asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the domestic ratepayers in (a) Liverpool, (b) Manchester, (c) Stockport and (d) England and Wales as a whole receive housing benefit.

We estimate that in 1984–85 the proportion of ratepayers receiving a rate rebate in the four areas was approximately 50 per cent., 57 per cent., 31 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the desirability of a reform of the rating system on the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

I concur with that point, as housing benefit now goes a long way up the income scale and many of us feel that it goes an undesirably long way up that scale.

Do those figures project an idea to the Minister of the sheer poverty that is being experienced in some major cities? Is it not about time that there was a complete review of the benefits and subsidies that are a burden on the ratepayer? Ought they not to be a burden on the Government?

The figures show that housing benefit now goes to one household in three, and that is a remarkable statistic. The benefit has doubled in real terms over the past five years and is still a substantial amount of money.

The Minister said that 57 per cent. of ratepayers in Manchester receive housing benefit. Is that not, even for this Government, a shocking indictment showing the poverty level of wages in Manchester and the number of people who are dependent on state benefits and who have to claim housing benefit? Should not the Government be doing something about poverty in the urban areas?

I am not sure to what extent the hon. Gentleman's point arises directly from the main question. However, what clearly arises from the hon. Gentleman's question and the answer is the extent to which housing benefit exists to help those people.

Does the Minister's answer not show, first, how rents and poverty have increased under this Government; secondly, that the only way for someone to get housing benefit reasonably high up the income scale is if their rent is well above average; and, thirdly, how much damage will be caused by the proposal to make all such people pay 20 per cent. of their rates?

I do not believe that any of those propositions is correct. Even after the changes in housing benefit, expenditure is still above the 1979 levels. Future proposals for local government finance are still under consultation and we must wait to see what emerges from them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to differentiate between the rates of pay of state registered nurses and state registered midwives; and if he will make a statement.

The pay of National Health Service nursng and midwifery staff is determined following the recommendations of an independent review body.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that state registered nurses have to undertake an 18-month course on staff nurse pay to become qualified midwives? Is he further aware that, as they get no extra pay for qualifying as midwives, fewer nurses are undertaking the course? With the birth rate rising, and expected to rise more steeply in the 1990s, where will we find the midwives to deliver those babies? Will we have to adopt natural childbirth?

As I said, midwives' pay is being considered by the independent review body, and it would not be right for me to comment upon that. In connection with more general questions, I can tell my hon. Friend that a joint review between the management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiating Council is under way, and it is examining nursing and clinical grading structures. That will, of course, include midwives.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that in future he will fully fund National Health Service pay settlements, especially those relating to care workers? Is he aware that it causes great anxiety and consternation to nurses and midwives when they are told that their pay rise will be taken out of the money available for the care of patients under their charge?

No, Sir. The funding of the National Health Service is clearly understood by the House. The funds available for the next financial year are set out in the Government's White Paper.

How does the pay of nurses and that of the professions allied to medicine compare with the pay of school teachers? Has my right hon. Friend received any indication from those professions that if the teachers should have a much enhanced salary review the nurses and professions allied to medicine would not wish the same?

If my hon. Friend puts down a question, I should be glad to give him that information.

Is the Minister aware that people in the profession, including nurses, midwives and health visitors, are becoming disillusioned because they do not have a realistic pay structure and an adequate career structure? Will he give some assurances that nurses, midwives and health visitors will receive proper remuneration, worthy of their value to society?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the position now, what must he have thought at the end of the last Labour Government, because since then nurses' pay has been increased by over 30 per cent. in real terms?

Does my right hon. Friend consider that one of the reasons why fewer nurses are going into midwifery may be that they have to provide their own cars and are taxed on their petrol thereafter?

I was unaware of that detail, but I shall study my hon. Friend's point.

