting time for hip replacement operations at the Leicester city general hospital is currently 24 weeks. The corresponding figure for England in 1983, the latest year for which figures are available, is also 24 weeks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. However, will he redouble his efforts to improve that waiting time and to speed up the admission of patients, especially elderly people who so often need that type of operation? As there is much harassment and stress involved in waiting, will he do his utmost to shorten the waiting time even more?

One of our objectives is to reduce the waiting time for hip replacement operations. That is one of the four priorities in the development of the acute sector services.

Does the Minister accept that he is totally misleading the House by quoting the figure of 24 weeks — [Interruption.] It is clear that members of the Government mislead the House practically every day—

Order. That touches upon the honour of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark.

On a point of order—

No.

My hon. Friend has not been specific. That is not in "Erskine May." Do not withdraw.

Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw his allegation?

If my remark was out of order, I withdraw it. Will the Minister confirm that 24 weeks is the median time? His written answers to my questions show that the mean average, which is what most people consider to be the average, is 35 weeks. Will he confirm that the figure is 35 weeks nationally and 35 weeks in Leicester?

Through several written answers I sought to explain to the hon. Gentleman why the median time is used.

Twister.

It has been used as the routine method of giving the best indication of waiting time. That was the method used by the Labour Government and by this Government. Median time gives the clearest indication, free of the distortions that a few atypical incidents can create. Fifty per cent. of patients wait less than the median time.

asked the Secrertary of State for Social Services how many women he estimates will be affected annually by the changes in the payment of maternity benefit proposed in his White Paper.

Provisional estimates are that an additional 5,000 to 10,000 women will qualify for maternity allowance for the first time. About 75,000 to 85,000 women will no longer qualify because they were not working when their pregnancies began. However, many of those women will be eligible for some sickness benefit as a result of their previous national insurance contributions. As to maternity grant, the abolition of the £25 lump sum will affect an estimated 750,000 women, but this will be replaced by a payment of about £75 to low income families.

Given that the Tories are the party of family, why is it that The Times estimated last year that 500,000 women would lose entitlement to maternity grant, and that the new payment, which will go to 220,000 women, is about £62·88 less than they would have received had the Government increased the grant to the equivalent of its 1969 level? How much does the Minister estimate is the cost of essentials for a new baby? Does he agree with the estimate made by The Mirror last year that the cost is about £450, not the miserable £75 which the Government propose?

I rarely agree with The MIrror. In this instance, to restore the maternity grant to the 1969 level —I am bound to say that it was not restored adequately by the Labour Government—would mean providing a grant of £125, at a cost of about £70 million to the Exchequer.

Far from the Tories not being the party of the family, would it not be far better, as the Minister for Health suggested earlier, for families to look after their own fathers and mothers, to look after their own children and to provide for their own maternity?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It might be worth drawing to the attention of the House the fact that our changes in maternity benefits have several important features that will benefit mothers. For the first time, pregnant widows will receive the statutory maternity allowance as well as the widow's allowance.

Does the Minister realise from the figures that he read out that many women will lose altogether? Does he know that more than 1 million families live on or below the poverty line and that an increasing number of children are born into low-income families? With the changes that the Government propose in the Social Security Bill, more pregnant women will suffer stress and will have to go, with a begging bowl in their hands, to the social fund, but will get nothing. That, together with the cut in child benefit, will lead to a worsening of family support.

I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. The reality is that most of the families of whom she speaks, and for whom she cares a great deal, will be entitled to the £75 maternity grant from the social fund, which is triple the sum presently paid.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made in negotiations with the tobacco industry over a voluntary agreement on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions are continuing. My hon. Friend will, of course, understand that I cannot give details at present, but I shall inform the House of their outcome as soon as I can.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's position. In negotiating the agreement, will he take into account recent figures suggesting that, by the age of 16, nearly 40 per cent. of children smoke? Therefore, will he pay special attention to curbing the advertising and promotion of cigarettes that are likely to appeal to children?

We are considering all aspects of the agreement during the current negotiations. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there is special concern about the incidence of smoking among young people, and that is a subject on which we shall concentrate.

Will the Minister examine the file which shows instances of the breaking of the voluntary agreement by tobacco companies during the past three years? Will he try to include sanctions in the agreement so that the Government can impose a penalty on those who break the voluntary agreement, instead of allowing them to get away scot-free as they do at present?

I cannot discuss the details of the negotiations on the agreement, but I assure hon. Members that all aspects of the agreement are being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission.

