asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has about the incidence of attacks of violence against social workers by their clients.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expresses his regret that he is unable to be with us this afternoon, as he is overseas on official business.

Is the Minister aware of the nationwide research which has been carried out at Cambridge university which shows that social workers are likely to be attacked by their clients on average once a year? In view of the recent deaths of two social workers at the hands of their clients, why are the Government taking such a complacent attitude about the matter? Will the Minister co-ordinate the actions of local authorities, which are trying to reduce the risk to their social workers and encourage and enable them to do something constructive? Will he ensure that people coming out of institutions into the community get proper back-up support so that they do not become a danger to themselves or to the social workers who care for them?

The Government are in no sense complacent about this very difficult issue, and we remain in close contact with the employing authorities. We will, of course, maintain such contact to discover whether further guidance can properly be given centrally. We are also in close contact with the parents of those involved in the specific case in which the hon. Lady has taken a close interest.

Is it not true that there are recruited into the social services many odd-bods who are long-haired, unshaven and who wear political badges on their lapels, who provoke attacks upon themselves by their very attitude?

I am not prepard to generalise about odd-bods in the social services. I believe that social workers have a very difficult job to do, and these cases raise difficult and sensitive issues.

The House will be somewhat surprised that the Minister was not stronger in his condemnation of the question from the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).

Many of the issues involve clinical decisions, which, of course, the Government carefully monitor, but which are not directly in our control. The House will be well aware of the Government's helpful attitude to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage take-up of one-parent benefit.

The percentage take-up has steadily improved over recent years, and the latest available estimate shows that about 75 per cent. of those who stand to gain by claiming one-parent benefit are receiving it.

I accept that there has been a great improvement during the last few years, but does my hon. Friend not think that the figure is still disappointing? Does he have any plans to try to improve the percentage take-up?

I share my hon. Friend's wish that the take-up should be improved. We shall continue with the brief television fillers, which have proved to be particularly successful in encouraging people to claim this benefit, as well as with the traditional advertisements, which appear in child benefit books and on leaflets and posters in a variety of places, notably surgeries, health centres, post offices, law centres and elsewhere. I hope that in this fashion we will increase the take-up.

Would my hon. Friend care to speculate upon how many people do not take up the one-parent benefit, although they are entitled to it, and upon what the cost would be if they did?

I do not have the most recently available figures, but, broadly, about 100,000 families who could have claimed one-parent benefit did not take it up. According to the latest figures, the cost would have been about £18 million a year. I hope that in about three months' time we will be able to update those figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will seek to extend invalid care allowance to married women; and if he will make a statement.

This matter is currently the subject of legal proceedings before the European Court, to which the Government are giving close attention.

Will the Minister accept that if the women, under 100,000, who do not qualify for the invalid care allowance because they are married were not there to provide informal care, the Government would have to fork out between £5 billion and £7 billion in order to provide formal residential care, and that the £85 million that it would cost to extend the benefit to married and co-habiting women is chickenfeed because of the worth of the care that these women provide? Will he recognise that women all over the country are boiling over with anger and frustration because of this anachronistic Government, who should pay up or go?

Our most up-to-date estimate is that the cost would be £100 million rather than £85 million. I acknowledge entirely the immense value of the work of these carers and of many others who do not qualify for the invalid care allowance, whatever the law on the invalid care allowance may be. The issue, among others, alongside the legal issue, is about the best way to help such carers in the devoted work that they do.

Why must the Government be dragged, kicking and screaming, into making this payment? Did the Minister read the article in The Sunday Times about the woman who was overwhelmed with caring for her husband who was suffering from multiple sclerosis, and whose family was devastated? Does he appreciate that without the invalid care allowance these women suffer even more because they are confined to their home and lack all help? If the Government do not help them, they lack all hope as well.

I have met a number of women, and others, who have been providing this kind of care, and I very much appreciate what they do. However, I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not automatically clear that a payment of £23 a week, which is what we are talking about, as distinct from the wider availability of respite care or other support services, is the best way to help such women.

Many people will be pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about those who are caring at home for relatives, but is he aware that many Conservative Members very much hope that he will be able to see his way to extending the invalid care allowance to married women?

I am very well aware that feelings on this matter extend to both sides of the House.

Why does the Minister think that this country is brought before the European Court more often than any of the other countries in the European Community? Is he not thoroughly ashamed of that fact?

