asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time between the receipt of applications for state pensions and the issue of pension books; and if he will make a statement.

Invitations to claim retirement pension are issued four months before pension age. This period is normally sufficient to allow for any necessary inquiries to be made, for the claim to be decided and for an order book to be issued in time for payment on the due date.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment on the normal time. Is he aware of the anxiety that a number—admittedly, a minority—of pensioners experience if their books are not issued by that date? Will my hon. Friend investigate the reasons for any delays at Newcastle?

I am aware of that anxiety. As far as I am aware, it is not a significant problem at Newcastle. Where it does occur, there is absolute provision for a Girocheque to be issued to the beneficiary so that he does not have a delayed payment of pension.

Regarding the issue of Girocheques, is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the possibility of a change being made in the way in which people living in residential institutions receive their pensions? Can he give an assurance that no change will be to the detriment of their independence over their own money?

That matter arises on a later question today. We are still considering the results of the consultation paper that we issued. I can assure my hon. Friend that any changes will require the voluntary consent of the beneficiary.

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

I am not aware of any recent representations specifically about suffers of myasthenia gravis.

Is my hon. Friend aware that myasthenia gravis is a rare neurological condition which afflicts one in 30,000 of the population, and that most of them, such as my daughter, strive to lead normal lives, but the fluctuating nature of the symptoms makes it difficult sometimes for many myasthetics to claim mobility allowance to which, for most of the time, they feel they are entitled? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that those fluctuating symptoms are fully taken into consideration by the appropriate boards?

I can give my hon. and learned Friend the assurance for which he asked in the latter part of his question. The problem arises with a number of conditions, including multiple sclerosis, of which the medical adjudicating authorities have a good deal of experience. We must all accept that it can be a a difficult problem in the case of fluctuating conditions.

Is the Minister aware that there is now a widespread feeling that, following the Lees case, the criteria for awarding mobility allowance has been tightened up, especially to the detriment of multiple handicap people whose ability to walk is affected by severe mental or sensory disabilities? In their interests, will he urgently consider the response that he has given to representations on that important matter?

I am aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises following the Lees case and, indeed, the Hilton case. I think he will understand that what is being sought is a clear and specific extension of the criteria for mobility allowance which raises difficult questions of resources. I have undertaken to look further at some of the points that have been made to me about particular issues.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the effects of the application of the resource allocation working party formula and the current review; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations concerning various aspects of resource allocation and the review of the RAWP formula. Consultation on the review ended yesterday and I am expecting an interim report by the end of this year and then a full report.

As RAWP was introduced nine years ago, will my right hon. Friend say whether it has succeeded in what it set out to do, or whether it is to be a permanent way of allocating resources in the Health Service? Whatever his answer, will the review consider the effect of RAWP applied not only between regional health authorities but by regional health authorities, because some district health authorities seem to be badly done by in the double application of the formula?

I give consideration to those points. The principle of RAWP is basically to put money where the people are. I think that that principle is accepted by both sides of the House. On sub-regional allocation, clearly the review's findings will be relevant not only when dealing with matters such as patient flow, but for regions in distributing money.

Before there are any changes in the RAWP formula, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the crisis in north Staffordshire hospitals is infinitely worse than the problems in south-east England? Last winter there was one red alert in a London hospital, but there were continuous red alerts throughout the whole of north Staffordshire.

As I have just made clear, there is no question of abandoning the RAWP principle. The whole point is to try to get equal access to health care for people in equal need. We shall stand by that principle.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that, although few of us object to the transfer of resources to areas that have been ill-served in the past, there are some signs that in London and the south-east the position is becoming difficult? Without in any way suggesting that we should withdraw the extra allocation of resources to areas away from London, when my right hon. Friend has the review's report, will he consider increasing the resources to the Thames regional health authorities, which in some respects have larger waiting lists than some places far away from London?