I have no present plans to meet the chairman.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the speed of the investigation of complaints which the commission decides to investigate? When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the commission, will he consider with the chairman instituting a clear investigation into the complaints procedure?

As I have said, I have no plans to meet the chairman, but if I do plan to meet him I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Will the Minister confirm to the House that he is aware of the tragic murder of Isabel Schwartz, a dedicated psychiatric social worker at Bexley hospital, who was murdered by a former client of hers, Sharon Campbell? Did the Minister know that Sharon Campbell was discharged against her wishes and did not get the appropriate treatment, care and support in the community that her desperate illness required? Will the Minister set up an inquiry into the events leading up to Isabel's murder? Will he recognise that there are a number, albeit a small number, of seriously mentally ill people who, if they are discharged under the community care policies and do not receive the support and treatment that their illness requires, will be a danger to themselves and to the community?

That has nothing to do with whether I have plans to meet the chairman of the commission, but I certainly appreciate the seriousness and sincerity with which the hon. Lady has raised this matter, and I will give it careful consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why publication of the McColl report on services received by patients at artificial limb and appliance centres was delayed.

It became necessary for the Department and the working party to consider the implications of legal advice about the terms of the report. As a result of that, the working party consequently decided to make some amendments to its report, none of which, however, affected any point of substance or any of the report's conclusions or recommendations.

I believe that the report came out yesterday and I have not yet had an opportunity to read it. Can the Minister assure me that the points I have raised regularly with him about battery-powered wheelchairs are dealt with in the report? Many thousands of people, often elderly and chronically disabled, are not able to get out of their homes because they lack that facility. Can he assure me that a recommendation is contained in the report and that money will be forthcoming to buy battery-powered wheelchairs for the chronically disabled?

Because of the interest of the hon. Gentleman in this matter, I have already arranged for him to have a copy of the report. It contains recommendations about the provision of occupant-controlled outdoor wheelchairs. We shall certainly approach those recommendations in a positive spirit, though I must make it clear that the committee recognises the problem of resources, and, among other things, suggests that those resources should be found by curbing increases in the mobility allowance. I suspect that that is a proposition about which many Members, including myself, will have reservations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Professor McColl's report underlines the inability of bureaucracy to meet people's needs efficiently and effectively? Could my hon. Friend expedite the recommendation for a new management board, and in particular could he see that it has a chairman with proper commercial experience?

I readily accept that the vigorous criticisms in the report demand an equally vigorous response from me and from the Department. I am confident there will be such a vigorous response.

The report is a profoundly important one for disabled people. One of its most crucial sentences is that action to put right the defects is already overdue. Since the cost of delay will be preventable pain and discomfort for amputees, how quickly will definitive action be taken? Will the NHS management board's findings be published, and if so, when can they be expected? What action will the Government take on what the report says about the late delivery of limbs to 53 per cent. of amputees, about seeing to it that surgeons who carry out amputations have experience of the problems, about excess profit-making and about ensuring that disabled people themselves are consulted at all stages?

We have already told the contractors that we shall wish to discuss future contracting arrangements in the light of the report. I have asked the NHS management board to report to me on management proposals and other matters by the middle of the year. Whether it would be appropriate to publish that advice, I shall wish to consider. The most important thing is to reach a stage of ministerial decision and necessary action, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of general management in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

Implementation is progressing well. All regional and district general managers have been appointed and about two-thirds of the unit general managers are now in post. Overall, these new posts reflect a reasonable balance between those from within and outside the service and between disciplines within the service.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. What measures of savings, service expansion and policy improvement will he be taking into account in assessing the success of general management? Will he also take into account the requirement that, whilst general management is applied firmly and flexibly, there needs to be adequate consultation with all Health Service professionals concerned?

I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend said in the second part of his question. It is no part of the management process that it should in some way be stacked on the service without proper consultation. Savings have already been reported by health authorities. One region has made savings of £1·25 million a year from the restructuring.

Is the Minister aware that in many regions nursing teams and medical professionals are being replaced by the throw-outs from any industry that wants to get rid of its surplus executives at 50? Far from improving the management of the Health Service, the result is materially damaging the chances of good management for patients.

I entirely reject what the hon. Lady has said. The Royal College of Nursing itself has accepted the principles of general management. It is right that it should have done so. We share its concern, however, that the principles should be implemented in a way that enhances patient care. To talk as the hon. Lady has done is nonsense.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no reason why nurses should not hold the post of district general manager?