The Minister talked of "real" terms, but is he aware that on television when the Prime Minister wants to draw attention to high income tax rates she always picks the nurses as an example of people who are especially low paid and heavily taxed? It is plain, therefore, that she regards them as one of the underprivileged sections of the community. What will the Government do about that?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes a fair point when she refers to the amount of a nurse's pay that is taken in direct taxation. The Government hope to be able to reduce the levels of direct taxation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what priority he gives in civil defence planning for the National Health Service to first aid and care in the community; if he has any plans to increase this priority; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services who is responsible for the location and manning of community first aid posts.

The draft consultation document on civil defence planning issued by the Department in 1985 proposed that emergency health care facilities be centred on single tier emergency medical centres which would be staffed wherever possible by general practitioners and retired doctors, together with qualified nurses drawn from various sources, members of the voluntary aid societies and volunteers from the public. Health authorities are responsible for the location and manning of emergency health care facilities, including first-aid posts, for isolated communities. Health emergency planning officers are responsible for co-ordinating civil defence plans in NHS regions, and they have done much work in identifying suitable premises for community care.

Does my hon. Friend agree that much irresponsible nonsense is spoken about civil defence as it affects the National Health Service? We therefore welcome the comments that he has made about the way in which the matter has been co-ordinated, because all the experience of the second world war and subsequent wars has shown that it is essential to have properly planned and integrated health care facilities alongside other civil defence preparations.

I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. Health emergency planning officers are hard at work along the lines of which he obviously approves.

Will my hon. Friend say how many regional health authorities have completed identification of all the services?

As I understand it, the health and emergency planning officers have identified areas in all regions. They will continue planning particular health centres to provide emergency medical help.

Does the Minister agree that if this country is attacked by nuclear or any other kind of weapons, that nurses, doctors or girl guides running around with first-aid kits of bandages, elastoplasts, cold cream and other such things will make no contribution? It is a laughable notion. The only services that will be needed will be burial and funeral services. Will the Government stop conning people that it is possible to survive a nuclear war, and get down to the business of preventing it?

It makes every sort of sense for this Government or any other responsible Government to take the sort of precautions that I have outlined to the House. I ask the House to recognise that peace has been preserved by following the NATO defensive strategy, which, until the present Labour party policy, Governments of both complexions have followed. The dangers of nuclear war would come about if Labour party policies were implemented.

Will my hon. Friend meet the cost of training voluntary aid personnel in civil defence duties?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional resources have been provided to assist the elderly and the needy to purchase adequate heat during the recent periods of harsh weather.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the operation of the exceptionally severe weather payment system during the current winter.

There is an extensive range of heating additions for householders in greatest need, for example those over 65, the chronically sick and disabled, and families with a child under five.

Is the Minister aware that that is a quite inadequate reply and does not respond to the question? It is clear that Ministers do not seem to be fully aware that this winter has been harsh and that temperatures have been unduly severe. Are they not aware that the suffering of many elderly and needy people makes the Government's provisions appear deplorably wretched?

For six years the Government have consistently shown their awareness of the problems of elderly supplementary pensioners in the winter. That is why we have massively increased the value of the extra regular weekly payments to help with heating costs over and above what the last Labour Government ever did.

Leaving aside the complacency that we have just heard, is the Minister aware that welfare agencies estimate that about a million pensioners are now at risk from hypothermia due to this extremely cold weather? Should not the extra payment be made automatically to all those on supplementary benefit and help given to many pensioners on small incomes but who do not qualify for supplementary benefit? When will the Government show some humanity towards those who are suffering such immense misery because they do not have enough money adequately to heat their homes?

I repeat that the best and most effective way consistently to help elderly supplementary pensioners and others is by regular and extra weekly payments for heating. These payments have been greatly extended in their scope since the present Government came into office. They are now worth £140 million a year more in real terms than when the Administration supported by the hon. Gentleman left office. That is not a record of complacency.

I recognise the Government's good record on heating allowances in general, but is not the problem that the severe weather payments have to be paid after the event? There is no certainty that they will be paid even then. Will my hon. Friend turn his attention to ways of encouraging elderly people to heat their homes? At the moment they simply cannot know until sometimes well after the event whether they will fall within the appropriate definition as decided by the local DHSS office.