We are considering that and other issues concerned with RAWP. Clearly it is important that the RAWP formula should reflect need as far as possible. That was the purpose of setting up the review.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, when he has had time to study the RAWP review, he will consider the important report by the Faculty of Community Medicine, which was published today, about some of the bad aspects of the way in which we measure up on the league table of health in relation to other countries? Will he also assure the House that he is now fighting his departmental corner to get more money so that, when the interim and final reports are available, he can do something about the problem?

I shall certainly be happy to respond to the report of the Faculty of Community Medicine. We would agree with a number of its points. We agree that the prevention of disease and promotion of health are vital. However, some of the statistics used by the faculty were selective. It took life expectancy figures from the age of 45, but if life expectancy figures from birth are taken, the United Kingdom is near the top, not the bottom, of the league.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the complaints from Hope hospital in Salford down to St. Thomas's hospital in London are not so much about RAWP as about the total cuts in the Health Service?

The hon. Gentleman knows enough about this position to be aware that there have been no cuts in resources going into the Health Service. He knows perfectly well that the budget, which was 0·75 billion, has been increased to £18·75 billion. However he does the arithmetic, that cannot be regarded as a cut.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in times of increased costs—with the reasons for which we are both familiar — even relatively well-resourced authorities need substantial increases in funds each year simply to maintain, let alone to improve, the services that they already operate?

Clearly, demographic factors and medical advances have to be taken into account. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that health authorities must also use the resources at their disposal to the best effect.

Is not the misapplication of RAWP one major reason why the Royal College of Physicians reported yesterday that, after seven years of Tory Government, Britain is now one of the unhealthiest countries in the developed world, with low life expectancy and high rates of disease and handicap? Is not the other major reason the fact that the Government are now spending 50 per cent. less on health as a proportion of gross national product compared to the French, the Germans and the Americans? When will the Secretary of State recognise that RAWP cannot work properly while the NHS remains so grossly under-funded by the Government?

I wonder why the hon. Gentleman never compares it with the Labour Government. As he well knows, the Government are spending 24 per cent. more in real terms than the previous Labour Government. We are treating more patients, the capital building programme has been restored and the Health Service is developing into a better Health Service. We will stand not only on our record but on a comparison of that record with the record of the previous Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the limit on supplementary benefit board and lodgings payments made to those in residential homes who become disabled after retirement age so as to bring it in line with the limit applicable in respect of those who are disabled before that age.

While we have no plans to do precisely what my hon. Friend suggests, the new limits proposed from 28 July seek to assist those he has in mind by introducing a substantially increased limit for elderly people in residential care homes who are blind or who qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance.

I welcome the increases in the limits, but how can my hon. Friend justify a position whereby a person who has retired one day after his birthday will receive a lower allowance if he is disabled on that day than a person who is disabled one day before reaching pensionable age? Surely urely that is not fair.

The general position was made clear when we introduced the original limits under the regulations. There is a special position for the younger physically disabled, many of whom might he very young and perhaps multiple handicapped. We made it clear that there is a distinction to be drawn between them and the general run of people becoming disabled by advancing years. I accept that there are some problems, but broadly it is a reasonable distinction.

If I understand the Minister's answer, he is saying that those who become blind after retirement will continue to receive a different rate from those who retire when they are blind. If I understand it correctly, as 83 per cent. of those who become blind do so after retirement, the Minister is really saying, "For heaven's sake, if you are going blind, do it the day before you are 65."

That is a rather facile point for the hon. Lady to make. She will realise that one of the difficulties we face—for example, in relation to representations about blindness — is that blindness is only one of a number of potentially disabling conditions that arise after retirement age. We have felt it right to deal generally with severely dependent elderly people.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to bring forward his regulations on benefits to students.

The regulations will be debated tomorrow.

When the Secretary of State made his statement on 18 June, he will recall that he refused repeatedly to say how many losers there would be as a result of the change that was being announced. Will he say now how many people will lose as a result of the changes? Is it not a disgrace? Is it not time that he sat down with officials at the Department of Education and Science and worked out a fair policy for all our students?

I do not accept any of that. As I said when I made the statement, 400,000 students are affected overall: 140,000 gain the full £36 but, because of the concessions, many fewer and smaller housing benefit losses are taking place. Students are not normally affected by losses from more than one source. In other words, they are not cumulative. It is not possible to give the exact figures that the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and that is what I said in my statement.

