asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase resources for hospital, nursing and ancillary geriatric services for Leicestershire; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the funding of the National Health Service in Leicestershire.

In real terms the 1986–87 Hospital and Community Health Services revenue allocation to Leicestershire is 34 per cent. higher than the 1978–79 expenditure. There has also been significant real terms growth in funding for the family practitioner services. In Leicestershire, as in the country as a whole, the development of services for the elderly has a high priority and there are plans for a substantial additional investment in these services.

I welcome the plans to which the Minister referred. However, will he please be specific as to the provision of geriatric beds, of which we are desperately short, to the extent that a constitutent of mine, about whom I shall write to the Minister, would probably be alive today had there been a bed for him? Will he undertake to conduct an inquiry into that case when I write to him, and will he give us details so that the people of Leicestershire may have some hope of real improvement in geriatric care?

I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman at least acknowledged the substantial increase in real resources which has been directed to Leicestershire during the lifetime of this Government. In 1985–86 there has been a temporary reduction in geriatric beds due to repair and upgrading work, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. However, 37 beds at Leicestershire General will be back in use soon, and a massive injection of resources is planned for the period up to 1993–94—a 42 per cent. increase in revenue and about £33 million worth of capital development—for services specifically for the elderly. Total manpower, including trained nurses and professions allied to medicine, is increasing and they will all make their contribution to improve services for the elderly in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the RAWP formula helped to raise Leicestershire from a miserable 75 per cent. of the national average in 1974 to 93 per cent. last year? Will he give an assurance that if the RAWP formula is discontinued in order to help London he will find some other clear method to help Leicestershire get to the national average by 1993?

My hon. Fr-tend is right to draw attention to the way in which the RAWP formula has led to a significant improvement in the relative position of Leicestershire and the Trent region. The Trent region has received a real increase of 27 per cent. in its hospital and community health services revenue, whereas the average for England has been 20 per cent. and, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, in the Thames region it has been only 13 per cent. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain committed to the principles of RAWP, but they are properly reviewing the criteria, looking especially at matters such as inner city deprivation, the particular requirements of teaching hospitals, and so on, so that the RAWP formula is properly based.

If Leicestershire has been benefiting so substantially from the Government's policies, why are 7,582 people there waiting for hospital treatment an increase, and why are 1,088 women waiting for gynaecological treatment in Leicestershire?

Just think what the position would have been if the resources available to Leicestershire had remained at the level that we inherited from the previous Government. It would be very much worse than it is at present.

We have an excellent cottage hospital in Ashby de la Zouch, which at present has only five beds for maternity cases. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will remain open and available for the people of Ashby?

I would certainly give considerable attention to any representations from my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about mobility allowances for blind people; and if he will make a statement.

We receive a wide range of representations on mobility allowance, but l am not aware of recent representations on behalf of blind people generally.

In view of the confusion that has arisen from certain recent cases, will my hon. Friend undertake to review the rules for mobility allowance, especially for those who are functionally incapable of being independently mobile?

I have seen my hon. Friend's early-day motion, and I pay tribute to the way in which he has pursued the case of Daniel Heaton. However, he will understand the difficulties, in that he is asking us to widen the criteria for mobility allowance in a way that would have substantial resource implications.

Is the Minister aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are under increasing pressure to secure the mobility allowance for blind people? Is he further aware that mentally handicapped people and those with multiple handicaps who cannot walk unaided feel that they are unjustly deprived of the allowance? Will he reconsider the whole matter and make a statement soon?

The fact that the problem goes beyond blind people to those with directional problems generally is precisely why I said what I did in my initial answer. The right hon. Gentleman, above all, knows the original purposes for which mobility allowance was introduced, and will take the point that I made in my original answer.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although those with double sensory handicaps, such as the deaf blind, are few in number, they face grave mobility problems and need just as much help as those in wheelchairs? Does he accept that the present criteria, which involve an acceptance of danger to such people and others, certainly applies to that group?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's efforts in this area. His mention of wheelchairs—at present there is a strong demand for the addition of outdoor, powered, occupant-controlled wheelchairs in the DHSS range—shows the problem of choosing priorities in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the disposal of National Health Service residential accommodation for nurses and others.