That is precisely my point. The best way to give pensioners and others the assurance that they need in such periods is the certainty of regular weekly help with heating costs, and that is what we have consistently concentrated on for many years.

I appreciate what the Government have done about heating allowances, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that freezing point is as cold in the west of Scotland as it is in the south-east of England? Is he aware that many Scots find it hard to justify a system of extreme weather payments which does not appear to treat all areas equally?

As I said in answer to a private notice question on the subject last week, I am aware of the anxiety expressed in Scotland last winter under the then system, and again this winter under the present system. I must repeat my initial statement, which is the truth about the legal position, that it is a matter for local adjudication officers. I understand that the adjudication officer for Scotland as a whole is considering the issue of further advice on the matter, and I shall ensure that his attention is drawn to the renewed anxieties expressed in the House this afternoon.

I listened with sympathy to the Minister's answer, but does he not realise that this February is the coldest on record since 1947, and that last Friday the temperature in Scotland was 1 deg. less than in Moscow? Will it take another ice age to hit Scotland before the Government give it any help?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his first few words. I have a report which appeared in The Scotsman yesterday about the weather in Scotland, and I have no doubt that the adjudication officer in Scotland has also seen it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to insulate the homes of the elderly than to spend money on additional heating, much of which is lost through the roof or draughty windows? Will he, therefore, discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy a possible joint approach, perhaps to divert some revenue expenditure from the social security budget into capital improvements?

As it happens, I discussed that very matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy last Friday in connection with the 220th effective insulation scheme opened by neighbourhood energy action groups in Wandsworth. On many occasions I have made it clear that a considerable amount of supplementary benefit money is being spent on draughtproofing materials, and that before making long-term changes in the single payments arrangements we shall wish to be assured that there is an adequate alternative to ensure the future of those schemes.

May I give the Minister a couple of examples which illustrate the urgency of the matter? One of my constituents is so cold at night that her doctor has to give her sleeping pills to help her to sleep. Another pensioner, who is bedridden and mortally ill, can afford only to keep his single bar fire on. When will the Government's actions match the urgency of the needs of so many of our pensioners?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the particular problems of his constituents probably require the attention of authorities other than simply the local social security office. I hope that he has discussed the cases also with the local social services department, and, if necessary, the local health authority.

I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that there is widespread anxiety about how the severe weather payment system operates. In the light of experiences this February, will he consider establishing a review in his Department to see whether the system can be improved?

We have consistently undertaken to keep the working of this regulation under review. The immediate problem is that the method of working it was changed just before Christmas by the chief adjudication officer, following a legal judgment by the social security commissioners. Indeed, a great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed in the House last year when an attempt was made to operate the system on a more consistent basis.

Does the Minister remember the reply that I received from his Department which showed that in the first six months of 1985 more old people died from hypothermia than in the whole of 1984? Is he aware that in Ayrshire during the past three weeks, every day except one has been colder than the average for February and that the temperatures last Friday night and last Sunday night were lower than the lowest ever recorded in Ayrshire in February? What other evidence does the adjudication officer need before he gives extreme weather payments and before more people die from hypothermia in 1986?

In line with what I have already said to the hon. Gentleman's Scottish colleagues, I shall ensure that his question, which is properly directed to adjudiciation officers, is drawn to their attention.

When considering temperatures in Scotland, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of adjudication officers to the substantial variations in temperatures and in moisture saturation of the air, which is an important factor in regard to deaths among the elderly? Will he bear in mind that regional variations should be taken into account, because some parts of Scotland rarely get any snow?

I shall indeed draw that matter to the attention of those concerned.

When will the Government acknowledge that, as now operated, the exceptionally severe weather payments system is a chaotic and arbitrary farce? Is the Minister aware that in virtually every area of the country it is now 4·5 to 5 deg. lower than the average for February, and that that has not been the case for the past 40 years—since the bitter winter of 1947? Will he now, as a matter of urgency, send out a circular to all DHSS offices to ensure that all the very elderly and the severely disabled on supplementary benefit get an immediate extra cash grant of at least £5 a week for heating while the severe cold spell lasts?