As students in this country enjoy a level of public support way beyond those of all our Western competitors, does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to proceed in this matter is, first, to consider again the principle of student loans; secondly; to consider that it is wholly inappropriate for students to be financed through a system of supplemetary benefit and housing benefit, which is essentially aimed at a completely different section of society; and, thirdly, that it is of paramount importance to co-ordinate such decisions as are made about students with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Yes, certainly. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's points. The aim of the proposals is to return to a position where help for students is channelled through the education maintenance system. That aim was set out in the social security Green Paper and in the White Paper. Twenty years ago no students claimed in that way. Now most do so at an annual cost approaching £120 million in the social security budget. It is wrong to have a system which encourages young people to depend on social security. That is why we are taking this action.

Will the Minister explain how it is possible to calculate how much the changes will cost if he does not know how may people will still lose? How many times in the past has the Treasury come up with extra money without being told the detailed numbers involved? Is he satisfied that there is now sufficient information in local benefit offices to enable students to get their rights rather than the rights that they thought would be removed?

If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that information is available in local offices, I will investigate the specific cases. As I have said before, there are a number of matters about which we can be certain. For example, the provision for unemployment and supplementary benefit probably affects 70,000 people. However, I must return to the point that it is impossible to give an exact figure of the kind requested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for the simple reason that the losses are not cumulative in the way that the hon. Member for Burnley believes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to introduce further legislation extending the controls over commercial surrogacy arrangements.

I am keeping the need for amending legislation to the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 under review.

Will my right hon. Friend condemn tine vile practice of surrogacy and womb leasing arrangements which are reported still to be occurring even with the Reproductive Freedom International Organisation run by Miss Lorrien Finley? Surely any kind of womb leasing for financial gain is contrary to the law and the spirit of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. Should not people involved in that practice be prosecuted? Is it not a privilege to have children? People should not play on the emotions of others and make financial gain, which is contrary to the Act.

The concern expressed by my hon. Friend would be held by many hon. Members. I have seen the recent reports, and I understand that there has been a police investigation into that particular case, and the Department of Public Prosecutions is considering the report.

Will the Minister congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on accepting and recognising that there is a limit to how and where the free market should operate and that morality is more important than the policies of greed and monetarism? Will he ask his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East to accept that the same principle should apply across the board in relation to the Health Service and social services and accept that morality does comes before profit in the Health Service and the social services?

Of course morality comes before profit in the Health Service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people absolutely loathe commercial surrogacy and expect the Government to act quickly and not simply have the matter under review?

Commercial surrogacy was dealt with in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The suggestion now made is that the individual concerned may be falling foul of the Act, in which case no doubt the DPP will take the necessary action. We are considering whether there is a need to amend legislation to take account of these practices, which would not be illegal under the terms of the 1985 Act.

In the mouths of Ministers of all Governments the phrase "under review" has many parliamentary meanings. Can we expect any end product to this particular review?

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in terms of parliamentary language. Certainly when I say that the matter is under review, I mean that it is under review.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the reasons for variations of waiting lists between regional health authorities.

There is no simple answer to my hon. Friend's question. Variations in waiting lists can be caused by a multiplicity of factors relating to the efficiency with which resources are used and to the resources available in a particular place.

In regions where health authorities have failed to get their act together to reduce waiting lists, should not health authorities be forced to contract out medical services? Is my hon. Friend aware that in Wales two private kidney dialysis units have been introduced to help the Health Service and that in the past 12 months the number of kidney patients has increased from 30 per million per head of population to 55 per million, and lives are already being saved?

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Ministers have made it clear that a reduction in waiting lists is an urgent priority for the NHS and the health authorities.

Will the Minister look into the problems experienced in my constituency? Due to the closure of hospitals that accommodate geriatric patients, those patients have had to be transferred to general hospitals. As a result, the number of beds available for general medical care in those hospitals has been reduced, which has created problems in the Yorkshire region. Will the Minister look into the closure of hospitals in which geriatric patients predominate?