There have been virtually none since I announced that the policy of rationalising the Health Service's holdings of residential accommodation will be so administered that no one who lives in such accommodation will be made homeless as a result.

Does the Secretary of State recall the Adjournment debate on this matter on 23 May, when the Minister for Health gave an undertaking that no one would be evicted from accommodation unless he or she was offered suitable alternative accommodation? Who will decide whether the accommodation is adequate in terms of rent, distance from the hospital and other matters? Will it be the Minister, the health authority or the nurse concerned? Will there be a right of appeal or arbitration on the matter?

My right hon. Friend the Minister said that no one would be made homeless, that is that no one would be required to move without being offered a suitable alternative place in which to live. He also said that the NHS management board had been asked to review conditions under which staff occupy Health Service accommodation. Pending that review, health authorities are being asked not to implement plans that involve giving staff notice to quit.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in the south-east in particular there is real difficulty because of the extraordinarily high price of housing? At the same time there is a good deal of surplus NHS property. How will my right hon. Friend handle the matter in the south-east?

I acknowledge the issue that my hon. Friend raises. We want to ensure that health authorities have sufficient accommodation for student nurses, junior doctors, and other trainees, to bring accommodation up to a reasonable standard and to improve the standards of accommodation. We also want to sell surplus accommodation which is standing empty. That state of affairs cannot be defended, and the sale will go ahead.

The reassurances which the Minister gave last week and which have been repeated today by the Secretary of State, are welcome. If other accommodation is offered as being suitable, surely there should be some system of review.

I am perfectly happy to look at that. We are reviewing the whole property management issue. I will ensure that the point is considered.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of staff who have given long service to the Charing Cross hospital in Fulham have been threatened with homelessness as a result of eviction from homes they occupy? Is he also aware that the number of nurses in the area is severely impaired by the lack of adequate accommodation there? What does the Secretary of State propose to do?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said he would know that, pending the review, health authorities have been asked not to implement plans that involve giving staff notice to quit under the residential accommodation rationalisation process. I hope that now he will be able to assure his constituents that that is the policy, and not spread rumours that are untrue.

When the disposal of surplus accommodation is considered, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problems that would arise in rural areas, such as at Ladysbridge hospital in my constituency, where the accommodation is essential to attract staff to care for mental and psychiatric patients? Will sympathetic consideration be given to the disposal of accommodation, bearing in mind the need to ensure that adequate accommodation is provided for such staff?

We want to ensure that health authorities have enough accommodation for student nurses, junior doctors and other trainees. That remains the policy. We want to see that accommodation improved. I think my hon. Friend would agree that property that is standing empty should be sold if there is no use for it. He might also agree that if the tenants occupying such property want the right to buy, they should be given that right. That is what we are achieving.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to conclude his consideration of the report of Social Services Advisory Committee on students' eligibility to benefits.

Shortly, I hope.

Will the Minister confirm that the report is a damning indictment of the Government's policy and that it makes it absolutely clear that it would be a major breach of social security policy to ensure that a group of people, namely students, fall below the safety net which is set by social security measures? The Government have a simple solution to the problem, which is to restore the student grant to its 1979 level, which would mean that far fewer students would need to apply for social security to supplement their grant.

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. As the report has not yet been published, I do not know on what basis he rests his remarks. The Government are determined that the social security system should treat students fairly and sensibly within the context of policy towards students as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, because the housing benefit system was never designed to support the accommodation costs of students, there is a strong case for moving away from the heavy reliance on that system which has developed? Does he agree that in a year when the student grant increase has been restricted to 2 per cent., however, that may not necessarily be the best time to embark upon such a path? Would it not be better to do it progressively over a period?

I think there would be general agreement with my hon. Friend that, in the long run, it must be sensible to move away from the position in which we now find ourselves. I accept that the difficulty is finding a method of moving in that way which is fair and sensible, as I said earlier.

Does the Minister accept that students gain entitlement to such benefits only because they get the qualifications under the label of poverty? Does he not think that it would be heaping hardship upon hardship if he were to take away such benefits without giving anything in return through the student grant?