The hon. Gentleman at least acknowledges that the most effective way in which to help people is by regular weekly extra payments. Every supplementary pensioner householder aged over 85 now receives £5·45 a week, on top of the amount included in the weekly scale rate. The same is true for every long-term sick and disabled person on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit.

Does the Minister not feel pretty embarrassed that the system which he described last year as "weird and wonderful" has this year been replaced by a system that is clearly even worse? Is it not scandalous that people in the highlands and islands of Scotland receive not one penny, although they are suffering extremely bad weather conditions, as is the rest of Scotland? Can the Minister not do something more constructive than pass the matter off to the adjudication officer? Does he not recognise his responsibility?

My references to the adjudication officer are simply a state of the legal position. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of those concerned, as I have done for others of his colleagues from Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to consult further with disability organisations on the Social Security Bill.

We have not received any requests for meetings in addition to the extensive consultations that have already taken place, but we are always glad to consider the views of such organisations.

Is the Minister aware that on Friday last the Secretary of State for Social Services received a request from several disablement groups, who were extremely angry? They believe that they have been deceived by the Minister and the Secretary of State. They believe that they have not been consulted properly about the adequacy of existing or future benefit rates, so they have completely lost confidence in the Secretary of State. If Ministers will not meet those groups, listen to what they say and substantially amend the Social Security Bill, they should give way to Ministers who will.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will realise from the puzzled expressions on the faces of my right hon. Friend and myself that that is the first we have heard of this. I assure him that if such a request has been or is made we shall seek to respond to it. However, I must also say that I find some of his expressions rather odd in view of the extent to which the majority of sick and disabled people will clearly have their position improved by the proposals that we have put forward for the income support system on the illustrative rates that we have given.

I hope my hon. Friend will agree that he has a record that is second to none in helping the disabled of this country. Will he accept that some people who are now in receipt of additions to benefit on the grounds of ill-health and disability may well not be eligible for the disabled premium under the income support scheme? Will he give serious considerations to a two-tier premium system, for the less severely, and the more severely, disabled?

I make two points on that. First, quite large numbers of people that my hon. Friend may have in mind are likely to qualify for a premium under another head, for example, in the category of over 80. Secondly, the most severely disabled on income support already gain considerably from the fact that attendance and mobility allowances are disregarded for supplementary benefit and would be disregarded for income support.

Will the Minister accept that when he does eventually find the letter he will see that it is signed by a number of the leading organisers of disablement organisations, people of very high standing in the disablement world, and that they are making known to him their grave concern, from their own experience, over the shortcomings of the Social Security Bill? Will he, therefore, give an undertaking to meet them as a matter of urgency when he has seen the letter?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss in-service training for social workers on drug counselling.

Yes, if it so wishes. I am in regular contact with the Association of Directors of Social Services.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he meets the association he will be told that because heroin and hard drug-taking in areas of high unemployment such as Merseyside has reached epidemic proportions the social workers and social services cannot cope? Because the Government have created the conditions that have led to this escalation of hard drug taking by creating massive youth unemployment among teenagers and cutting the staff of the Customs and Excise, is not the onus on the Government to provide the resources to deal with the problem?

If the hon. Gentleman refers to his officials in Merseyside, he will understand that they have taken advantage of a number of the many initiatives that we have set up to train professionals in coping with drug misuse. If the hon. Gentleman would also refer to the statistics on drug taking, he will see that the correlation between unemployment, full employment and the misuse of drugs has nothing to do with the point he is making.

Will my hon. Friend give the House a situation report on the appointment of drug co-ordinators in health districts with a view to furthering the training of social workers in drug counselling?

I understand that liaison officers have been appointed in all health authorities. We have also now set in hand the arrangements for a drug advisory service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the implementation to date of the Griffiths report on National Health Service management.

Implementation is proceeding well. All regional arid district general managers have been appointed, as well as over two thirds of those at unit level. I expect the process to be complete by May or June this year.