The diversion of resources must be a matter for the decision of local health authorities in the light of needs. The closure of beds has been the policy of Governments of both parties for some years. However, I am glad to say that under this Government the number of patients treated has increased remarkably.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable improvement in the facilities and nursing beds available at Grantham hospital, and will he welcome that fact? Is he further aware that there is a feeling among medical staff that, because of the shortage of medical staff and under-provision, those facilities are not being fully used? Will he inquire into those complaints to see whether there is any justice in them?

I am glad to hear about the situation in Grantham, and I will certainly look into that latter point.

Is the Minister aware that in the West Midlands regional health authority area, and in Birmingham in particular, people have to wait for up to seven years to get on the waiting list for ear, nose and throat treatment? Moreover, a consultant at the Queen Elizabeth hospital has written to kidney patients virtually telling them that unless they are at death's door, they will not get an operation. What will the Minister do about that?

As I said, we have made it clear that the improvement of waiting times has very high priority. That is why resources are being steadily increased. As the hon. Gentleman may know, a pilot project has been funded in the west midlands to examine the effect of referral practice by providing general practitioners with additional information about waiting times in other districts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Southern Derbyshire health authority waiting lists are generally low, which contrasts greatly with waiting lists of over 1,000 gynaecology patients, some of whom have been waiting more than four years? I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is totally unacceptable. Is it not time to take another look at the report of the Social Services Committee on medical education, which recommended the appointment of far more consultants? That might attract them back into the hospital service, where the problems now lie.

I welcome the low waiting list in south Derbyshire. The appointment of consultants is a matter for the judgment of the health authorities, and it is not subject to any control exercised from the centre.

Does the Minister believe that patients themselves should be forced to shop around to find the shortest waiting list? Is he aware that one of my constituents, who needed a hip replacement operation, was told that he would have to wait several years? However, he rang about six area health authorities in England and eventually had his operation at Guy's hospital, London. Is that the sort of Health Service that the Minister believes in? Does he not think that a health authority should help patients to transfer to areas that have shorter waiting lists, so that people are not forced to wait an inordinately long time for operations?

As I have already made clear twice, we are determined to bring down waiting times. I am also glad to note that waiting lists have been significantly reduced during the period that this Government have been in office. I remind the House that in March 1979 waiting lists stood at 752,000 and that at 30 September 1985 waiting lists had been reduced to 661,000. That is the latest recorded figure.

I welcome both the reduction in waiting lists and the much greater efficiency which they has often demonstrated is now abroad within the Health Service. However, does he agree that waiting times of nine months — and years in some cases—are simply unacceptable to people who often are in great pain?

Yes, Sir, but I remind my hon. Friend that entry for hospital operations is virtually immediate in 50 per cent. of cases.

As waiting lists can be a matter of life or death, is there not a strong case for linking all the different waiting lists by national computer? Will my hon. Friend look into this question and see what can be done?

We have financed a project in the west midlands to examine this possibility. We are awaiting the outcome of that examination.

Despite the completely misleading figures that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends rabbit on about at every available opportunity, the public know that the National Health Service is having cuts imposed upon it by this Government and that waiting lists are unacceptably high. Is not the truth of the matter that the regional health authorities do not know where to turn to continue to provide a proper service? Is it not also true that in the last four to five years we have been suffering from an unacceptably high plateau of waiting lists? Exactly how does the Minister propose to bring them down?

If there are any misleading figures, they come from the Opposition Benches. I have already reminded the House that waiting lists have been reduced under this Government. If the hon. Gentleman would like further accurate figures, I remind him that in 1984 the National Health Service treated over 800,000 more inpatient cases than it treated in 1978, over one third of a million more day cases and over 3 million more our-patient cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the intended incentive effect of family credit.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation process is being undertaken on his proposals for family credit.