That is not strictly true. One of the difficulties is that the calculation of housing benefit for students is done in a way more favourable to them than to other claimants on similar incomes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the financial situation facing some students is very serious and that their ability to obtain part-time employment during vacations may vary from one area to another? Students in the north-east, for example, might find it extremely difficulty to get jobs. Should not the benefit system be so devised as to ensure that all students have an adequate standard of living to enable those undertaking serious study to do all the work required in order to obtain the qualifications that will be to their benefit and to that of our country?

I note my hon. Friend's very general proposition. I am sure he is aware that in the proposals for consultation there is no question of withdrawing students' rights to supplementary benefit in appropriate circumstances during the long vacations. We have made a proposition concerning only the short vacations.

Is the Minister aware that given the Government's policy of reducing the student grant in real terms, and the social security provisions, some students cannot cope? Why did the Government set their face against student loans when they are now introducing them in the guise of overdrafts?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the Government's proposition was an increase in student grant alongside changes in social security provision. An important part of the package was an improvement in students' rights in relation to the disregards for housing benefit purposes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science should ride in tandem on the question of student grants? Is it not time that they got together to hold a full review of the student grant system?

It is precisely because we are anxious to consider such questions, both within the DHSS and with Ministers in the Department of Education and Science, that we are taking the proper amount of time to consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with administrative staffing levels in the National Health Service.

We are concerned that administrative and clerical staffing levels in the National Health Service should be controlled so that resources can be concentrated on direct patient care. The contribution of administrative staff to the running of the service is necessary and valuable, but I believe that there is still scope for improvements in the use and efficiency of this staff group. The National Health Service management board is, therefore, conducting a review of administrative and clerical staffing to see what further action is needed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In the South-East Thames region there are three administrators for every one doctor, and the administration is taking far too big a share of the resources. As a result, hospitals such as the Erith and District hospital in my constituency, which provides community care, do not obtain enough cash to provide the necessary service in the area. I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but hope that he will do even more to rectify the situation.

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, and I read with interest his exchanges with the chairman of the regional health authority. In making this judgment it is important to understand that, under the general heading of administrative and clerical staff, an important contribution is made by the clinically related administrative staff and, for example, by mental health care assistance.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that those who are prematurely retired from the National Health Service are not re-employed in the same class of work? Two sittings ago the Public Accounts Committee drew attention to some of the confusion that was apparent in the records of the NHS and of the Minister's Department.

I take due note of that point. Indeed, I believe that action has been taken in response to the PAC's observations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that administrative staff in the NHS are often much maligned? Is he aware that they include such people as ward clerks and medical secretaries, who provide the essential back-up for doctors, nurses and other paramedical staff, payroll clerks of what is now the largest employer in western Europe, and such other good people as chairmen of district health authorities and general managers, who were introduced under Conservative legislation? Is it not time that we stopped being quite so rude about administrative staff and recognised the work that they do?

I am happy to agree with that general point. Just as we have significantly increased the number of doctors, dentists, nursery and midwifery staff, and professional and technical staff within the NHS, so, at the same time, there has been an increased need for back-up staff to reinforce those efforts.

The north-west region is appointing a growing army of public relations officers—I believe that three have been appointed in the past six months. What possible contribution do they make to health care? When will the Minister deal with the financing of the north-west region, where money is frittered away on, for example, public relations officers while wards and whole hospitals are being closed and nurses are being asked to take premature retirement?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the funding of the north-west region is increasing significantly above the rate of inflation. The employment of the administrative and clerical staff is one of those areas to be investigated by the management board review.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's latest proposals to abolish or reduce the registration and inspection of private nursing homes will put thousands of vulnerable elderly and handicapped persons at risk? Will the Government withdraw that proposal, in the light of the recent appalling revelations about Oriel Lodge in Suffolk, which combines just about everything that can be wrong in the private sector—gross maltreatment of patients, an almost total lack of supervision and exploitive profits of £130,000 a year, made from just 10 mentally handicapped, helpless persons?