Will the Secretary of State take notice of the fact that there is some concern at the time it has taken his Department to approve plans for the devolved administration under Griffiths? Will he ensure that, if possible, that is speeded up in the months ahead? Will he reconsider whether nurses should be represented at management level and whether nursing directors should be appointed in each unit or area? Will the Secretary of State accept that the House would welcome an opportunity to debate the implementation of the Griffiths scheme?

We have debated the implementation of Griffiths on a number of occasions. However, I would certainly welcome a further debate on it. On the issue of the speed of the process, I do not think that anyone has complained that there has been any delay in the introduction of general managers. On the question of nursing, let me make it clear that in most cases there are directors of nursing services. In every case there must be access to professional nursing advice. I want to see more nurses becoming managers, because I believe that they represent a tremendous professional asset to the service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the nursing profession's concern about implementation at unit level, and especially about the fact that in some large hospitals there is no professional nurse of greater seniority than a ward sister?

I shall look at any such example. That is certainly not what has been reported to us. We would not want such conditions to exist. Forty three nurses have been appointed as unit general managers. As I have said. I should like more nurses to be appointed as general managers in the Health Service.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman brushing off all the expertise of, and the representations made by, the Royal College of Nursing? That is hardly a revolutionary body. Is he aware that nursing morale at ward level is at its lowest point since 1939? Is he aware that the Rayner and Griffiths reports have made a large difference to the bedside attitude of nurses because there is now a unit manager to tell nurses what to do?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. We are in no way brushing aside the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing. The college has accepted the principles of general management. We share its concern that those principles should be implemented in a way that enhances patient care. Inquiries such as that at Stanley Royd show the defects of the system that general management seeks to replace.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the campaign of the Royal College of Nursing, which calls in aid the coccyx, the humerus and other anatomical bits and pieces, is quite inappropriate? Does my right hon. Friend not prefer the statement of the National Association of Health Authorities that the NHS needs the best managers it can get, whatever the profession from which they come?

That is right. I think that there is not a great deal of difference between the views of the Government and those of the Royal College of Nursing. We all want more effective management in the Health Service, because that is to the benefit of patients.

If implementation of the Griffiths report is proceeding so well, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Royal College of Nursing has spent £250,000 on its campaign against it? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that most sensible people, if they were in hospital, would prefer the nurse on the ward to turn for advice to a person who had qualified as a nurse rather than someone who had qualified at the London Business School?

That is a rather silly comment. There have been a number of local cases in which the Royal College of Nursing was right to express its concern.. The royal college and the Government believe in the general principle of the Griffiths reforms and in the introduction of general managers. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that in a case such as Stanley Royd, where the present system has been going wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many married women have claimed invalid care allowance since the social security appeal tribunal decision on the Drake case.

asked the Sceretary of State for Social Services if he will take immediate steps to ensure that the invalid care allowance is extended to married women.

Up to 7 February the Department has received 10,220 claims from married women. A total of 786 of these claims have been disallowed because qualifying conditions other than marital status were not satisfied. We shall, of course, study the implications of the outcome of Mrs. Drake's case, but we have no plans at present to extend invalid care allowance to married women.

In view of the Government's response to the report on community care by the Select Committee on Social Services and their clear reluctance to extend the invalid care allowance to married women, what plans do the Government have to respond to the expected response of the European Court that exclusion of married women of working age would breach a European directive on equal rights in social security schemes?

The hon. Lady assumes a decision from the European Court which we manifestly have not yet had. We shall, of course, consider the decision when we get it. One problem is that if £85 million were available—that would be the cost of the hon. Lady's proposal —it is far from clear whether that would be the best way of giving additional support to those who are caring in the community.

Would it not be more gracious of the Government to extend the right to that benefit to married women before they are compelled to do so by the European Court, especially as there is overwhelming support in the House and in the country to do just that?

Whether it would be more gracious or not, I hope that my hon. Friend, whose views I know and respect, and which have been expressed through his membership of the Social Services Committee, will reflect on my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), which was to the effect that £85 million might be used in a variety of more productive ways to support carers in the community.