Absolutely, and the situation is that at the moment about 10 per cent. of unit general managers are nurses. I should like to see that percentage increased throughout the Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the level and quality of National Health Service provision within the Northern regional health authority.

Governments can never be entirely satisfied with the level and quality of health service provision. In common with the rest of the service, however, the Northern regional health authority is treating more patients than ever before and, backed up by real increases in resources, is making significant improvements in the range and quality of its services.

Given that since 1979, in that region, 18 hospitals have been closed, with the loss of 845 beds, and given, as the Minister must know, that the regional health authority estimates that next year the development of service provision will be less than 1 per cent., while at the same time the increase in workload will be over 2 per cent., how on earth can he make such a complacent and inaccurate reply to my question?

For the simple reason that there have been very significant increases in activity levels in that region. Since 1979 the number of inpatient cases has grown by 15 per cent., day cases by 61 per cent., outpatient cases by 9 per cent., and accident and emergency cases by 3 per cent. That is a record of improvement based upon an increase in real resources in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in his consideration of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work training proposals, he will take into account the training proposals of the report of the inquiry in the death of Jasmine Beckford.

We shall be taking into account the recommendations on social work training in the report on the death of Jasmine Beckford when considering, with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and the other Government Departments and organisations affected, the proposals for qualifying training made by the council.

Does my hon Friend agree that the House has shown little hesitation in increasing the responsibilities of social workers over the years, and that it is now important to move on the question of training, not only for the benefit of the profession, but for the confidence of the public?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, the Department is in very important negotiations now with all concerned to improve the level of training of social workers.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the proportion of National Health Service total expenditure allocated to salaries and wages; and how this figure compares with six years before.

In 1984–85, 60 per cent. of National Health Service expenditure was devoted to salaries and wages, compared with 63 per cent. in 1979–80. The proportion varies between services. For example, staff costs accounted for 74 per cent. of health authority revenue spending in 1984–85.

Total expenditure on the Health Service has increased by more than 20 per cent. in real terms over that period. Do not my right hon. Friend's figures underline the fact that expenditure on medical equipment and services and new hospital building has risen at an even greater rate? Should he not spell out those facts to the public more clearly in the months ahead?

There certainly are misunderstandings about the increase in real resources for the Health Service during the lifetime of this Government. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me another opportunity to draw attention to the facts of this matter.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

As my right hon. Friend probably did not receive a copy of The Times this morning, like many other hon. Members, did she therefore have time to reflect that it must be in the public interest that our great national newspapers are produced as efficiently as possible? Does she agree that newspaper employers are right to use the Employment Act 1980 to the full to prevent industrial secondary action and picketing? Does she also agree that one person, the Leader of the Opposition, must be relieved at not getting his copy of The Times this morning, to save him from the embarrassment of the extremist activities of his friends?

I agree with my hon. Friend that Fleet street employers are fully entitled to use all the legal remedies available to them. Restrictive practices have dominated Fleet street for far too long and there has been far too great a resistance to technological change. When that happens, the change, when it does come, is much sharper than it would otherwise have been. I hope that the matter will soon be resolved and that we shall have The Times with our breakfast again.

May I draw the attention of the right hon. Lady to the brutal murder of Mr. Tarsem Singh Toor, the general secretary of the Southall Indian Workers Association, and the inevitable feeling that this was a political killing by an assassin? In view of the effect than it is having on my constituency, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that every possible step is being taken to bring the killers to justice?

I agree most earnestly with the hon. Gentleman. This was a brutal shooting and the Metropolitan police are taking urgent steps to investigate it. Action has also been taken by the police with regard to the security of Mr. Toor's relatives and others who may be at risk. Everything possible will be done to assist them and to track down the perpetrators of this brutal crime.

In view of the fact, as indicated in Hansard yesterday, that the Government have decided to take the European Assembly to the European Court because of the illegal budget, but nevertheless to pay the money in the meantime, will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to make sure that the Commission will not spend the money that it may eventually have to pay back?

I take my hon. Friend's point It is quite true that the Council and we, this country, are taking the matter to court, but it is customary to offer to pay the full budget in the meantime. I share my hon. Friend's view, and I hope that the money will not be spent.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

In view of the furore over the leaking of a Government letter, does the Prime Minister not agree that now is the time to institute a Freedom of Information Act?