Quite possibly—I say this in, I hope, a reasonable spirit—that is because of the number of grotesquely discriminatory pieces of legislation that we inherited from the previous Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with co-ordination between health authorities and local authorities in the proper provision of community care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped with particular reference to financial provision.

Good progress is being made in many areas in the joint planning of community care, but there is room for improvement over the country as a whole. The joint finance and care in the community arrangements enable health authorities to give financial support for community care provided by local social services authorities and voluntary organisations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the confusion and contradiction, at least in my borough, between the local health authority and the social services department of the council as to their exact responsibilities over the provision of care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped? That has been tragically underlined in the case of a constituent who is severely mentally handicapped, who within 48 hours lost both her parents who were looking after her at home. In view of that confusion and contradiction, will my hon. Friend look into both the particular case and the general responsibilities so that it is possible unambiguously and unequivocally to assert where the responsibility lies?

This is undoubtedly a difficult matter. As I said in my earlier reply, the good progress is not universal. There may be room for improvement. It may well be that my hon. Friend's constituency is a case in point. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend and the House that a multi-disciplinary meeting on that tragic case will be held on 13 May. I believe that that meeting will demonstrate the good co-operation that exists across the authorities in this tragic and worrying case.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, for historical reasons, severe distortions often take place with respect to moving people from long-stay hospitals into the community? Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the anomalous position for Salford health authority and Salford city council regarding his policy on Prestwich hospital?

I shall look into the details. The local health authority and local authorities must work closely together against the background of support facilities, including joint finance, which the Government have provided and continue to provide.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the policy of moving mentally ill and handicapped people into the community is commendable, it is expensive and shifts the burden on to the social services department and the local authority? It is essential that adequate funds are provided so that the scheme will be successful.

We accept that there are financial pressures. That is why we urge maximum co-operation, to go at the pace of the possible, depending on the local circumstances. That is why we have produced the funding that is now available.

Is the Minister aware that everybody, including the Government, accepts that successful community care cannot be a cheap option? How, therefore, can there be the co-ordination necessary to ensure the success of the policy when, for example, local authorities are starved of sufficient funds? They require those funds to provide the type of housing and the range of back-up facilities in the community that will enable people coming out of long-stay institutions not to be in a position where they lack sufficient community support or where they simply end up being re-admitted to the very institutions from which they moved. Will the hon. Gentleman consider other aspects of Government policy that operate against the interests of community care?

Local authorities must choose their own priorities. No one would pretend that that was an easy task. Priorities must be set against a background of rising expenditure in the local authority area. The hon. Gentleman should take note of the financial facilities that are being made available. For example, this year, the joint finance allocation will be about £111 million.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern among parents, especially elderly parents, about their children, often young adults, who are returned to the community without adequate support or back-up? Will he clarify the guidelines between the appropriate authorities so that they cannot argue and bicker among themselves, and so that they will know exactly what their individual responsibilities are?

There should be no question of individuals being returned to places outside the health authority scheme unless suitable and adequate arrangements have been made. That is precisely why the JCCs and the joint care planning teams are provided. They should ensure that the problems to which my hon. Friend referred are solved locally.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that a recent survey of private rest homes for the disabled and the elderly found that degradation and exploitation were the norm, not the exception? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that residents were forced to strip in front of others to wash; milk was watered down to save money; incontinent residents were left without underwear; and YTS trainees were made to dispense drugs without knowledge of dosage side-effects? Is it not utterly repugnant that the Government should be encouraging huge commercial profits to be made in this way by private rest homes at the expense of frail and vulnerable patients?

The Government are determined that the highest standards should be maintained in residential and nursing homes and similar accommodation, whether they are operated in the public or the private sector. That is why we instituted the inspection systems. For example, to help local authorities, we have increased the scale of registration fees and introduced regulations under the "Home Life" publication. If the hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that badly maintained homes exist only in the private sector, I invite him to consult his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to instruct him on the dreadful conditions found in the Nye Bevan home in Southwark.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about his proposals on National Health Service accommodation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about accommodation for National Health Service employees; and if he will make a statement.

Since the new national policy was announced last July, about 200 letters have been received. In some cases concern has been expressed that staff might be evicted as a result of this policy. But, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his written answer on 25 April, no one will be required to move from his or her present accommodation without being offered a suitable alternative place to live.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the parliamentary answer to which he referred, there is still widespread concern among NHS staff—nurses, ancillary workers and others—that they will be pressurised to leave their homes? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no one who works for the NHS will be forcibly evicted or removed from his home?