Will the Minister confirm that, if Mrs. Drake's case succeeds, invalid care allowance will also be paid to unmarried women living with partners?

That is a matter that we would need to consider in the light of the precise terms of the judgment. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the ordinary course of events the social security system, unlike the tax system, treats co-habitation as being the same as marriage.

If the Government lose the case in the European Court, does the Minister intend, rather then paying care allowance to married women to achieve sex equality, to achieve it by withdrawing the allowance from single women and men? Would that not be absurdly shortsighted and unjust, when the cost of care allowance with back-up services in the community is likely to be only a quarter to half the £350 a week that it now costs for institutional care, which is much less desirable?

In various exchanges with several hon. Members this afternoon I have done no more than make the basic point that the best thing that we can do for many carers is to ensure that further services are available to them and that that might be a better use of the resources involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the detailed disclosure requirements for occupational pension funds.

Proposals for disclosure of information were originally published in a consultative document in 1984, which was followed last summer by a further consultative document setting out the detailed proposals for regulations. Draft regulations have been considered by the Occupational Pensions Board, the comments of which we are still considering. The regulations will be laid as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that too few members of occupational pension schemes know and understand what their pension benefits are? Will the Government join a national campaign to encourage occupational pensioners better to understand their schemes and benefits?

I support what my hon. Friend says. The whole purpose of the Social Security Act 1985 is to give more information to scheme members, and we shall ensure that that happens.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the coalfields thousands of retired miners, and miners' widows, receive, as part of a pseudo-occupational pension, a coal allowance? Some others, who have to live in gas-fired accommodation, receive money in lieu. Will he withdraw the circular that went out to local authorities, which has resulted in housing benefit of up to £5 a week being taken away from the disabled of 70 and 80 years of age? Will he do that now?

No, Sir. I will not. That supplementary goes remarkably further than the original question.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give further serious study to the problem of achieving not only preservation but real transferability of pension rights for people in middle life and for senior management?

The Government have already taken action in the Social Security Act 1985 to give transfer rights, and we shall do our utmost to give the right of transferability to scheme members. I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to ensure that maximum use is made of expensive capital equipment installed in National Health Service hospitals.

The implementation of the Griffiths report is improving and extending good management, part of whose job is to make maximum cost-effective use of all capital equipment.

Is there not a long way to go? Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Southampton health district alone some £5 million worth of modern X-ray equipment is used only between the hours of nine to five, five days a week?

There is some way to go, and it would be useful if my hon. Friend discussed this matter with the chairman of his district health authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to give guidance on the level of stocks required of first aid and pharmaceutical materials to be held at community first aid posts; and if he will make a statement.

Stocks of medical and domestic equipment are held in five depots managed by Crown Suppliers. Consideration is currently being given to the size of the stocks and ways and means of dispersal. Stocks of analgesics are held by some health authorities. These could form part of the provision for community first aid posts.

Will those manning the first aid posts be adequately trained?

Yes. This is one of the aspects that we are urgently considering.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

In view of the unsatisfactory answers given by Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security this afternoon, will the Prime Minister take immediate action to make severe weather payments available throughout Britain and improve the system before some old people freeze to death, or does she not care? How many people have to die before she takes some action?

As the hon. Lady is aware, there were a number of questions about this matter this afternoon. The basis of severe weather payments was changed to that which was recommended —in other words, that they should be given at discretion. As the hon. Lady will also be aware, the cold weather payments are but a small proportion of the amount that goes towards helping pensioners and other people with fuel payments, and that has increased dramatically. Spending on help with heating has increased from £90 million in 1978–79 to £400 million this year under this Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement issued from her office this morning to the effect that she would welcome the establishment of new arrangements to take into account the view of the Unionists in Northern Ireland will be widely welcomed? Is she further aware that there is now no justification for the strike action that has been called in Northern Ireland for Monday? Will she join those on the Conservative Benches who believe that only constitutional and lawful action in Northern Ireland is compatible with democracy in this place?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We had a useful meeting this morning with the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party, which included an offer to consider, as my hon. Friend said, new arrangements to enable Unionists to make their views on affairs in Northern Ireland known to the Government. They also agreed to consider certain other matters, which I have set out in more detail and put in the Library. I agree that there is no possible reason for a strike on Monday, or at any other time. I hope that the considerations that we raised this morning will be gone into deeply by the Unionists, and we hope to meet again in a comparatively short time when I have seen the leaders of the other parties in Northern Ireland.