No.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Howden group of Glasgow has recently announced a $50 million sale of wind turbine equipment, thus making this group the world leader in medium-sized wind turbine equipment? Is she further aware that the research and development and manufacturing of this order were carried out in the west of Scotland? Does not this welcome news contrast very sharply with the picture of industrial gloom that the Opposition seek to portray of Scotland?

Yes. I congratulate the Howden group of companies and all those who work for it on being so competitive as to get this excellent order, and I wish them well for the future.

When the Prime Minister received the report last week from her Cabinet Secretary about the leak, did the report refer to a difference of understanding among civil servants?

In my speech yesterday I set out the full circumstances — [Interruption.] — of the establishment and the outcome of the inquiry. Its accuracy was checked with all those concerned. I have given the right hon. Gentleman — [Interruption.] — reports, of course, are confidential.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing anger among parents at the refusal of the NUT to negotiate, and will she condemn the planned strikes, which can only do more damage to the education of the children of the country?

We deeply deplore the strikes. We are very glad that there is a prospect of an end to the damaging disruptions. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is deeply disturbing that the NUT was not part of those negotiations, but I hope that it will consider adopting the ACAS solution.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

On 20 January this year, late in the evening, the Prime Minister, or someone acting on her behalf, telephoned Miss Colette Bowe while Miss Bowe was sitting in her London club. [Interruption.] There was also a call from the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, (Mr. Brittan). [Interruption.] Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister told us yesterday that she knew nothing about the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks—[Interruption.]—having authorised the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter until 22 January, will she tell the House what was said—[Interruption.]—during those telephone conversations with Miss Bowe?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday that he could and did confirm that the statement I made was correct with regard to all the facts in his knowledge. I have nothing else to add.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present time might be a favourable opportunity for Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, and does she further agree that if we were part of that mechanism real interest rates might not need to be at such a high level for the purpose of protecting the pound?

Not just now. Indeed, I think that had we joined a few months ago there might have been readjustments with regard to the deutschmark, so I do not think that now is the right time to join. It will, of course, continue to be considered. I understand that there may be a debate on this in the near future.

If a Department of State seeks agreement from the Prime Minister's Office and gets acceptance, is that not acceptance acquiescence? There really can be no misunderstanding about that.

I made a full statement yesterday, and I made a full one previously. I have nothing further to add.

If there is no dispute, if there is no disagreement, if there is no refusal and if there is no objection, is not the acceptance of a request for agreement acquiescence? Will the Prime Minister give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question? Is it acquiescence—yes or no?

I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view of a straightforward question. My authority was neither sought nor obtained for the disclosure. I have nothing further to add.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that her time would be better spent getting back to proper matters of state rather than listening to the waffle about Westland from the windbag opposite? Yesterday, she was found guilty of two things—tolerance and loyalty to officials and Cabinet colleagues. With faults like that, who needs qualities?

I assure my hon. Friend that my time is spent dealing with the great strategic matters and political issues of the time that must be solved.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

In view of recent events, does the Prime Minister think that the best possible deployment of the new polygraph, the lie detector, would not be at GCHQ, Cheltenham, but at Downing street?

I have nothing to add to the reply that I have already given.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a head teacher of a primary school in Edinburgh has seen fit to issue gloves to the teaching staff because he believes that they are at risk of contracting AIDS from the children in their care? Is that not a gross overreaction to the area's drug problem? In view of such ignorance, will my right hon. Friend ask the Health Education Council to mount a campaign to explain the causes of AIDS and to target those groups that are most at risk?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to dispel ignorance about this disease. I understand that the Chief Medical Officer in Scotland is considering the matter urgently. I shall see that my hon. Friend's views are passed to the Health Education Council.

Referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) said, may I ask whether, in the Cabinet Secretary's report of the leak, there was or was not any reference to "differences of understanding" between civil servants? Does the Prime Minister understand that she has put distinguished civil servants in an invidious position? It is a matter of honour for all politicians, whether in office or not, to see that those civil servants are at least given justice.

As I said, one of the reasons for having an inquiry was to enable officials to put their view. I said in my speech yesterday that the accuracy of all the facts was checked with all those involved.

As the Government have shown their willingness to intervene in the markets to keep down interest rates, and as the Exchequer has lost some £1·5 billion in revenue as a result of the fall in oil prices, will the Government now respond to calls by OPEC and other oil producers to discuss with them ways of managing the fall in oil prices in order to achieve more stability in the oil markets and thereby reduce the pressure on the pound and help other economies?