As so often happens, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There are no such proposals. As to the performance of nursing homes, I am not surprised, but disappointed, that the hon. Gentleman concentrates his attack on the private sector while ignoring the deficiencies that are sadly all too often found in the statutory sector, of which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) could tell him.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding staff levels at Department of Health and Social Security offices.

Staffing levels in local social security offices are a matter of constant concern to the Government. We take careful account of the representations which are received from various sources which include organisations representing the staff both locally and nationally. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that an additional 5,000 staff have been added above complement for the current year.

Will these 5,000 additional jobs be in DHSS offices to enable them to ensure that claimants get the money to which they are entitled? Is not the situation throughout the country much as it is in Burnley, where there are now fewer staff dealing with three times the number of claimants as in 1979? Is this not disgraceful, as people are not getting the benefits to which they are entitled?

We are determined to deliver a cost-effective and efficient social security system, and we shall provide the staff for that purpose.

When will the hon. Gentleman start?

As to when we shall start, that is a substantial part of the social security review, which may have bypassed the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). In Burnley there has been an increase of 12½ people over the 1985–86 natural work load complement.

Will my hon. Friend look at staffing levels in the city of Leicester, and particularly in the three local DHSS offices, which, after doing an excellent job, are facing a crisis as to whether they should continue with overtime or bring in casual labour to do the work that has been well carried out?

We are carrying out a full complement review of staffing and the effect of that will be shown in the offices next year.

Is the Minister aware that, despite a large increase in the number of claimants at local DHSS offices, as in the Kingsbury road in my constituency, the staffing levels are below those of 1979? Can he assure us that the four extra staff allocated to the Kingsbury road DHSS offices will be sufficient to deal efficiently with the number of people claiming benefits there?

I shall examine the position in the office quoted by the hon. Gentleman. With the 5,000 staff that have been approved, the national complement is now greater than it was in 1979. The hon. Gentleman might care to bear in mind that the equivalent of about 6,890 posts are no longer needed because of changes in procedures on statutory sick pay, housing benefit and postal review.

Is it not the case that the bold and excellent proposals being made to reform the social security system are designed to increase the number of people who will understand the system, raise the level of claims made and received and make the use of staff more efficient? Is this not the way to go, rather than piling more staff upon more in a system that is breaking down?

My hon. Friend is right. In addition to his catalogue, the review will also ensure that we can deliver an efficient social security system. That is our intention.

Is the Minister aware that cuts of 10,000 jobs at DHSS offices since 1979, together with a near trebling of work loads as a result of soaring unemployment, has produced a plummeting of morale to the lowest level perhaps since 1948? Is he further aware that in one north London office, for example, it takes at least four weeks even for claims for urgent needs payments to be dealt with, even for household disabled persons with no income? How long do the Government intend to allow staff to remain so grossly overworked, undertrained and underpaid?

As ever, if one shows the hon. Gentleman a top, he will go well over it, and he has done so yet again. He clearly did not hear what I said a moment ago. Recently we authorised a substantial increase of 5,000 in complement. In addition, there has been a reduction in work load equivalent to nearly 7,000 jobs because of substantial changes in procedure. Further, if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about delivering a good system, he might have given us a little more support, in the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Bill, for the reform that we are making.

Is the Minister satisfied that the authorisation of 5,000 extra staff will be sufficient to meet the strong reservations expressed by the private consultants' report which was commissioned by his Department one and a half years ago on the staffing, training and retraining implications of the social security review?

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question arises on a later question today. If the 5,000 additional staff are insufficient to deliver the service required, that will be revealed by the complement review that is now going on, and we shall deal with the result of the review at the end of this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of which provisions of the Social Security Act 1985 draft regulations are still to be published.

There are only two sets of regulations arising from the Social Security Act 1985 which remain to be published. These are regulations under section 3 of the Act concerning disclosure of information by occupational pension schemes and regulations under section 5 of the Act concerning managers of occupational pension schemes. Six sets of regulations dealing with new rights for early leavers of occupational pension schemes were made in December 1985 and have come into effect this year.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his reply, which suggests the near completion of a successful exercise under the 1985 Act and indicates the outcome of a similar major exercise on what will undoubtedly be the 1986 Act. May I, however, draw his attention to the effects of one regulation, namely, the recent publication of the names of those advising the Secretary of State on personal pensions, and point out that not one person on that advisory panel can be said to represent the consumer interest?