What precise steps are the Government taking, before closing the bidding for Land Rover, to ascertain the views of the employees and management, and take them into account?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, by 4 March we need an indication of approximately the amount of those who are thinking seriously of bidding for Land Rover and Leyland Trucks. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry has seen some of the unions. It is mainly for the company to see the unions concerned. It is, of course, for the company to get the very best arrangements it can for the future employment of the workers, for future capital for the company, for the amount of the bid and generally for the future prosperity of the company as a whole.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the directors of Leyland Bus are endeavouring to lead a management buy-out consortium? Will she welcome this attempt to do what the Conservative party believes in, to encourage those working for the company to participate in a financial way in their future, and will she perhaps consider making the deadline of 4 March for Leyland Bus considerably more flexible than is the case?

Of course, all bids will be considered by the company and by the Government. I do not think that we can move the initial deadline. It is not to have the bid fully and completely worked out; it is to indicate where there is a serious bid and the amount, roughly, that it would be expected to be.

May I put to the Prime Minister the question being asked by thousands of BL workers and management, as well as millions of other people outside the company? Will she now use the power that we know she has to keep British Leyland and its constituent parts British?

If the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly—and I know that he does—perhaps he will influence some of the unions, which have very considerable funds, to put in a bid for the trucks —[Interruption.]

May I ask the Prime Minister why, after British taxpayers have spent so much in building up the technological base and promoting the advance of the whole corporation, she is so hell-bent on selling off to anyone at any price? Why does she not care enough about British industry to ensure that it stays in its present ownership—in the ownership of this county?

Because I believe that one of the functions of British industry is to contribute to the social services and not to compete with them for resources.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us share her deep admiration for the Ford Motor Company of America, but will she also accept that, while Ford is expanding its spares division in this country because it believes that it is an important part of its profit base, it is unwise for us to be thinking of selling Unipart separately, so removing from Austin Rover and Land Rover an important part of their profit base? Should we not be even-handed and take Ford's advice and keep the spare parts division as the jewel in the crown?

I do not think that was quite the advice my hon. Friend was tendering when there was a possibility of exploring things with Ford. I am not sure whether he has had a sudden conversion. In fact, I think we are anxious to get as much privatisation as possible. There are requests to bid for Unipart, and I think that we must consider them properly.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

I wonder whether the Prime Minister can help me. Is she aware that thousands of pensioners in Fife are freezing to death? How can I explain to them that they must accept a pension increase that will not buy two pints of milk, while at the same time she agreed, without a minute's hesitation, to increases of more than 40 per cent. for top civil servants, judges and admirals? How does she explain this? Is the more accurate explanation of that caring capitalism, or political thuggery?

I will compare this Government's record on help with fuel for pensioners with that of any previous Government, including the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman. I repeat what I said a few moments ago: spending on help with heating costs has increased dramatically from £90 million in 1978–79—the Socialist winter of discontent—to £400 million this year, an increase of £140 million in real terms. The increase in social security pensions announced yesterday follows the increase of £2·50 a week for a single pensioner and £4 a week for married pensioners announced last November.

Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to welcome the installation of Mrs. Aquino as President of the Philippines? Will she also take this opportunity to thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its efforts during this difficult period in protecting and keeping informed those who have relatives in the Philippines?