As I made it clear, no one will be required as part of this policy to move from his present accommodation without being offered a suitable alternative place in which to live. I am glad that this question gives me a further opportunity to clarify the position and, I hope, to put straight the record, which some people are deliberately seeking to misrepresent.

As many Health Service employees in Scotland live in genuine fear of eviction, will the right hon. Gentleman extend his absolute guarantee to Health Service employees north of the border who live in such accommodation? As much of the NHS living accommodation is in an appalling state of disrepair, because Crown immunity exempts health authorities from the obligation to carry out the necessary repairs, will the right hon. Gentleman abolish Crown immunity in that respect, too, so that Health Service employees have the same rights as other tenants?

One objective of the present policy of disposing of vacant and surplus property is to produce the resources which can be ploughed back to modernise and bring existing property up to a decent standard.

Because of the emotive way in which the matter is being dealt with by the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom and, evidently, the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to restore a sense of perspective by reminding us of the number of employees who live in property owned by the health authorities and the percentage of total employees who do so?

This residential accommodation is designed particularly for certain professional trainees—junior doctors, student nurses, and other staff—especially in inner city areas. A little more than half the junior doctors, a little under half the student nurses, and fewer than one in 10 qualified nurses live in such accommodation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real outrage would occur if the Government neglected the massive amount of property owned by the NHS which deserves to be developed for the better care of patients rather than distributed haphazardly, as at present?

My hon. Friend is right. If we extend the matter way beyond the residential accommodation that we are discussing, it is clear that substantial resources are locked up in those properties, which could be disposed of and the resources used for the benefit of patients in general.

Where will the NHS get the suitable accommodation from?

That will depend upon local circumstances.

What representations has my right hon. Friend received about NHS accommodation for young arthritically disabled children at the Wrightington hospital in Lancashire, bearing in mind the importance to local people of this regional centre of excellence, which the North-West area health authority proposes to close?

May I write to my hon. Friend on this matter? Clearly the individuals whom he he has in mind are not NHS employees.

The Minister said that no one would be evicted unless suitable alternative accommodation was offered. Is he aware that there are areas where there is no such suitable alternative accommodation? What happens if the offer is turned down? Who defines what is suitable?

That must be a matter for local judgment, but it is wholly reasonable that, as part of this policy, one should seek to make more effective use of the NHS estate. If someone is seeking unreasonably to prevent that from happening and suitable alternative accommodation is made available, he is being treated fairly.

Does the Minister accept that often, especially in rural areas where there are psychiatric hospitals well away from any conurbation, there is great difficulty in finding suitable alternative accommodation? In urban areas, where suitable accommodation may be available, because of the low salaries paid to those involved in the Health Service they cannot afford it.

More than 90 per cent. of qualified nurses do not live in such accommodation, and, as I said, the stress points are in the inner-city areas.

Is the Minister aware that up to 50,000 nurses and auxiliaries could be forced to leave their NHS homes within the next two years? Is he also aware that, contrary to the impression he has given, some health authorities have already jumped the gun and started to evict staff, even though they are supposed to have at least a year to make alternative arrangements? How can a third-year learner nurse on £4,500 a year find another home in London, where flats are at least £50 a week, which is almost her entire take-home pay?

The hon. Gentleman has his figures wrong. I made them clear, but the sort of figures he gave are wholly inaccurate. The intention is that provision should be made for all student nurses, but just under half the student nurses occupy such accommodation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to charge patients only the actual price of a prescription when the cost of the prescriptions is below the current prescription charge.

I have no present plans to change the arrangements for prescription charges.

Does the Minister recall that in April 1979 the prescription charge was 20p and that today, updated with inflation, it should be 40p? However, Government policy means that it is now £2·20 per item? How does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's statement that the National Health Service is safe in her hands? Even this Government should not charge people more than a prescription is worth.

The crucial aspect of the matter, which the hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged, is that about 75 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed entirely free of charge and that even 5 or 6 per cent. are dispensed under the season ticket arrangements. That leaves only about one in five prescriptions for which the full charge is payable.

Would it nevertheless be advisable to tell people who pay for their prescriptions that they can obtain them cheaper by going straight to the chemist? Would it not be better if they did not continually return to their doctors for prescriptions? It would save doctors' time and Health Service money.