My right hon. Friend's advisory group is advising him on technicalities. There will, of course, be consultation with consumer interests. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the passage of the earlier sets of regulations. Of those still outstanding, I am pleased to tell him that we expect to publish and lay the disclosure regulations this month and bring them into effect later this year. Consultation is almost concluded on the regulations concerning managers of occupational pension schemes. We shall lay those regulations as soon as possible.

I am not surprised that the Minister was grateful to his hon. Friend for congratulations on publishing regulations when he has just said that he expects the disclosure regulations to be published—did he say this month? That is presumably a post-date from the original date of Easter, which was a post-date from the original date of January. If the regulations for this year's Social Security Bill are published with the dexterity, speed and competence of those for the 1985 Act, we shall still be doing the regulations in 1992.

It would perhaps be indelicate to remind the hon. Lady of how long the Labour Government took to lay regulations after the Social Security Act 1975, but it was substantially longer than has been taken in recent months. There will be a number of consequential regulations under the 1986 Act. We shall consult and publish these as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I assure the hon. Lady that Royal Assent will be given.

Will my hon. Friend resist the temptation to be pushed along by the hon. Member for Derby. South (Mrs. Beckett) in the matter of disclosure regulations? Will he bear in mind the importance of ensuring that when they are introduced they do not impose onerous burdens on small schemes that make them more difficult to operate? Will he concentrate on getting them right, rather than on introducing them quickly?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that the regulations are right. There may be a minor burden on schemes, but we are concerned primarily to ensure that the regulations enshrine existing good practice and that members of schemes have a rght, first, to know their entitlement, and, secondly, to know how the schemes are being managed.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet members of Wandsworth district health authority to discuss his proposal to close St. James's hospital.

This is not a proposal of my right hon. Friend and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene at this stage. All health authorities are required to consult formally on any proposals for closure or change of use of health premises. The Secretary of State will certainly take account of all the views expressed locally should a proposal come to him for final decision in due course. In the meantime, the hon. Member may wish to keep in contact with the chairman of Wandsworth district health authority on the matter.

Is the Minister aware that the Health Service in south London, particularly in Lambeth and Wandsworth, is in a state of chaos? The ambulance service cannot meet needs, hospitals are being closed temporarily and in-patient admissions are being cancelled at the last minute. Against this background, the suggestion that a much-needed and much-loved local hospital should he closed because of a lack of resources for Wandsworth is surely unthinkable. Is it not for the Minister to say to the health authority, "You can have the money. We do not want this hospital to be closed"?

No, Sir, I am not so aware. If the hon. Gentleman refers to a debate that took place a week or two ago he will see a statement on the future development of London's ambulance services. He will be aware of the new facilities that are becoming available within Wandsworth, such as the exciting new facilities at St. George's hospital.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the response of financial institutions to the personal pensions proposals in the Social Security Bill.

Yes. Insurance companies and the new providers like building societies and unit trusts are showing an encouraging and increasing interest in personal pensions.

I accept that it will most often be appropriate for people to remain within good occupational schemes, but does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that in future there is to be a choice? Will he join me equally in suggesting to the established pension funds that instead of complaining about the 2 per cent. incentive that is being given to the new personal pension arrangements they should welcome competition, on the basis that whichever scheme may be effected there is every reason to expect that competition will bring a better return?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. At present there are about 10 million or 11 million people without an occupational pension scheme of their own or without a personal pension. The current legislation gives them the right to choose. All the experience of other countries, notably the United States, is that competition between different providers takes charges down, and I think that that is what will happen in this country.

Is there any possibility that the private sector will be able to devise a system of private pensions for the marauding anarchists who are causing so much distress in the west country at present? The public at large cannot perceive why these people should be getting taxpayers' money.

I entirely understand what my hon. Friend has said and sympathise with it. I think he will agree with me, however, that it has precious little to do with personal pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on current steps being taken to provide screening facilities for breast cancer.