We have received a number of representations on the incentive effects of family credit, as well as on other matters, as part of the consultation process which began with the issue of the Green Paper last year. More recently, as part of our reconsideration of the payment mechanism for family credit, we have had further discussions with a number of organisations that are closely affected. As already announced, following that reconsideration the Government have decided that family credit will be paid direct, rather than with wages, when the new scheme is introduced in 1988.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he expand on it a little? If a man goes out to work and family credit is payable, I understand from what my right hon. Friend says that it will be payable to the mother. If the woman goes out to work and the man stays behind, will family credit be payable to the husband, or do the Government take the view that the housewife is more committed to the welfare of her children than her house husband? If the Government take that sexist view, would they like to clear themselves with the European Court of Justice to save themselves future embarrassment, or do they take the view that the European Court of Justice has no status on this issue, or that, if it has any status, it should not have any such status?

I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that the position is the same as with family income supplement. I think my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that under the family credit proposals we are providing £200 million extra for low-income families in this country, and we estimate that that will affect about 200,000 additional families.

Does the Secretary of State admit that the real policy underlying this proposal is to try to force down wage levels by paying family credit through the employer, thereby encouraging employers, in addition to the other methods that the Government are using, to force down the wages of the low paid? Is that not what this is all about?

I think that that is entire rubbish. Had the hon. Lady had more time to reflect on what she was about to say, perhaps she would not have uttered it. We are directing £200 million extra to low-income families. I should have thought that was exactly what anyone of any sense anywhere in the House would want to do.

What is my right hon. Friends latest estimate of the saving that will accrue due to the passing of the Social Security Bill?

I cannot give a figure of that kind at this time.

Now that the Government have been forced to back off from their ill-advised and unpopular proposals, not only on family credit but on SERPS, the 20 per cent. housing benefit cut, discretionary disability payments, the 2 per cent. personal pensions bribe and now social fund appeals, is it not time that the Secretary of State recognised that everywhere outside this wet House of Commons the Bill is universally detested? Now that his last three years' work has crumbled into a ragbag of disconnected cuts without logic or structure, should he not do the honourable thing and either withdraw the Bill or resign?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should know, and perhaps does know, enough about the House of Commons procedure to realise that some of these things will come back and some of these things may be put right. My hon. Friends, in Committee and on Report, if I may say so, having won entirely the argument with the hon. Gentleman on the Social Security Bill, I am bound to say that I think the Bill will do what it set out to do, which is to direct more help to people in real need.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) says, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a very warm welcome for the way in which the Government have allowed a change in the intended method of payment of family credit? This is seen as an example of the Government's flexibility and sensitivity to the needs of this group.

I think that that is right. Had we accepted the amendment tabled on Report by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) we would have had the worst of every conceivable world. We have changed, and I make no apology for that, but what we have not done is to change in the remarkably foolish way that the hon. Gentleman proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he envisages that a central bridging fund will be established for the development of community care services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

The Government have consistently recognised that bridging finance can help to secure the successful transition from one pattern of service to another and regions have been encouraged to plan accordingly. But there has been little real demand from health authorities for a central bridging fund as such to supplement the centrally earmarked resources of joint funding and the care in the community initiatives.

Why does the Minister have a central bridging fund in Wales and not in England? On both sides of the House we all support the concept of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped being cared for in the community rather than in large institutions, but the Government are throwing them out of the institutions and not giving local authorities the money that they need to provide the community facilities to support these people, to house them and to look after them. With cuts in rate support grant and rate capping, the burdens are intolerable. Even Tory-controlled Sefton in my constituency has had its staffing levels turned down by the regional health authority because they are too high. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

I reject the absurdly exaggerated comments of the hon. Gentleman. The arrangements in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and the different arrangements there will he kept under close study by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Will the Minister look at reports published this week in the Yorkshire Post, which reveal most disturbing circumstances in private nursing homes in Hull, Leeds, and Bradford? Will he examine those reports and make sure that such circumstances are not allowed to recur in other places?

I think that disturbing conditions in homes, whether private or public, deserve careful examination.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that the Select Committee, which considered the principle of community care laid great store on the provision of bridging finance, bearing in mind that the cost per patient in large institutions rises as those who are transferred leave a smaller number to bear the overhead costs? Will he consult the chairmen of the health regions to ensure that there is a known mechanism for the provision of bridging finance where necessary?