When an item can be bought more cheaply without a prescription, that arrangement can be followed by the individual and the chemist concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that the Netley Castle convalescent home near Southampton remains open for National Health Service patients.

Management of this hospital is the responsibility of the Southampton and South-West Hampshire health authority, which yesterday considered its future use. I understand the authority decided that this hospital should remain open.

I have had to turn again to the Minister for support, as I have been campaigning for three or four months to ensure that the hospital remains open. However, I am delighted at the news announced after last night's meeting. Is he aware that my constituents, some of whom are cancer sufferers, have very much relied on that home for the past 10 or 15 years? I pay tribute to the care and attention given by the staff at the home, which is very highly regarded in my part of the world. May I tell the Minister that I am grateful that that decision has been reached.

I am somewhat overwhelmed, but I welcome and agree with the hon. Gentleman's points.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that quite admirable home is in my constituency and that I have looked after it for the past 31 years? [Interruption.] Is my hon. Friend further aware that virtually all of the home's patients come not from the Southampton/south-west Hampshire area but from the Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands? We are delighted about that, but the funding arrangements vis à vis areas that send patients to that home are for from adequate. Given the squeeze on Southampton and south-west Hampshire, the pressure is on to obtain a better contribution from the districts that use the home.

I am very happy to endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend who, over the past 31 years, has made a powerful contribution to his constituency. This year, the allocation to the Wessex area regional health authority, which involves that whole district, has been increased by 7·7 per cent. I very much hope that the authorities concerned will be able to fulfil my hon. Friend's wishes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in support of the Government's proposals for a general disability premium.

Responses are not generally in a form that can sensibly be used to provide a simple breakdown of views. But the proposed simpler structure, with the associated aim of improved regular weekly income support for less well-off sick and disabled people as a whole, is welcome. However, there are reservations about some aspects and we are giving continued consideration to how they may be overcome.

Does the Minister agree that several thousand of our most severely disabled people will suffer a cut of about 60 per cent. in their standard of living because of the proposals in the Social Security Bill? All the disability organisations have expressed concern. How does the hon. Gentleman square that with the Government's claim to be targeting those in greatest need of help?

I very much doubt the figures that the hon. Lady has given, although I know that they have been put forward. According to our latest information, about 2,500 claimants were receiving quite significant domestic assistance payments, but only to an average of £3·60, which does not correspond with the hon. Lady's information. I recognise the anxiety that exists, but we are trying to overcome it.

Will the Minister accept that the Government's proposals could inflict gratuitous extra hardship on some of the most severely disabled people in this country, and could force them into the sort of subhuman existence that Granada's "World in Action" documentary so strikingly exposed last night? Is he prepared to consider an as-of-right community care addition to meet the additional requirements of disabled people? Would it not be self-defeating as well as inhumane not to do so?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that sort of community care consideration is very much in our minds in relation to the social fund. I am reasonably confident that we can find a way of meeting the right hon. Gentleman's objectives and mine.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in support of the Government's proposals for a family credit scheme.

Many organisations and individuals responded to the proposals in the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security". The responses were not generally in a form permitting a simple breakdown of numbers for or against specific proposals, but many supported the main objectives of family credit, including the need to improve help for low-income families with children and the need to improve work incentives.

Will the Minister confirm that every women's organisation and every employer and trade union organisation representing women has protested in the strongest possible terms about this disgraceful proposal? Why do Tory Governments persist in treating women with contempt?

I cannot precisely confirm the hon. Gentleman's first observation. To say that we are treating women with contempt is a curious comment to make about a benefit that doubles the number of beneficiaries and ensures that every beneficiary gets more money than before. That is the sort of contempt most people would welcome.

Given that the trigger mechanism for activating family credit is identical to the trigger mechanism for family income supplement, but that it is no longer paid to the caring parent, is my hon. Friend satisfied that it will lead to a reduction in family poverty?

I understand the meaning behind my hon. Friend's remarks. I must point out to him that most two-parent working families rely on one wage and accept responsibility for deciding how to use it. There is no reason why that principle should not apply when family credit is part of the income.

What rate of take-up is anticipated for this benefit?

The take-up for family income supplement is about 50 per cent. We anticipate that family credit will have a 60 per cent. take-up. That, of course, is a matter of speculative judgment and one cannot be sure, but we are relatively confident that it will have a substantially higher take-up than family income supplement.