No, Sir, I do not think so. The United Kingdom maintains the freest oil province in the world. Subject only to technical limits, decisions on production levels are entirely in the hands of the producing companies. There has been no change in that policy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

After the successful evacuation from Aden by the royal yacht Britannia and others, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to protect the safety of British nationals in Uganda?

We stand ready to provide assistance for an evacuation of the foreign community in Uganda, should it be necessary. There appears to be no immediate need for such an evacuation. The high commissioner has reported that the British citizens in Kampala are safe, and that the airport is expected soon to be opened to normal traffic.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

Will the right hon. Lady give a truthful reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond)? Is she aware that the House will not allow this Westland affair to be swept under the carpet? A number of other questions need to be answered. Will she assure me that she came to the House yesterday and gave the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

As I said, the accuracy of what I said was fully checked with those concerned. I repeat that I have nothing further to add.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We know of your great traditions in trying to improve conduct and behaviour in this House during Question Time and during debates. Was it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), to intervene twice from a sedentary position this afternoon? In the first instance he criticised your judgment in asking the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to withdraw. In the second instance he called the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health a twister. This is not the behaviour that we seek in this House. Would you please ask him to withdraw both remarks?

I did not hear those remarks. If I were to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw everything that he says from a sedentary position, I would be on my feet for most of the day.

My point of order is brief, Mr. Speaker. Over the next few weeks, and indeed months, there will be many of my hon. Friends who will wish to ask questions about the Westland affair. May I have an assurance that whenever Government Members intervene from a sedentary position to prevent my hon. Friends from asking questions, you will immediately intervene to protect them? Today during Question Time, and yesterday during the Leader of the Opposition's speech, and in the debate, whenever the Prime Minister was criticised, Conservative Members insisted on drowning out Labour Members. The House seeks your protection. May I have your assurance that you will give it?

I thought that the debate yesterday, in the light of the very highly charged atmosphere, proceeded very well. I shall be, as I have always been, entirely evenhanded in my protection of both Back Benchers and Front-Bench spokesmen.

On a point of order, arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. There clearly remains a great deal of dissatisfaction about the Prime Minister's statement and her answers. Is there any way in which the civil servants at No. 10 and at the Department of Trade and Industry who were involved can be brought before the House so that we can try to find out precisely what happened with respect to the leakage of the letter from the Solicitor-General?

The hon. Member knows the answer to that. He knows also that a Select Committee is dealing with that matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked a number of searching questions about the leaking of the letter, there was a deliberate campaign by the Conservative party to drown his questions—so much so that he had to repeat them several times before he could be heard. Surely you can protect hon. Members who wish to ask relevant questions about the Prime Minister's conduct in this affair, so that hon. Members can put their questions sensibly, shortly and quietly.

The hon. Member makes a valid point. He has been a Member for as long as I have, and he knows that frequently there is a good deal of background noise at Question Time and during debates. I wish that that were not so.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many Opposition Members believe that there is a new censorship and control of freedom of speech in the House. This is a serious situation. I have been a Member since 1979 and I am familiar with the normal level of hubbub in a normal debate, but there is a new conspiracy on the Government Benches to stop Labour Members from asking questions and receiving a fair hearing when Government Members do not want to hear the responses to the Westland issues and other questions.

We have a heavy day in front of us. I cannot be a party to any conspiracies. I do not know whether there are any — I hope that there are none. I shall continue to do as I have always done to ensure a fair hearing for every hon. Member.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister questions about telephone calls to Miss Colette Bowe—[Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—[HON. MEMBERS: "The noise is coming from Conservative Members."] Order.

I asked the right hon. Lady specific questions about telephone calls to Colette Bowe on the night of 20 January—

Order. Is this a point of order for me? It sounds very much like a continuation of Question Time. I know that the hon. and learned Member will not do that. Will he put a point of order to me, please?

I asked the Prime Minister a question through you, Mr. Speaker, on specific matters. I do not believe that the right hon. Lady could hear my questions relating to telephone calls to Miss Colette Bowe on 20 January—

Order. I am afraid that this is a clear case of trying to get a second bite.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today during Question Time, on a genuine point of order —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— Oh, yes. At that time my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Opposition spokesman on health, referred to the Government misleading the House. He was subsequently pulled up by a Tory Member. You confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend should withdraw any references to the Government misleading the House.

Let me clear the matter for the whole House. Over the centuries we have proceeded in civilised debate and it has always been our practice and the rule of the Chair to rule out of order matters which touch upon the honour of any right hon. or hon. Gentleman on either side of the House. That is precisely what I did this afternoon.