These matters are considered in the normal review processes with the region. I am glad to say that more of the regions are making these arrangements. It is also essential that there should be good co-operation between the social services departments of local authorities and district and regional health authorities. Again, I am doing what I can to encourage that co-operation.

When will the Minister recognise that the DHSS figure of 2 per cent. per year growth for social services is insufficient to maintain, let alone improve, the standard of services? Is he aware that the Government must now increase that figure, not least to meet the extra cost of community care that is not met by joint finance? Is he further aware that unless the Government do so, the care in the community policy will continue to represent a reduction rather than an increase in support for vulnerable and dependent people who are living in the community?

Yes, Sir. Of course I accept the pressures for additional funds. It is worth noting that the national joint financing allocation in 1986–87 was £111 million, an increase in real terms of over 60 per cent. in the figure for the last year of the last Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an organisation to coordinate demand for specialised operations and treatments, providing for the early distribution of patients to appropriate centres; and if he will make a statement.

The Department is already funding a pilot project in the west midlands to assess the effect upon the referral practice of general practitioners of providing them with additional information about waiting times for general surgery in other districts. Any proposals for a wider-ranging system would have to await an assessment of that project.

Assuming the project to be successful, will my hon. Friend consider establishing a national databank containing treatments and operations available so that people who need treatment and operations can he directed immediately to areas where they are available, so reducing waiting lists and talk of non-existent cuts in the Health Service?

We shall consider carefully the results of that project. Quite apart from the outcome of that, as my hon. Friend knows, the reduction of waiting times is a clear priority for the Health Service.

Does the Minister realise that the referral of patients by general practitioners for specialised operations, and the crisis in acute beds that exists at the moment in the whole of the home counties, means that the time he is spending on the regional survey is not enough? He should consider the way in which the distribution of patients affects the catchment areas of district health authorities and get rid of the system whereby funds are cut purely because of population statistics.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the review of the RAWP formula is just being completed, as my right hon. Friend has advised the House. Part of that study will include the sorts of factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to his Department about comparative unit costs for providing patient services in different health authority areas and different hospitals.

Unit costs are reported to the Department annually for each hospital in England and for other services. Summaries of these costs for the regions and for England are published. In addition, the performance indicators published by the Department include detailed information about unit costs, which health authorities can use to compare their own performance with that of other districts.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that unit costs for private patient services in some parts of London are 30 per cent. higher than in the regions, even taking account of the London weighting factor? Will he make more readily available in published form the comprehensive comparative information about efficiency so that we may know which are inefficient and uncaring authorities and which authorities care enough to make the best use of their resources?

Yes, I shall certainly consider the possibility of publishing these figures. In regard to the comparison between London and the rest of the country, in the large acute hospitals of over 300 beds the highest average cost per in-patient case is in the North-West Thames region, where it is £901. That compares with a figure for the Oxford region, the lowest, of £579, and for Yorkshire, the second lowest, of £602. The English average is £714. That shows the higher costs in the Thames region, which are partly explained by London weighting and the concentration of more expensive types of cases being treated in those hospitals.

If all those statistics are available to answer what seems to be a planted question, why is it that the Minister, when I put down written questions about my area, says that I should ask Trent regional health authority? Why is it that he can supply those statistics when he feels like it, but, every time Opposition Members ask questions about statistics and comparisons, we are referred to the regional health authorities?

The figures that I have given are published figures that can be found in the Library of the House.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that costs and services in Solihull will be greatly improved by the decision to give us a district general hospital? Will he acept the appreciation of the people of Solihull for that decision?

Yes, indeed. It is important that we take note of the considerable progress being made in many areas in improving health care facilities by the application of RAWP policies.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to meet President von Weizsacker of the Federal Republic of Germany at the start of his state visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a state banquet at Buckingham palace in honour of the President of Germany.