The United Kingdom expert working group under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Patrick Forrest is now considering the policy options for breast cancer screening. Its final report will be ready later this year and I shall announce the Government's response as quickly as possible.

Will that inquiry, and will the Government's thinking on the matter, take into account international studies that show clearly that of the 10,000 or more deaths from breast cancer, over 30 per cent. are avoidable and preventable? Does he accept that more must therefore be done by the Government centrally directing funds and centrally directing Health Service thinking towards prevention, especially of mammagraphic abnormalities?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support the work being done by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest and his colleagues. Their interim report shows that there was a convincing case, on clinical grounds. for a change in United Kingdom policy on the provision of mammographic facilities and the screening of symptom-less women aged 50 and over. The committee is now considering the policy options, their costs, benefits and overall implications for the National Health Service. We expect that report towards the end of the year. We will come to a decision quickly after the report is published and announce our conclusions to the House.

What I think the House would like to know is whether one additional woman will be screened as a result of the Government's initiative.

Yes, that will happen. If we examine the record on these matters, which was set out fully in a debate on 5 February, it is clear that the Labour party has no claim worth hearing on this issue, if we compare its record with that of successive Conservative Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has now received the Ernst and Whinney report on his Department's manning levels necessary to implement the provisions of the Social Security Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The study to which the hon. Member refers was carried out last year concurrently with the consultation period on the Social Security Green Paper proposals. The report was delivered to the Department in October 1985. It provided an independent initial view, to complement management's assessment, of the broad staffing implications of the then Green Paper proposals prior to the preparation of the White Paper and the Social Security Bill.

The Minister will be aware of the implications of the Social Security Bill that is passing through the other place. Will he assure the House that the Ernst and Whinney report will be published? The operational aspects of the changes are very important and will have far-reaching consequences. What plans do the Government have to publish the changes, so that the public can be made aware of what is to be expected when the system is implemented?

The Ernst and Whinney study was only one of a number of studies—the others being made internally—that were carried out on staffing matters. It would be misleading to publish the study carried out on the Green Paper, as there have been structural alterations of some substance to the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage in 1978.

Total health care spending in the United Kingdom represented 6·1 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1984; the corresponding figure for 1978 was 5·3 per cent. In 1984, 5·5 per cent. of GDP was spent on the National Health Service as compared to 4·9 per cent. in 1978.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures show the high priority that the Government have given to the National Health Service compared to that given to the service by their predecessors?

Yes. The figures show that we are spending substantially more resources than were spent by the previous Labour Government. We are building more hospitals and, above all, we are treating more patients. That shows the Government's commitment to the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the latest extent of parallel importing of drugs prescribed under the National Health Service.

I regret that firm figures about parallel imported medicines dispensed under the National Health Service are not available, but unofficial estimates of between £80 million—£90 million a year have been published.

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he may be underestimating the extent of parallel importing, and that consequentially he is over-remunerating those pharmacists who have access to these drugs? Will he do more to investigate officially the extent of parallel importing and try to prevent this unfairness?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the Department is about to hold a new inquiry into discounts enjoyed by retail pharmacists. This will take into account all discounts in the market place, including parallel imports.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to establish the procedures provided for in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill for assessment to be made before people are released into the community from psychiatric institutions; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot say. As my hon. Friend will be aware, parliamentary consideration of the Bill is not yet completed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, sadly, psychiatrically sick people have been released into the community without assessment who are incapable of living adequately, who break up their beds, and who terrorise their neighbours? Is it not wrong for people to be released into the community unless they are assessed as having the proper capability to live adequately in the community, often in built-up areas?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties, and that is why we have been anxious to co-operate with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) over the Bill.

Is the Minister aware that the clause dealing with proper arrangements for hospital discharge was given an enthusiastic reception by' those who responded to the Government's document? Will he accept that that clause will lack real meaning unless it embraces joint assessments as between hospital managers and social services departments?