Does the Minister accept that Governments of various colours have recognised that this benefit ought to be paid to the woman? What made the Government decide to move away from that crucial principle?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the benefit. It forms a substantial element of help to low-income families. On that basis, it is entirely logical to illustrate its links with employment by payment in the fashion that we propose. We think that it will prove to be a popular benefit.

I endorse the sentiment underlying the idea of family credit. Has my hon. Friend received any representations from small employers expressing anxiety about the additional workload that will be placed upon them?

There is considerable misunderstanding about the amount of work that will fall to employers. We intend that the Department of Health and Social Security will make the calculations for family credit and the recalculations when a new period of benefit is due. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper for employers to comment upon and we shall enter into discussions with them about the way in which the benefit will work.

Does the Minister acknowledge that a more truthful answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) would have been "one"? Does he also acknowledge that about like 100,000 families who will lose their entitlement to free school meals are not likely to welcome this benefit, especially as their compensation, when offset against housing benefit, is likely to be about 44p a week?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to her hon. Friend. The hon. Lady mentioned school meals. She should bear in mind that the element of family credit that is applicable to school meals is £2·20 a week. Moreover, that is paid for 52 weeks of the year, whereas free school meals apply generally, but not inevitably, merely for 30 weeks of the year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that giving more financial assistance to parents with older children by means of family credit is an important step towards helping those greatly in need?

I entirely agree with that observation.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet received the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee concerning the eligibility of students to claim benefits; and if he will make a statement.

We received the committee's report at the end of last month and are giving it careful consideration.

Will the Minister publish the report as soon as possible? Does he agree that more and more students have been drawn into the social security net because of the inadequate level of student grants? Rather than taking from students the right to claim benefit, would it not be far more logical to put up student grants, so that students do not need to claim benefit? Does he not think that it would be grossly unfair if, as a result of these changes, students were forced down to the level of the social security safety net?

We shall publish the Social Security Advisory Committee's report at the normal time, that is, when we are publishing the Secretary of State's response to it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the proposition put to the SSAC was for an increase in the grant, countervailing some parts of the social security proposal.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is approaching the report, whatever it says, with an open mind, and not with a preconceived policy objective?

That may be implicit in the fact that we received the report towards the end of last month and are giving it careful consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of possible links between ill health and poverty.

It has been widely accepted for many years that there are differences in health experience between socio-economic groups. However, the causes of these differences have proved extremely difficult to establish and are certainly complex. Research in the area continues to be supported by the Medical Research Council, the Economic and the Social Research Council and by universities.

I do not know much about the Minister's constituency, but I know about my own, where some of the poorest people in Britain live. I know that the chances of my constituents' children surviving birth is lower than the national average, that they will have worse health than the national average, and that they will die earlier. What will the Minister do about that?

I do, indeed, know about my constituency, and I know something about the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Never has so much money been spent on health care in real terms as it now is in the Manchester area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the findings of both the Black report and the Holland report, linking poverty and ill health, show that there should be no delay in the provision of urgently needed new hospital facilities in Bolton?

We are continuing to provide new hospital facilities in the north-west region, which has one of the highest capital spending programmes of all the regional health authorities. Therefore, our concern is manifested by the real resources being devoted to new hospitals.

If the Minister acknowledges—he can scarcely do otherwise—that there are differences in health and life expectations between social classes, why are the Government not doing anything to implement the recommendations of the Black report, which clearly sets out proposals intended to reduce those differences?

The differences to which the hon. Gentleman refers have existed for many years and long before the Black report, which did not explain the causes. The proposals which have been implemented by the Government, for example the significant increase in expenditure on national health provision, and the expenditure on inner cities, the urban programme and such initiatives, clearly demonstrate effectively the Government's practical concern.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while there must always be a connection between a lack of facilities, wherever they are, and health problems, there are also genuine problems which are created by overindulgence in many different ways as a result of affluence?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of good health depends on healthy living styles, which we seek to promote directly through the Government and through the activities of the Government-funded Health Education Council. I agree with my hon. Friend that the level of income is by no means the deciding factor.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he gives to health authorities on the use of quota systems in ambulance services.

Our guidance on the provision of ambulance transport is based on criteria related to medical need. I understand that the Preston health authority has introduced a quota system for non-emergency services, but that there is no question of not meeting all cases of emergency medical need.

Will the Minister examine more closely the quota system which has been introduced for the whole of Lancashire? Will he stress to that authority that patients' needs are more important than cutting and saving cash? Will he make sufficient funds available to provide an adequate ambulance service for the people of Lancashire?