Has my right hon. Friend found time since her return from The Hague to read a major policy speech by the Secretary of State for Energy, in which he predicted that the world faces a severe energy crisis and shortage if nuclear power is discontinued? Does she agree that he iis right to stress the importance of vigorous action by the international community to secure the highest standards of safety, design and operation of nuclear power? Will she contrast his responsible lead with the foolishness of the Opposition, who believe that nuclear power may be dangerous and would take 30 years to phase it out?

I read that most excellent speech and commend it to all who have not read it, and those who have read it to read it again. It set out an excellent basis for nuclear policy. It pointed out the importance of nuclear power, and I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members would welcome it. It was a source of energy pioneered in this country and, rather than denigrate it, we should develop it.

As the Prime Minister was understandably moved when she visited the memorial to the holocaust in Israel, and bearing in mind that those terrible events came about as a result of one racial group trying to dominate another, when will she stop trying to appease the South. African Government?

The last part of the question does not follow from the first. May I make it clear that this country believes in defending its freedom, and I wish that the Labour party would do the same.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to reflect on wIlether she knows of any examples of countries securing their objectives by imposing sanctions? If she cannot, does she believe that the Leader of the Opposition might be able to do so?

I know of no country where sanctions have been effective as an instrument to bring about internal change. That is the point in this case. Sanctions have never brought about internal change.

Could a Government Minister be in a weaker position than to know when he negotiates with a foreign Government that his Government back home have not the political will to take action when he returns empty-handed? Is that not the lesson? That was the position in which Chamberlain put himself when he went to Munich.

The Government do not believe in general economic sanctions; the Labour Government did not believe in general economic sanctions when they were in power; the European Community does not believe in general economic sanctions; the leader of the SDP does not believe in general economic sanctions; the deputy leader of the Labour party does not believe in general economic sanctions. The hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition are isolated if they do.

Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment during her busy day to consider something that many people do believe in — the launch of community radio in Britain? Will she accept that many people are disappointed by the postponement of that launch, which is the essence of radio broadcasting success elsewhere?

As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a statement about that. His decision was right and I believe that it will be generally supported.

On the day on which the Royal College of Physicians has published further conclusive evidence of the strong links between poverty, illness and early death, will the Prime Minister give us an undertaking that, in order not to add further to the pressures on the poor, she will accept the defeats inflicted on her Social Security Bill in the House of Lords?

I accept that in some cases the report on health and community medicine said that experience in Britain has not been as good as in other Western countries, although it has been a jolly sight better than it was under Labour. In other areas we are ahead. For example, the British figure for infant mortality, while not as good as a number of countries, is still better than that of Germany, the United States, Belgium and Austria, and life expectancy at birth in Britain is higher than that in France, Belgium, Germany and the United States. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the whole report.

That is an interesting answer, Mr. Speaker, but is the right hon. Lady aware that the number of people—old people, families and disabled people—in poverty has doubled under her Government? Does she realise that if she does not accept the changes to the Bill, 4 million people will be pushed deeper into poverty and placed under greater pressure as a result of the measures of her Government? Will she accept that if that occurs they will not only suffer greater poverty but greater risk of ill-health and early death? Is that what the family party wants?

The record of the Government on health, pensions and supplementary benefit is excellent. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he defines poverty as being equal to supplementary benefit, every time that supplementary benefit is increased in real terms, which the Government have done, those in poverty increase. If we wanted technically to reduce the numbers in poverty we would put down the level of supplementary benefit to where it was under the Labour Government.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

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

When my right hon. Friend meets the President of the Federal German Republic, will she express to him the horror and the sympathy of this House at the news that 12 of his compatriots were brutally murdered by East German border guards the other day? Will she express to him our regret that the Soviet Union continues to deploy 17 divisions in East Germany, propping up a puppet regime so repugnant to its own people that they are prepared to die to get away from it?

We have read the reports of the tragic incident to which my hon. Friend refers, but we are not in a position to confirm or deny it, for obvious reasons. It reminds us of our duty to maintain the four-power status of Berlin, and, in particular, the freedom of West Berlin— a duty which we shall honour. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the address of the President of the Federal Republic tomorrow.