As the hon. Gentleman is obviously aware, there is some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the clause, and further discussion of that matter is going on at the moment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that last year in the northern region over 23,500 jobs were lost in heavy manufacturing industry? Today, Swan Hunter is announcing massive redundancies, on top of those already announced in the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry and the engineering industry, and the last shipbuilding and ship repair facility in my constituency is virtually at an end. When will the Government do something to save our industrial base, or is the right hon. Lady prepared to sit back and allow the country to become what Napolean once described at "a nation of shopkeepers"?

Yes, the north-east has suffered because there was a concentration of heavy industries there. That is why regional aid is concentrated on that area, to try to get extra help to go there. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the order for the second oiler replenshment vessel was brought forward especially for Swan Hunter, subject to price. It had the second of the type 23 frigates, again subject to price, and it can bid for a further two type 23 frigates. So there are good possibilities for Swan Hunter if it can manufacture down to the price.

Will my right hon. Friend now accept the recommendation of the Treasury and Civil Services Select Committee that the House should have an opportunity to debate public expenditure before the beginning of the annual review, rather than after it is all over? In particular, should we not have an opportunity to express our views on priorities, particularly, for example, with regard to the overseas aid programme, following the tremendous public response to the Sport Aid exercise?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be in order if he makes a speech on any matter relating to public expenditure in the debate on economic policies later today. With regard to overseas aid, particularly as it relates to Africa, I should point out that last year we spent about £550 million, taking into account those sums which were put through the multilateral agencies and our bilateral aid.

What pressure does the Prime Minister propose to exert on President Reagan to persuade him not to abandon the SALT II agreement and thus jeopardise the prospect of an autumn summit?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we regard it as important that the SALT II agreement continues to be observed, and observed by both sides. That is precisely what it means. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that when President Reagan gave warning that unless the Soviet Union complies with SALT II he would make different arrangements from November, he at the same time dismantled two Poseidon submarines in accordance with SALT II. We wish SALT II still to be regarded on both sides, and we hope that it will continue to be so.

Will the Prime Minister now at least attempt to answer the question? Does she believe that the President should abandon SALT II, or does she believe that what I think she calls "the Russian case to answer" is in itself justification for abrogation?

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman will never say anything about the Soviet Union not complying with SALT II. Never, never, never. I make it perfectly clear that I hope that SALT II will continue to be observed on both sides. President Reagan has just observed SALT II by breaking up two Poseidon submarines in accordance with SALT II. I hope that both sides will continue to comply.

The House and the country know perfectly well why the Prime Minister will not give a straight answer to that straight question. Why does she so regularly humiliate herself and this country by always dancing to President Reagan's tune? Does she not think that in the matter of world peace she has a duty to speak for this country, rather than wait to be told what to say by the President of the United States?

The right hon. Gentleman is talking utter nonsense. I hope that SALT II will continue to be observed. The United States is observing SALT II by dismantling two Poseidon submarines. It has left the door open for the Soviet Union to comply with SALT II. I hope that it will do so, because there is a clear opportunity for the Soviet Union to respond positively.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the Dorset police for the firm but fair way in which they handled this so-called peace convoy at the weekend? At the same time, will she accept that most people are puzzled that such trespass and such disruption of a weekend and of our highways can be allowed to continue?

Yes. I share my hon. Friend's distaste for this whole matter. If by any chance the law on trespass is inadequate, we shall have to consider amending it.

How can President Reagan expect Mr. Gorbachev to visit him in Washington in December if in November President Reagan increases the number of cruise missiles on the B52 aeroplanes? Surely the Prime Minister ought to show her convictions at the Dispatch Box and make it clear that the abandonment of SALT II would be a disaster and that her Government would not support that.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it equally clear that if there is an agreement it has to be complied with by both sides. The United States is complying with it. It has given a number of details where it thinks the Soviet Union is not complying with it. The reply from the Soviet Union has not dealt with those non-compliance points. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least agree that both sides must comply with the agreement, and the United States is doing so.

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), while I am delighted that my right hon. Friend will look at the question of trespass and the law, may I ask whether she is satisfied that the law is being obeyed to the extent that benefits are being properly paid to these hippies? Is she satisfied that their children are being properly educated within the law and that the health legislation is being properly enforced by the health authorities?