I shall reconsider the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. During the five years to 1984–85 the Government have increased ambulance provision nationally in real terms by 9·2 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet made an assessment of the resource implications of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The local authority associations were consulted on the likely cost of the Bill, if amended on the lines of the Government consultation paper issued in February. They estimated that cost as being in excess of £100 million in a full year. The associations and others are now being further consulted on the cost implications of the Bill in the form in which it received its Third Reading.

Is the Minister aware that his answer confirms the suspicions felt by me and by many of my hon. Friends that the Government do not intend to honour their commitments on this measure, which received massive support when it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)?. Are not the Government being a bit hypocritical in giving it an ostensibly warm welcome some two weeks ago, and in now saying that they cannot provide the resources for it?

There is no basis whatever for the hon. Gentleman's allegation. The Government, in completely good faith, have made it clear throughout that there were resource implications and that those implications would have to be considered in determining the date of the commencement orders.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.

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 widespread alarm about the reports of leaks from a nuclear installation in the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House and the nation that our own security checks and monitoring system will prevent such an occurrence in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is aware that we have very high standards of safety, design, construction. operation and maintenance of nuclear plants in the United Kingdom. There is a question tabled on this subject which will be answered later today. I would just like to reassure my hon. Friend that preliminary measurements have failed to detect any increase in the level of radioactivity in this country.

Because this is a serious accident at a Soviet nuclear power station, and because the Americans themselves have refused to build a pressurised water reactor in the United States for nine years due to anxieties about their safety, will the Prime Minister give the House an absolute assurance that there will be no decision about building a PWR at Sizewell until the full report on the American accident—[Interruption.]—has been given to the inspector and until there has been an opportunity for the House to take into account the very large number of issues raised, including leaks at Sellafield and the decision to sell British plutonium to America for its weapons programme?

The right hon. Gentleman is in a position to know the very high standard of safety which we exact in the construction of our nuclear plants and the very high standards of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. As I have already indicated, we are not in a position to make a full assessment, but there has been no increase in radioactivity in this country that we have been able to detect. We shall have to await the report on the inquiry into Sizewell before taking any action.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to correct the impression given by Kate Adey's report on BBC television that the stick of bombs that fell on some flats in Libya were aimed at a target approved by my right hon. Friend, when, in fact, they came from an aircraft damaged by anti-aircraft fire? The BBC showed none of the targets approved by my right hon. Friend as being used by those taking part in terrorism against this country and successfully struck in that attack.

My hon. Friend makes his own point very effectively. As I have indicated in previous statements, the parameters which we set for permission to use those aircraft were strictly confined to targets which had demonstrably been involved in terrorist attacks elsewhere. I believe that what my hon. Friend says is correct.

Does the Prime Minister still hold the view that she expressed on BBC on Sunday—that there is never any possible justification for terrorism and violence?

I do not wish to put a gloss on what I said in that interview. It was a long interview and I believe that I explained my views fully.

Since, as part of that full expression of the Prime Minister's views, she said that violence and terrorism are never justified in any circumstances, will she now join us in condemning the violence and terrorism of the Contras in Nicaragua and in condemning President Reagan for providing military and financial aid to that terrorism?

I also referred to that in the interview and I neither wish to add to nor detract from what I said.

It was because I heard the Prime Minister refer to that that I wanted to express the nation's contempt for her double standards in that matter and give her a second opportunity of joining with the Opposition in condemning all terrorism—terrorism in Nicaragua and Libya. Why does she not do that now?

Because the right hon. Gentleman will also recall that I said what our policy on Nicaragua was. It was to support the Contadora process and get out all advisers from Nicaragua, including the many thousands of Cubans.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to confirm that she supports the view of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding people in Britain that the police are doing an excellent job, often in difficult circumstances, and not the view of Sharon Atkin, the prospective Labour candidate for Nottingham, East, who tells us that they are on the rampage and out of control?

I join my hon. Friend in believing that the police do an excellent job in Britain, completely impartially. I condemn those politicians who never hesitate to take a chance of criticising the police and the powers that enable them to carry out their task.

When did the Prime Minister first learn of a plot to intimidate Mr. Gerry Gable of Searchlight magazine, and when was she told that a Conservative Member of Parliament was implicated in that allegation?

If the hon. Gentleman has any information of any kind he should give it to the police. Police matters, as he is well aware, are not for me.