I shall gladly convey my hon. Friend's message to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It will be nice for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to receive some thanks for its excellent work. The situation in the Philippines is not quite clear, but we understand that Mr. Shultz has recognised Mrs. Aquino as President. I am sure that we shall also wish her well as she embarks upon her task.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

During the course of the visit last week to the kingdom of Nepal by the Prime Minister's right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, did he have an opportunity to raise the case of the 80 Christians who were arrested last year and who now face up to six years in prison for preaching Christianity and converting people to the Christian faith? If not, will the Prime Minister undertake to raise with the Government of Nepal the continued violation of human rights among Christians in Nepal?

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's message to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Is my right hon. Friend impressed by the tremendous efforts of British industry and commerce in increasing, as part of Industry Year, the preparedness of school pupils for working life? Does she recognise the great potential for extending these efforts by encouraging commercial organisations to participate in providing more scholarships and in providing finance for schooling?

There was a meeting yesterday of industrialists and other people who are involved in the technical and vocational education initiative. This applies to higher education at the moment. The Government have provided £43 million and industry has already contributed £24 million. The industrialists referred to the importance of providing in schools good training in mathematics, physics and chemistry. One of their objectives in Industry Year will be to take very much more interest in schools and to have much more contact with them to ensure that pupils show a greater interest in careers in manufacturing and technology.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

May I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that no bid from Lairds for Leyland Bus that is based on stripping out the assets of Leyland Bus's three plants in the United Kingdom, with a view to securing the future of Lairds' own MCW operations in Birmingham —Lairds is a bus manufacturer—will be acceptable to this Government?

The Government have made it clear that they will consider all serious bids with a view to giving the companies concerned, including the bus company, the best possible future. That is our objective.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that General Motors has owned Vauxhall since 1925, that it supplied vehicles to our troops during the war and that nationalistic attacks on this company are damaging the prospects of my constituents and those of other hon. Members?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear. I am sure we all welcome the employment and prosperity that General Motors provides, and will continue to provide, for our people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell the House how she can possibly contemplate tax reductions for the very rich in her right hon. Friend's Budget next month when she can afford only 30p extra per week for a single person on supplementary benefit, 55p per week for a married couple on supplementary benefit, and a puny 5p a week for one-parent benefit? Would she care to come around the Croxteth district in my constituency to see how working people have to live, to see how the old and the disabled have to sustain themselves on the meagre sustenance given by this Government?

The hon. Gentleman must contain himself in patience a little longer before he knows about the Budget. I am sure he cannot yet know, because I do not yet know. He must wait. I remind him that we have kept our pledges to the pensioners and have substantially reduced inflation, which is highly beneficial to the savings of pensioners. When the Labour party increased pensions there was enormous inflation and the Labour Government met some of the payments by reducing the value of savings to the pensioners. That was a dishonest thing to do.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety shown parents and teachers and by everyone in education about the continuing teachers' dispute ? Has she any news of a possible break in the intransigence of the NUT?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. We are anxious for this dispute to be brought to an end. We hope that the ACAS arrangements will ensure a satisfactory conclusion, will stop the dispute and enable children to have full-time education again, and bring about a reasonable settlement for the teachers. I have no news yet about the NUT. I believe that we shall know the result of a ballot tomorrow, but I am not able to give my hon. Friend any more news about the NUT. I hope that if the other unions agree to the ACAS settlement, the NUT will follow suit.

If the Prime Minister will not consider providing an extra heating allowance for elderly people during this exceptionally cold whether, will she consider enlisting the aid of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) to see whether he can conjure up some warmer weather?

In addition to the £400 million that is available for heating, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, severe weather payments are available, not on the objective test which hon. Gentlemen did not like last year, but on a discretionary test which we have adopted on the advice of the appropriate advisory body. That is to try to meet the protests that were made last year.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will permit it if it arises directly out of Questions.

During questions to the Prime Minister she was asked about the attitude of her Government to the events in the Philippines. She distinctly answered that she understood that Mr. Shultz agreed with the present situation. While she is not content with flogging off our motor car industry, can the Prime Minister tell us whether she also intends to flog off the Foreign Office?

That would be an extension of Question Time.