As my hon. Friend knows, matters such as vehicle registration are wholly matters for the police. He asked about the benefits that these people receive. So that there should be no possibility of fraud or of people appearing at one benefit office having received benefit from another, there is a social security officer attached to them to see that duplication does not occur. [Interruption.] I had exactly the same reaction as Opposition Members when I read that, but then I was told that there was a tendency for these people to apply to one office and go on to another one and apply again. The social security authorities thought it important to take action to avoid that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

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

What credence can the Prime Minister place in the reasons that President Reagan has given for withdrawing from the SALT treaty, when he personally misled her over the accuracy of F111 bombers on the raid on Libya?

I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion. He asked what credence I place in the United States agreement on SALT II. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, and I have repeated it several times, that when the President made the announcement he simultaneously acted in accordance with SALT II by dismantling and breaking up two Poseidon submarines. One could have no better evidence than that.

When the Cabinet discusses public expenditure in the near future, will my right hon. Friend look in particular at a number of housing aspects, including the desirability of phasing out all bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the homeless, which is both expensive and unnecessary? Will she also consider the reintroduction of improvement grants at a higher level, as they are a classic illustration of the way in which public money can stimulate greater private investment?

I notice that if my hon. Friend is proposing additional expenditure he carefully proposes economies equal to the additional expenditure. I hope that his example will be followed by all right hon. and hon. Members.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list those characteristics of F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom which rendered their use essential for the United States' attack on Libya.

The F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom provided the best equipped means of carrying out the United States operation against specific terrorist targets in Libya, with the lowest possible risk of Libyan civilian and United States service casualties. As the United States has indicated, the F111 possesses advanced avionics and other capabilities which made it particularly suitable for such a mission.

Will the Prime Minister name the senior American, or Americans, who told her that the F111 is were more precise than the carrier-based aircraft?

That was the advice that we received both from across the Atlantic and from home.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had not given permission for the F111 s to be utilised, the Americans would have gone ahead, used less accurate aircraft and there would have been more civilian casualties?

As I said when I spoke to the House on this matter, I understand that the raid would have gone ahead in any event.

The Prime Minister referred to the United Kingdom's aid budget to Africa.

Order. The question is about the F111.

What effect has the raid had on Colonel Gaddafi's ability to wage international terrorism?

I believe that the raid had a great effect. I believe that it showed that the United States was prepared to use force in self-defence against terrorism. That in itself is a salutary warning.

Will the Prime Minister say what kind of self-defence should be conducted by the Nicaraguan Government against the terrorist in the White House?

Order. That does not relate to this question, which is about Libya. It is a definitive question.

As the United States believed that it was necessary to use F111s——

Order. The hon. Member is wasting time.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr. Bob Geldof's vivid description of the Foreign Secretary's speech at the United Nations? However crudely it was put, was it not a fair and just assessment of the cant and hypocrisy of this Government's aid to the Third world, compared with the Live Aid events? Does the right hon. Lady realise that her Government are now branded as a Government without compassion?

There are 550 million reasons why that assertion is not true. I have already said that £550 million was given by the taxpayer, through this Government, to Africa in one year both in bilateral and in multilateral aid. That was a generous contribution to the problems of that troubled continent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread public support for her restatement this afternoon of the mutual obligations under the SALT II treaty? Does she agree that treaties lightly cast aside may be lightly entered into?

Treaties should not be lightly entered into. This one was not lightly entered into. It was never ratified by the United States, because in the meantime the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, which country it still occupies. Nevertheless, the United States has continued to observe the treaty and I believe that it is anxious that both sides should continue to observe it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

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

As the Prime Minister has shown concern about litter in our streets when viewing from a car window and has asked that something be done about it, I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would consider at long last travelling by British Rail? If she looked out of the window she would see the litter of industrial devastation that the economic policies of her Government have perpetuated, and she might do something about that too.

With regard to the implications of the question, an initiative will shortly be announced on improving the environment with regard to litter. With regard to the greater matter, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, regional aid is now slanted towards creating more jobs in those regions, and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has taken extensive action, all of which the hon. Gentleman will find set out extensively in the new booklet "Action for Jobs".