On a day when men of 90 years of age are demonstrating in another part of the world the futility of a war that should never have taken place, will the right hon. Lady give a guarantee to the House that our presidency of the European Council will be used to ensure that peace is extended throughout Europe and the rest of the world?

I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will be President of the Foreign Affairs Council, will carry out the job with great distinction.

Will my right hon. Friend consider, in the course of the day, adding to the respect and affection in which she is widely held in the country —[Interruption]—by recommending to those with authority in these matters that the royal wedding day should be declared a public holiday?

No, Sir. We are acting in accordance with precedent in not declaring the day a public holiday, but I am sure that it will he a very happy day for everyone.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

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

I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that over £4 billion a year is spent on housing benefit, but is she aware that some private landlords are claiming, as direct payment of housing benefit, sums in excess of what would have been adjudicated a fair rent? Does the right hon. Lady not accept that that is a fraud on the taxpayer? Does she not think that, where public money is involved, all rents should be registered?

If excessive sums are claimed for housing benefit, or through supplementary benefit, the matter should be referred to the appropriate authorities, which will deal with it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to give a warm welcome to the national launch of the job restart scheme, which is the most far-reaching and imaginative scheme of its kind in Europe?

Yes, Sir. The job restart scheme has been generally welcomed by all who are interested in trying to help the long-term unemployed find a job. The pilot schemes were very successful, and the scheme has now been extended to the whole country. I believe that most people will welcome its operation and that it will help most people who have hitherto been unemployed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

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

Has the right hon. Lady taken time to study the System Three poll report that was carried out in Scotland, which states that one person in four in Scotland is bitterly opposed to the administration of the Health Service in Scotland? Is the right hon. Lady aware that one in three people have stated quite categorically that they disagree with the privatising of the ancillary services? Will she now align her Government with the people of Scotland, who are bitterly opposed to her Administration and have voted solidly against the Tory Government in Scotland?

More is spent per person on the Health Service in Scotland than is spent south of the border. I believe that far more is spent under this Government and that there is far better patient service in Scotland, more doctors and more nurses, than under the previous Administration. I believe that in general most people in Scotland are very grateful for the Health Service.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

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

Would we need all these difficult decisions on defence spending if untold billions of pounds had not been wasted over the years by the Ministry of Defence on weapons systems on which there is hopeless overspending and which then do not work? Will my right hon. Friend read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and ensure that the fullest possible backing is given to Mr. Peter Levene in giving the whole sleepy system a jolly good shake-up?

My hon. Friend is aware of the enormous increases in expenditure on defence under the present Government. I agree with him that it is absolutely vital to secure effective expenditure on those resources and in particular to have regard to competition in procurement. I will pass on my hon. Friend's excellent message.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

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

In view of the Prime Minister's belief that she should enter negotiations about disarmament from a position of strength, why is she willing for her Government to enter negotiations with the South African Government from a position of weakness, without any threat of sanctions whatsoever? Will the Prime Minister tell the House when she is going to stop appeasing apartheid?

The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. We are not talking about a battle in defence with South Africa—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are."]

Reverting to the question of South Africa, would the Prime Minister accept that, while there is very considerable support for the Foreign Secretary on his mission, if the South African Government fail to introduce major concessions as a result of that mission we would look to Her Majesty's Government to introduce additional measures as a mark of our great disapproval of what is going on in South Africa?

My hon. Friend is aware that we have already introduced some measures first, as a result of an earlier Community meeting and then as a result of a Commonwealth meeting. I am sure that he will join me in saying that we hope that my right hon. and learned Friend's mission as the President of the Twelve in Europe will meet with success. Then we can reconsider the position.

While the Prime Minister is talking about the record, would she like to put on record and comment on the fact that the rules of guidance delivered to social security officers have deprived miners' widows and miners who are sick and injured of £2 to £3 a week, as the concessionary coal allowance must now be considered in rent rebates?

As I said when the matter first came up, I am not aware of any changes in the instructions that have been given by the Government to those officers. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, if there is any dispute it can be taken to an appeal tribunal, of which I am sure his constituents will avail themselves.