Was not the Soviet Union's failure to give the earliest possible warning to neighbouring countries about the dangers of nuclear fallout, and to say nothing about the lack of advice to their own citizens, a most callous and irresponsible act? Will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to condemn that action of the Soviet Union, both directly and through the offices of the EEC and the United Nations?

As I say, there will be an answer to a private notice question later, but I understand that the Swedish and Finnish Governments were informed of the accident only after radioactive clouds had reached their territory. It is, of course, a duty upon an authority that belongs to the International Atomic Energy Agency to report accidents to that agency.

What help and advice have been requested of the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority in combating the fires that are now raging following the disaster in the Soviet Union yesterday? What transfrontier agreements exist between the Soviet Union and other countries for combating leaks of radioactive waste, and what agreements exist dealing with the disclosure of information after such leaks occur? Does the right hon. Lady not think that the disaster yesterday should cause us at least to reflect on the desirability of proceeding with the reprocessing of nuclear waste at Sellafield?

As I said, there is a reply to a private notice question, I believe, coming up later. We have not, as far as I am aware, received any requests for help, which is perhaps not surprising in all the circumstances. We are not in a position to make an assessment, and I have already indicated my views on the British nuclear industry, which has very high standards indeed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the apparently small increase in the old-age pension this July is caused by the fact that it is an interim increase, with a further amount due next April? Does she further agree that this Government's record in caring for the old-age pensioner is second to none, not least by bringing down the rate of inflation to a level that would have been declared to be both impossible and unattainable by the Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is correct. The increase that takes place in July is an interim increase following the major increase last November, which was £2·50 for a single pensioner and £4 a week for a married couple. There will, of course, be a further increase next April. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is a great advantage to pensioners and to their savings to get down the rate of inflation. I hope that that advantage will continue. It will, for as long as we have a Conservative Government.

Does the Prime Minister agree that had the increase in the pension continued to be based on the increase in inflation or earnings, whichever was the greater, as was the case under the Labour Government, the average pensioner would be several pounds a week better off now?

Yes, but a Labour Government would have been broke long before they could implement their policy. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the pension under a Conservative Government buys more than it did after the last increase of Labour.

In view of the wide appreciation in the United States of my right hon. Friend's support for the Libyan bombing, will she take the opportunity at this week's summit to ask President Reagan whether he will take further steps to curb the activities of Noraid, which promotes and subsidises terrorism in parts of the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is correct. Of course this subject will be discussed at the summit and in the margins of the summit. I should like to thank both the President and most—indeed, all—Members of the Administration for the strenuous efforts that they have made to condemn terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland and to stop any finances corning from the United States to feed that terrorism. I shall make the point again to the President, and hope that the Senate will pass the extradition treaty.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.

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

Does the Prime Minister recognise that the concern expressed following the accident at the nuclear power station in the Soviet Union obviously expresses the concern that everybody feels about such accidents? Will the Prime Minister recognise that international action is required, and will she initiate action under principle 21 of the United Nations declaration on the human environment of 1972—[Interruption.]

I wish that I could have heard all the hon. Gentleman's question, but, as I indicated, there will be replies to supplementary questions on a private notice question afterwards. The record of our own nuclear industry is absolutely superb. If there are any accidents overseas of the kind that we have seen in the Soviet Union, they should be reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency, so that the lessons can be learnt universally.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider how best to use her very considerable abilities and standing in the world to persuade the USSR to abolish the use and production of chemical and biological weapons, so that the United States does not feel it necessary to develop binary weapons?

Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State had something to say about this yesterday. The Soviet Union possesses over 300,000 tonnes of chemical warfare agents. Like the United States, we in Britain are committed to seeking a negotiated ban, and a successful outcome to the Geneva talks would obviate the need for the United States to pursue modernisation. The fact that the Soviet Union has continued to build up its stockpile, while no United States weapons have been produced since 1969, is conclusive proof that one-sided disarmament does not work.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time to reflect on, and explain to the country, what she sees as the moral difference between killing and maiming innocents by exploding bombs underneath them, and killing and maiming innocents by throwing bombs on their heads?

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that one must never be prepared to use force against those who attack us with force, he is giving in to terrorism.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions. As is so often the case, it took the Opposition Front Bench three attempts to make a point that a Back-Bencher would have had to make in one. Was it in order for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to have made his third attempt in a form that was not even a question?

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that a certain latitude is always given to the Front Benches.